The Impact of A Servant Leadership Intervention On Work Engagement and Burnout PDF

COPYRIGHT AND CITATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS THESIS/ DISSERTATION
o Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if
changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that
suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
o NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
o ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your
contributions under the same license as the original.
How to cite this thesis
Surname, Initial(s). (2012) Title of the thesis or dissertation. PhD. (Chemistry)/ M.Sc. (Physics)/
M.A. (Philosophy)/M.Com. (Finance) etc. [Unpublished]: University of Johannesburg. Retrieved
from: https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Index?site_name=Research%20Output (Accessed:
Date).
The impact of a servant leadership intervention on work
engagement and burnout
by
MICHIEL FREDERICK COETZER
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of
Philosophiae Doctor in Leadership in Performance and Change
at the
College of Business and Economics:
Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management
UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG
Supervisor: Prof. Mark Bussin
Co-Supervisor: Dr. Madelyn Geldenhuys
2018
i
DECLARATION
I certify that the thesis submitted by me for the degree Philosophiae Doctor in
Leadership in Performance and Change at the University of Johannesburg is
my independent work and has not been submitted by me for a degree at
another university.
Michiel Frederick Coetzer
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
All the glory to the Almighty God (God the Father, God the Son Jesus Christ, and
God the Holy Spirit) who made all things possible. Without His provision, wisdom,
and strength, this study could not be done. My thanks also go to Professor Mark
Bussin and Doctor Madelyn Geldenhuys for their guidance, help, support, and
encouragement to complete this study, and to Professor Adèle Thomas, who urged
me to continue in difficult times. My sincere appreciation goes to my wife Chanéll for
her support and encouragement and to my employer, who gave me the time-off work
to complete this study.
iii
ABSTRACT
Background: Low employee engagement, ineffective organisational cultures,
high levels of stress-related ill health, and insufficient leadership capability seem to
be global human capital issues that influence organisational performance negatively.
Possible reasons for these problems might be ineffective leadership and leadership
development. A potential solution might be to apply a more philanthropic leadership
practice, such as servant leadership, which focusses primarily on serving people and
secondarily on producing the best returns for multiple stakeholders. However,
research on the application of servant leadership is scarce.
A framework to implement servant leadership in organisations is not yet available.
Empirical evidence on the relationships between servant leadership, job demands,
job resources, work engagement, and burnout is also limited. The antecedents of
and barriers to developing serving leaders are, furthermore, not clearly defined in
literature, and a servant leadership intervention has not yet been validated.
Research Purpose: The general aim of this study was to evaluate the
effectiveness of a servant leadership intervention, and to explore the impact of
servant leadership on work engagement and burnout in the construction industry.
The objectives of this study were (1) to establish a framework to operationalise
servant leadership, (2) explore the relationship between servant leadership and work
engagement, (3) explore the relationship between servant leadership and burnout,
(4) explore the relationship of servant leadership with job demands and job
resources, (5) determine personal and organisational barriers and antecedents for
developing servant leaders, and (6) to evaluate the effectiveness of a servant
leadership intervention.
iv
Research Method: Mixed methods were used to obtain the objectives of the
study. First, a systematic literature review was conducted, to establish a framework
to operationalise servant leadership (Study 1). This framework was used to develop
a new servant leadership intervention. Thereafter, an embedded experimental
design was applied.
Two non-probability samples were drawn from a construction company in South
Africa. Sample 1 (n = 44) consisted of managers nominated by the company as
high-performance managers. Sample 2 (n = 186) consisted of the direct reports of
those managers and other employees.
Regarding the quantitative aspect, a one-group pre-test post-test experimental
design was utilised. The respondents of Sample 2 (direct reports and other
employees) completed four surveys, namely the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS),
the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI),
and the Job Demands‒Resources Scale (JDRS), both before and after the
managers had completed a servant leadership intervention. Sample 1 (nominated
managers) completed the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS), to evaluate their own
servant leadership, both before and after the intervention. The quantitative data of
the two samples were analysed separately to explore the relationships between
servant leadership and job demands, job resources, work engagement, and burnout
(Study 2), and to evaluate the effectiveness of the servant leadership intervention
(Study 4).
Regarding the qualitative aspect, a focus-group session was conducted with the
nominated managers (Sample 1), after they had completed the servant leadership
intervention, to collect qualitative data. The participants were divided into two groups,
due to the size of this sample, and one session was conducted with each group. The
v
qualitative data were then analysed to determine personal and organisational
barriers to and antecedents of developing servant leaders (Study 3).
Main Findings: The results of Study 1 revealed that servant leadership is
characterised by authenticity, humility, integrity, listening, compassion,
accountability, courage, and altruism. The competencies of servant leadership are:
building relationships, empowerment, stewardship, and creating a compelling vision.
The outcomes of servant leadership are: higher work engagement, organisational
citizenship behaviour, creativity and innovation, organisational commitment, trust,
self-efficacy, job satisfaction, person‒job fit, person‒organisation fit, leader‒member
exchange, work‒life balance, group organisational citizenship behaviour, group
identification, service culture or climate, procedural justice climate, customer service,
and sales performance. The literature also shows that servant leadership decreases
levels of burnout and turnover intention. The results of Study 1 were used to
conceptualise a framework to operational servant leadership in an organisation. The
conceptual framework summarises the functions of a servant leader into strategic
and operational servant leadership, lists three dimensions of servant leadership (the
heart, head, and hands), and proposes a talent wheel to develop servant leaders
effectively.
The results of Study 2 revealed that job resources mediate a positive relationship
between servant leadership and work engagement and a negative relationship
between servant leadership and burnout. Servant leadership has a large positive
significant relationship with job resources, and predicts job resources significantly.
Job resources, in return, predict higher work engagement levels and lower burnout
levels. An insignificant relationship was found between job demands and servant
leadership.
vi
The results of Study 3 showed that personal antecedents, such as personal
attributes, competence, life experiences, and commitment levels, promote the
development of servant leaders. Organisational antecedents for servant leadership
development are: development opportunities, leadership support, performance
management, 360˚ surveys, communication, strategic alignment, and organisational
culture. The personal barriers that hinder servant leadership development are:
personal attributes and life experiences. Organisational barriers are: organisational
demands, lack of leadership support, and constant organisational changes. The
results of Study 3 were used to conceptualise a framework to develop servant
leaders effectively in organisations.
The results of Study 4 revealed that the servant leadership intervention
significantly enhanced servant leadership behaviour, particularly in terms of
empowerment, stewardship, and forgiveness. The managers, after having
participated in the servant leadership intervention, showed more servant leadership
behaviour in terms of empowerment, stewardship, and forgiving behaviour.
Managerial Implications: Management can use servant leadership as a viable
solution to enhance work engagement and to decrease burnout in the construction
industry. Servant leaders provide the necessary job resources to employees, such
as organisational support, job clarity, and supervisory support, which, in turn,
enhance work engagement levels and decrease burnout levels of employees. When
employees experience higher work engagement levels and lower burnout levels,
companies can expect better productivity, performance, profitability, creativity,
commitment, safety behaviour, customer satisfaction, product quality, corporate
citizenship behaviour, and employee retention.
vii
Management could use the conceptual framework to operationalise servant
leadership, to implement servant leadership, and to cultivate a servant leadership
culture in organisations. This framework provides a systematic procedure to apply
servant leadership effectively in an organisation. Management and practitioners
could also use the framework for effective servant leadership development to
successfully develop and train servant leaders in organisations. This framework
provides five general steps or phases to develop servant leaders in organisations,
and incorporates the personal and organisational antecedents and barriers related to
servant leadership development.
The intervention used in this study could, in addition, be used to promote servant
leadership behaviour in construction companies. In return, organisations could
benefit from the favourable individual and organisational outcomes that servant
leadership produces.
Contribution: This study conceptualised a new framework to operationalise
servant leadership within an organisation and conceptualised a new framework to
develop servant leaders effectively. It also provided new empirical findings on the
relationships between servant leadership, job resources, work engagement, and
burnout. It furthermore provided new empirical evidence on the antecedents of and
barriers to develop servant leaders. This was also one of the first studies to evaluate
a servant leadership intervention. This study therefore makes a theoretical and
practical contribution to the body of knowledge on servant leadership and a
theoretical contribution to the body of knowledge on work-related well-being.
Keywords: servant leadership, work engagement, burnout, job demands, job
resources, antecedents, barriers, leadership development, intervention evaluation.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENT
Page
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... xvii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................xx
CHAPTER 1: GENERAL INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1
1.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
1.1.1. Research Objectives........................................................................................ 6
1.2. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................... 9
1.2.1. Servant Leadership.......................................................................................... 9
1.2.2. Work Engagement, Burnout, Job Demands, and Job Resources .................. 11
1.2.3. The Relationship between Servant Leadership and Work Engagement ........ 17
1.2.4. The Relationship between Servant Leadership and Burnout ......................... 18
1.2.5. Servant Leadership Interventions .................................................................. 19
1.3. RESEARCH METHOD .................................................................................. 20
1.3.1. Research Approach ....................................................................................... 20
1.3.2. Sample Framework........................................................................................ 22
1.3.3. Data Collection Method ................................................................................. 23
1.3.4. Data Analysis ................................................................................................. 26
1.3.5. Research Procedure ...................................................................................... 28
1.4. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................... 31
ix
1.5. THESIS STRUCTURE ................................................................................... 32
CHAPTER 2: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK TO OPERATIONALISE SERVANT
LEADERSHIP (MANUSCRIPT 1)............................................................................. 36
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………56
2.1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 38
2.1.1. Research Aim ................................................................................................ 40
2.1.2. Research Questions ...................................................................................... 40
2.2. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................. 40
2.2.1 Transactional Leadership versus Servant Leadership ................................... 41
2.2.2 Transformational Leadership versus Servant Leadership .............................. 43
2.2.3 Authentic Leadership versus Servant Leadership.......................................... 45
2.2.4 Level-5 Leadership versus Servant Leadership. ............................................ 46
2.2.5 Situational Leadership versus Servant Leadership ........................................ 46
2.2.6 Spiritual Leadership versus Servant Leadership............................................ 47
2.2.7 Charismatic Leadership versus Servant Leadership...................................... 47
2.2.8 Leader‒Member Exchange versus Servant Leadership ................................ 48
2.3. RESEARCH METHOD .................................................................................. 54
2.3.1. Research Approach ....................................................................................... 54
2.3.2. Research Procedure ...................................................................................... 54
2.3.3. Sample Framework........................................................................................ 56
2.3.4. Data Collection Method ................................................................................. 67
2.3.5. Data Analysis ................................................................................................. 68
x
2.4. RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 70
2.4.1. The Characteristics of a Servant Leader ....................................................... 71
2.4.2. The Competencies of a Servant Leader ........................................................ 79
2.4.3. Measurement of Servant Leadership ............................................................. 88
2.4.4. Outcomes Linked to Servant Leadership ....................................................... 94
2.5. DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 112
2.5.1. Strategic Servant Leadership....................................................................... 112
2.5.2. Operational Servant Leadership .................................................................. 121
2.5.3 Four Analogies to Describe Servant Leadership Functions ......................... 128
2.5.4. The Talent Wheel of Servant Leadership .................................................... 132
2.5.5. The Heart, Head, and Hands of a Servant Leader....................................... 139
2.5.6. A Conceptual Model to Operationalise Servant Leadership ........................ 140
2.6. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 142
2.6.1. Implications for Management ....................................................................... 143
2.6.2. Limitations ................................................................................................... 144
2.6.3. Future Research Suggestions ..................................................................... 144
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………166
CHAPTER 3: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SERVANT LEADERSHIP, WORK
ENGAGEMENT, AND BURNOUT (MANUSCRIPT 2)............................................ 167
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………. 187
3.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 169
3.1.1 Research Objectives.................................................................................... 174
xi
3.2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 174
3.2.1 Work-related Well-being .............................................................................. 174
3.2.2 Work Engagement ....................................................................................... 178
3.2.3 Burnout ........................................................................................................ 180
3.2.4 The Job Demands‒Resource Theory .......................................................... 182
3.2.5 The Relationship between Leadership, Job Demands, and Job Resources 184
3.2.6 The Relationship between Servant Leadership and Work Engagement ...... 190
3.2.7 The Relationship between Servant Leadership and Burnout ....................... 196
3.2.8 Theoretical Model ........................................................................................ 197
3.3 METHOD ..................................................................................................... 199
3.3.1 Research Approach ..................................................................................... 199
3.3.2 Sample Framework...................................................................................... 199
3.3.3 Data Collection Method ............................................................................... 202
3.3.4 Data Analysis ............................................................................................... 205
3.3.5 Research Procedure .................................................................................... 208
3.4 RESULTS .................................................................................................... 209
3.4.1 Descriptive Statistical Results ...................................................................... 209
3.4.2 Inferential Statistical Results ........................................................................ 210
3.4.3 Hypotheses Testing ..................................................................................... 221
3.5 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 223
3.5.1 Servant Leadership and Work Engagement ................................................ 223
xii
3.5.2 Servant Leadership and Burnout ................................................................. 226
3.5.3 Limitations ................................................................................................... 227
3.5.4 Implications for Management ....................................................................... 227
3.5.5 Future Research .......................................................................................... 229
3.6 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 229
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………252
CHAPTER 4: ANTECEDENTS OF AND BARRIERS TO DEVELOP SERVANT
LEADERS (MANUSCRIPT 3) ............................................................................ 23274
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………..274
4.1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 256
4.1.1. Research Objectives.................................................................................... 260
4.2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 260
4.2.1. Antecedents of Leadership Development .................................................... 260
4.2.2. Antecedents of Developing Servant Leaders ............................................... 266
4.2.3. Barriers to Leadership Development ........................................................... 270
4.2.4. Barriers to Developing Servant Leaders ...................................................... 274
4.3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD ......................................................... 282
4.3.1. Research Paradigm ..................................................................................... 282
4.3.2. Research Approach ..................................................................................... 282
4.3.3. Sample Framework...................................................................................... 283
4.3.4. Data Collection Method ............................................................................... 285
4.3.5 Data Analysis ............................................................................................... 285
xiii
4.3.7 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................. 287
4.4 RESULTS .................................................................................................... 287
4.4.1 Personal Antecedents of Developing Servant Leaders................................ 288
4.4.2 Organisational Antecedents of Developing Servant Leaders ....................... 291
4.4.3 Personal Barriers to Developing Servant Leaders ....................................... 295
4.4.4 Organisational Barriers to Developing Servant Leaders .............................. 297
4.5 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 300
4.5.1 Personal Antecedents to Developing Servant Leaders................................ 300
4.5.2 Organisational Antecedents of Developing Servant Leaders ....................... 303
4.5.3 Personal Barriers to Developing Servant Leaders ....................................... 309
4.5.4 Organisational Barriers to Developing Servant Leaders .............................. 313
4.5.5 A Conceptual Framework for Effective Servant Leadership Development .. 316
4.5.6 Limitations ................................................................................................... 324
4.5.7 Managerial Implications ............................................................................... 324
4.5.8 Future Research .......................................................................................... 325
4.6 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 325
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………346
CHAPTER 5: EVALUATION OF A SERVANT LEADERSHIP INTERVENTION IN
THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY (MANUSCRIPT 4) ......................................... 327
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………. 365
5.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 348
xiv
5.1.1 Research Objectives.................................................................................... 351
5.2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 352
5.2.1 Defining Servant Leadership ....................................................................... 352
5.2.2 The Measurement of Servant Leadership .................................................... 355
5.2.3 The Outcomes of Servant Leadership ......................................................... 356
5.2.4 Servant Leadership Interventions ................................................................ 358
5.3 RESEARCH METHOD ................................................................................ 361
5.3.1 Research Approach ..................................................................................... 361
5.3.2 Sample Framework...................................................................................... 361
5.3.3 Data Collection Method ............................................................................... 364
5.3.4 Data Analysis ............................................................................................... 365
5.4. RESULTS .................................................................................................... 371
5.4.1. Descriptive Statistical Results ...................................................................... 371
5.4.2. Inferential Statistical Results ........................................................................ 372
5.5. DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 373
5.5.1. Limitations ................................................................................................... 375
5.5.2. Implications for Management ....................................................................... 376
5.5.3. Recommendations for Future Research ...................................................... 377
5.6. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 377
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………398
CHAPTER 6: GENERAL DISCUSSION ................................................................. 397
xv
6.1. INTEGRATION OF CHAPTER RESULTS ................................................... 402
6.2. LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................. 406
6.3. IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT ........................................................ 408
6.4. THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS ................................................................. 410
6.5. FUTURE RESEARCH ................................................................................. 411
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 413
xvi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1: Human Capital Challenges, Theoretical Challenges, and Research
Objectives……………………………………………………………………. 7
Table 2: Theoretical Correlation between Servant Leadership Characteristics
and Job Resources…………………………………………………………. 14
Table 3: Human Capital Challenges, Theoretical Challenges, Research
Objectives, Research Methods, and Thesis Chapters………………….. 34
Table 4: Similarities between Servant Leadership and Other Leadership
Theories……………………………………………………………………… 50
Table 5: Differences between Servant Leadership and Other Leadership
Theories……………………………………………………………………… 51
Table 6: Summary of Evaluation Criteria…………………………………………… 55
Table 7: Final List of Articles Reviewed…………………………………………….. 58
Table 8: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria…………………………………………… 68
Table 9: Results: Servant Leadership Characteristics…………………………….. 75
Table 10: Results: Servant Leadership Competencies…………………………….. 82
Table 11: Results: Servant Leadership Measures…………………………………... 91
Table 12: Results: Servant Leadership Outcomes………………………………… 100
Table 13: Summary of Function 1: Objectives, Characteristics, and
Competencies………………………………………………………………. 117
Competencies……………………………………………………………….121
Competencies……………………………………………………………….126
xvii
Competencies……………………………………………………………….128
Table 17: Summary of the Functions of a Servant Leader…………………………131
Table 18: Theoretical Correlation between Servant Leadership Attributes and
Job Resources………………………………………………………………188
Table 19: Breakdown of Sample 2: Direct Reports and Other Employees……… 200
Table 20: Demographic Characteristics of the Sample (Chapter 3)………………200
Table 21: Descriptive Statistics for Work Engagement, Burnout, Overload, Job
Resources, and Servant Leadership…………………………………….. 209
Table 22: Correlation Matrix of Latent Variables………………………………….... 211
Table 23: Principal Component Analysis Results for Burnout……………………..212
Table 24: Principal Component Analysis Results for Work Engagement………...213
Table 25: Principal Component Analysis Results for Job Resources……………. 214
Table 26: Principal Component Analysis Results for Overload……………………215
Table 27: Principal Component Analysis Results for Servant Leadership………. 216
Table 28: Goodness-of-fit Indices of the Measurement Models…………………...218
Table 29: Summary of Omega Coefficients …………………………………………219
Table 30: Goodness-of-fit Indices of Structural Models…………………………….220
Table 31: Standardised Regression Coefficients of the Latent Variables……….. 220
Table 32: The Indirect Effects of Servant Leadership on Work Engagement
and Burnout via Job Resources………………………………………….. 221
Table 33: Antecedents of Servant Leadership according to Beck (2010)……….. 266
Table 34: Barriers to Servant Leadership according to Saidu (2013)……………. 276
Table 35: Demographic Characteristics of the Focus Group (Sample 1:
Nominated Managers)…………………………………………………….. 283
xviii
Table 36: Personal Antecedents of Servant Leadership Development………….. 283
Table 37: Organisational Antecedents of Servant Leadership Development…… 291
Table 38: Personal Barriers to Servant Leadership Development……………….. 295
Table 39: Organisational Barriers to Servant Leadership Development………… 297
Table 40: Demographic Characteristics of the Sample (Chapter 5)……………... 362
Table 41: The Functions, Objectives, Characteristics, and Competencies of a
Servant Leader…………………………………………………………….. 366
Table 42: Descriptive Statistics for Servant Leadership…………………………… 371
Table 43: Servant Leadership Results, Pre- and Post-intervention…………........373
Table 44: Human Capital Challenges, Theoretical Challenges, Research
Objectives, and Research Results……………………………………….. 400
xix
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Flow diagram of the embedded experimental design .............................22
Figure 2: Process to set, translate, and execute a higher-purpose vision .............115
Figure 3: Process to invert the hierarchy ...............................................................122
Figure 4: Talent wheel of servant leadership .........................................................132
Figure 5: The athlete transformation phase...........................................................133
Figure 6: The farmer transformation phase ...........................................................134
Figure 7: The steward transformation phase .........................................................136
Figure 8: The soldier transformation phase ...........................................................137
Figure 9 Theoretical correlation between the Talent Wheel of Servant
Leadership and the Leadership Pipeline of Charan, Drotter, and
Noel (2011)…………………………………………………………………….138
Figure 10: Conceptual model to operationalise servant leadership........................142
Figure 11: Research model ...................................................................................198
Figure 12: Research model with findings ..............................................................222
Figure 13: Conceptual framework for servant leadership development …………. 317
Figure 14: Structure of the servant leadership intervention ...................................369
xx
CHAPTER 1: GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1. INTRODUCTION
People are the foundation of any organisation. Without people, organisations
cannot achieve its vision or strategic intent. Employees are thus the driving force of
an organisation’s vision and strategic intent and often the differentiating factor to a
successful, sustained, competitive, and high performing and impactful organisation.
It is therefore instrumental to measure and improve human effectiveness in
organisations to ensure sustainable organisational performance (Akdemir, Erdem, &
Polat, 2010).
However, current human capital challenges make it difficult for organisational
leaders to sustain high performance. These challenges include organisational
culture, low employee engagement levels (Bersin, Mallon, Huddart, Barnett, & Hines,
2016; Schatsky & Schwartz, 2015; Sinar, Wellins, Ray, Abel, & Neal, 2015), talent
retention (Schatsky & Schwartz, 2015; Sinar et al., 2015), overwhelmed employees
(Schatsky & Schwartz, 2015), and a lack of leadership capability (Bersin et al., 2016;
Schatsky & Schwartz, 2015; Sinar et al., 2015).
Low employee engagement and ineffective organisational cultures seem to be
global problems. Engagement and culture are ranked as the main issue for business
leaders globally (Bersin et al., 2016). A research report by Gallup (2013) indicated
that only 15% of employees experience high levels of work engagement. Work
engagement is defined as a work-related employee state evident in high vigour,
dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). It seems that
leaders find it difficult to establish effective organisational climates or cultures to
increase work engagement and employee well-being (Schatsky & Schwartz, 2015).
1
Ineffective organisational cultures, combined with cost-reduction initiatives by
companies as a result of poor economic conditions, might cause employees to
become overwhelmed with job requirements. If not managed well, this could lead to
increased levels of burnout.
Burnout is defined by Schaufeli (2003) as an employee state characterised by
high emotional exhaustion and depersonalisation and low personal accomplishment.
An imbalance between job demands and job resources normally increases burnout,
which leads to stress-related ill health (De Beer, Rothmann, & Pienaar, 2012). An
ineffective organisational climate and culture produce negative organisational
outcomes, such as high employee turnover, high absenteeism, and low productivity
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; De Beer et al., 2012; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, &
Schaufeli, 2001). Productivity and talent retention are therefore negatively impacted
when work engagement levels are low (or when burnout levels are high), due to an
ineffective organisational climate and culture. This ultimately influences operational
performance negatively.
Research has indicated a significant correlation between leadership
characteristics and work engagement or burnout (Alok & Israel, 2012; Babcock-
Roberson & Strickland, 2010; Breevaart, Bakker, Hetland, Demerouti, Olsen, &
Espevik, 2014; Carter & Baghurst, 2013; De Clercq, Bouckenooghe, Raja, &
Matsyborska, 2014; Laschinger, Wong, & Grau, 2013). This poses a practical
dilemma. If work engagement and burnout are influenced by leadership
characteristics, then the current leadership approach in organisations might be a
concern, as 85% of employees worldwide do not experience high levels of work
engagement (Gallup, 2013). The effective application of a different leadership
approach might be a solution to sustain work engagement in organisations and to
2
create effective organisational cultures (Bersin et al., 2016; Schatsky & Schwartz,
2015; Sinar et al., 2015). Servant leadership could be that solution.
A servant leader is someone who has the intent to serve, and who uses positional
power to empower others to achieve favourable individual, organisational, and
societal outcomes (Laub, 1999; Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008; Van
Dierendonck, 2011). Servant leadership has proved to be an effective leadership
style to influence employee outcomes such as work engagement (De Clercq,
Bouckenooghe, Raja, & Matsyborska, 2014), corporate citizenship behaviour, and
employee turnover intention (Bambale, 2014; Hunter et al., 2013; Walumbwa,
Hartnell, & Oke, 2010). This philanthropic leadership style might be the solution to
the human capital challenges of low engagement, ineffective organisational culture,
talent retention, and employee well-being. However, ensuring effective leadership
remains a challenge for human resource (HR) practitioners.
A lack of leadership capability has been reported as a considerable human capital
issue for the past four years (Schatsky & Schwartz, 2015). Low leadership quality
and capability remain evident, in spite of the large amounts of money consistently
spent on leadership development programmes (Bersin et al., 2016; Sinar et al.,
2015). A possible cause of this may be ineffective leadership development. Many
leadership development programmes apply single, outdated learning methods,
despite innovative learning methods being available, such as digital learning,
simulations, gamification, micro-learning, massive open online courses (MOOCs),
and coaching. The learning and development challenge in this respect, however, is
to combine multi-learning methods into a standardised leadership development
programme.
3
Another reason for ineffective leadership development might be personal or
organisational factors that hinder sustainable development (Stout-Rostron,
Cunningham, & Crous, 2013). Understanding the personal and organisational
antecedents of and barriers to leadership development will help to sustain leadership
competence. A possible solution to address the leadership capability issue could be
to establish a leadership development framework that applies multi-learning
methods, and to implement it effectively in a learning environment with limited
development barriers and many development antecedents.
In summary, the effective application of servant leadership might enhance the
capability of leadership, creating an effective organisational culture that will improve
work engagement levels, which, in turn, will promote employee well-being and
retention.
Although the theory of servant leadership has been researched well, empirical
evidence is still lacking. Firstly, limited research is available on the relationship
between servant leadership and work engagement. Two studies were found that
indicated a positive relationship between the two constructs (Carter & Baghurst,
2013; De Clercq et al., 2014). Secondly, the relationship between servant leadership
and burnout is unknown. It is unclear whether servant leadership can buffer the
negative effects of a demanding workplace, in order to reduce burnout. This has
been identified as a current research need (De Clercq et al., 2014). Thirdly, the
relationship between servant leadership and job demands or job resources is
unknown. In the view of De Clercq et al. (2014), it would be valuable to explore the
relationship between servant leadership and the Job Demands‒Resources Model.
Another theoretical challenge is the application of servant leadership (Hunter,
Neubert, Perry, Witt, Penney, & Weinberger, 2013). No current framework exists to
4
operationalise servant leadership within organisations (Parris & Peachey, 2012). A
fifth research need is the evaluation of the successful implementation of servant
leadership (Van Dierendonck, 2011). No empirical evidence is available regarding
the evaluation of the effectiveness of a servant leadership intervention. A final
theoretical challenge is the lack of understanding of the organisational and personal
factors that hinder or promote the development of servant leaders. All of these
theoretical challenges make it difficult to implement this leadership style in
organisations.
Furthermore, servant leadership research in the construction industry is scarce.
Servant leadership has been investigated in the hospitality, petrochemical, finance,
consultancy, IT, healthcare, education, and civil service industries, but only one
study used a sample from the construction industry. That study indicated a
significant relationship between servant leadership characteristics and favourable
project outcomes (Thompson, Gottwald, Barrow, & Pomfret, 2010).
In the South African context, servant leadership research has focussed mainly on
measurement validation (Mahembe & Engelbrecht, 2013) and the relationship
between servant leadership and employee outcomes such as organisational
citizenship behaviour (Mahembe & Engelbrecht, 2009), team effectiveness
(Mahembe & Engelbrecht, 2010), interpersonal trust (Chatbury, Beaty, & Kriek,
2011; Chinomona, Mashiloane, & Pooe, 2013), and employee commitment
(Chinomona, Mashiloane, & Pooe, 2013). None of these studies, however, explored
the correlation between servant leadership and variables such as work engagement,
burnout, job demands, or job resources. Furthermore, no evaluation studies could be
found on the effectiveness of a servant leadership intervention in South Africa or
abroad.
5
Van Dierendonck (2011) confirmed that evaluating the application of servant
leadership is indeed a next step in expanding the body of knowledge on servant
leadership. A particular need exists to use experimental-type research to determine
the influence of servant leadership training on personal and organisational outcomes
such as work engagement and burnout (Mehta & Pillay, 2011). The present study
aimed to address these research needs.
1.1.1. Research Objectives
The general aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a servant
leadership intervention, and to explore the impact of servant leadership on work
engagement and burnout in the construction industry.
The specific objectives of the study were:
1. to establish a framework to operationalise servant leadership;
2. to explore the relationship between servant leadership and four latent variables,
namely (1) Work engagement, (2) Burnout, (3) Job demands, and (4) Job
resources within the construction industry.
3. to determine the personal and organisational antecedents of and barriers to
developing servant leaders in the construction industry; and
4. to evaluate the effectiveness of a servant leadership intervention in increasing
servant leadership behaviour in the construction industry.
Table 1 provides a correlation between the human capital challenges, theoretical
challenges, and the research objectives.
6
Table 1
Human Capital Challenges, Theoretical Challenges, and Research Objectives
Human Capital
Challenge Possible Cause Possible Solution Theoretical Challenge Research Objective
Engagement, Ineffective leadership New leadership • No framework available to • Establish a framework to
retention, approach: Servant implement servant leadership operationalise servant leadership
culture, and leadership • Limited empirical evidence • Explore the relationship between
wellness available on the relationship servant leadership and work
between servant leadership and engagement
work engagement
• Limited empirical evidence • Explore the relationship between
available on the relationship servant leadership and burnout
between servant leadership and
burnout
• Limited empirical evidence • Explore the relationship between
available on the relationship servant leadership and job
between servant leadership and demands or job resources
job demands or job resources
Leadership • Lack of • Determine personal • Lack of empirical evidence on the • Determine personal and
capability understanding of and organisational personal and organisational organisational barriers to and
personal and barriers to and antecedents of and barriers to antecedents of developing servant
organisational antecedents of developing servant leaders leaders
7
barriers to leadership
leadership development
development
• Ineffective • Apply multi-learning • No servant leadership intervention • Evaluate the effectiveness of a
leadership methods has been validated servant leadership intervention
development
8
1.2. LITERATURE REVIEW
1.2.1. Servant Leadership
The principles of servant leadership are found in the Bible. For example, in
Matthews 20: 25-26 (New International Version), Jesus said: “…You know that the
rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over
them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be
your servant” (p 33).
Although the theory of servant leadership existed for more than 2 000 years, the
construct was philosophised by Robert Greenleaf approximately 30 years ago
(Greenleaf, 1998). Different definitions for servant leadership are provided in the
literature. For example, Spears (2010) characterised servant leadership as marked
by listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualisation, foresight,
stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building the community.
Other researchers included additional attributes in the servant leadership theory,
namely humility (Mittal & Dorfman, 2012; Van Dierendonck, 2011; Van Dierendonck
& Nuijten, 2011; Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014), empowerment (Russell &
Stone, 2002; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), authenticity (Laub, 1999; Liden et
al., 2008; Mittal & Dorfman, 2012; Russell & Stone, 2002), stewardship (Russell &
Stone, 2002; Van Dierendonck, 2011; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), developing
people (Laub, 1999; Liden et al., 2008; Van Dierendonck, 2011), integrity (Mittal &
Dorfman, 2012; Russell & Stone, 2002), empathy (Mittal & Dorfman, 2012; Spears,
2010), vision, influence, credibility, communication, competence, delegation (Russell
& Stone, 2002), healing, establishing relationships (Liden et al., 2008; Mahembe &
Engelbrecht, 2013), shared leadership, valuing people (Laub, 1999), egalitarianism
(Mittal & Dorfman, 2012), trust, modelling, pioneering, appreciation of others (Russell
9
& Stone, 2002), compassionate love, altruism (Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014),
conceptual skills, putting subordinates first (Liden et al., 2008), self-determination,
cognitive complexity, and power distance (Van Dierendonck, 2011).
Van Dierendonck (2011) synthesised previous research on servant leadership,
and categorised servant leadership attributes into six characteristics, namely:
1. Empowerment and development of people: Empowerment and development of
people can be defined as the ability to enhance individual potential by means of
aligning individual talents, skills, and abilities to the roles and responsibilities of
a position, and to develop individuals to become independent and self-
motivated (Trompenaars & Voerman, 2010).
2. Humility: Humility refers to an unselfish attitude of modesty and calmness,
whereby positional power is used to make others successful (Collins, 2001;
Mittal & Dorfman, 2012).
3. Authenticity: Laub (1999) defined authenticity using three main factors, namely
(1) moral integrity, (2) open communication and shared knowledge, and (3)
self-consciousness.
4. Interpersonal acceptance: Interpersonal acceptance is the ability to forgive, to
show compassion, and to be kind towards others, whereby a safe environment
is created for people to take risks, make mistakes, and learn through
experience (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).
5. Providing direction: Providing direction refers to the ability to inspire others to a
higher level of individual performance through a compelling vision and clear
expectations (Collins, 2001).
10
6. Stewardship: Stewardship is the purposeful actions of accountability a leader
demonstrates towards the interests of other people and the organisation
(Russell & Stone, 2002).
The majority of servant leadership research has been conducted in European
countries and the United States of America. A few South African studies were found
on the topic. For instance, one study showed that team effectiveness mediated the
relationship between servant leadership and organisational citizenship behaviour
(Mahembe & Engelbrecht, 2009). Another study indicated that employee trust
mediated the relationship between servant leadership and employee commitment
(Chatbury, Beaty, & Kriek, 2011). A third study validated the Servant Leadership
Questionnaire using a South African sample (Mahembe & Engelbrecht, 2013).
Although significant relationships were found between servant leadership and
employee outcomes in the South African context, the role of servant leadership in
the inspirational process to enhance work engagement, via job resources, is still
unknown.
1.2.2. Work Engagement, Burnout, Job Demands, and Job Resources
Work engagement is defined as a positive work-related state that comprises three
factors, namely vigour, dedication, and absorption (De Beer et al., 2012; Schaufeli &
Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002). Vigour refers
to the level of physical and mental energy, the enthusiasm to invest this energy into
a work-related role, and the persistence to continue when facing difficulties
(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Dedication is the motivational state of an individual
towards a work role, in which high levels of job satisfaction and meaningfulness are
experienced (Bakker, 2014). Absorption can be described as a psychological state of
11
being engrossed in one’s work, with time passing quickly (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter,
& Taris, 2008).
Burnout, on the other hand, is conceptualised by three factors, namely (1)
exhaustion, which is described as a drained state of physical or emotional energy,
(2) cynicism (or depersonalisation), which refers to a distracted attitude towards
work, and (3) a lack of professional efficacy (or personal accomplishment), which
includes the absence of feelings of productiveness and competence (Naude &
Rothmann, 2004; Schaufeli, 2003).
The Job Demands‒Resources Model of Demerouti et al. (2001) holds that work
engagement and burnout are influenced by job demands and job resources. Job
demands are the aspects of a job that require physical, cognitive, or emotional effort
(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Three types of job demands are distinguished in
literature, namely physical demands, emotional demands, and mental demands.
Physical demands include to the pace and amount of work, emotional demands
include challenges in the workplace, and mental demands, include the level of
cognitive load (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Job resources, on the other hand, are
those physical, psychological, social, and organisational characteristics that are
necessary to achieve work goals, initiate growth and development, and buffer the
negative effects of job demands (Demerouti et al., 2001).
Job resources include supervisory support, colleague support, role clarity,
effective communication and structures, autonomy, performance feedback, growth-
and development opportunities, career advancement, financial rewards, participation
in decision-making, and physical resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; De Beer et
al., 2012; Demerouti et al., 2001; Rothmann, De Beer, & Rothmann, 2014; Schaufeli
& Bakker, 2004). Job demands activate a health diminishing process in the Job
12
Demands‒Resources Model, via burnout, whereas an inspirational process is
triggered by job resources, which increases work engagement and commitment (De
Beer et al., 2012). Job resources therefore counteract the effects of high job
demands (Hu, Schaufeli, & Taris, 2011).
Servant leadership characteristics seem to relate well to job resources. Table 2
provides a theoretical correlation between the eight servant leadership
characteristics and seven job resources. Theoretically, employees with servant
leaders should experience more job resources and, in turn, experience higher levels
of work engagement. However, empirically, it is still unclear whether servant
leadership would improve work engagement levels via job resources, especially in
the construction industry. Exploring the inter-relationships between servant
leadership and the variables of the Job Demands‒Resources Model could provide
clarification.
Hypothesis 1:
A positive significant relationship exists between servant leadership and job
resources (organisational support and growth opportunities).
Hypothesis 2:
A negative significant relationship exists between servant leadership and job
demands (overload).
13
Table 2
Theoretical Correlation between Servant Leadership Characteristics and Job Resources
Servant Leadership Characteristics

Standing Interpersonal
Job Resources Empowerment Humility Authenticity back acceptance Stewardship Courage Accountability
Supervisory Creates trustful Attitude of Maintains Puts Shows Socially
support relationships modesty and integrity and followers first compassion responsible
(Dennis & calmness trust (Laub, and provides (Van and loyal
Bocarnea, (Mittal & 1999) the Dierendonck & (Van
2005) Dorfman, necessary Patterson, Dierendonck
2012) support (Van 2014) & Nuijten,
Dierendonck 2011)
& Nuijten,
2011)
Role clarity Clarifies goals
(Laub, 1999)
Autonomy Develops Uses position
employees to power to
become make other
independent successful
(Trompenaars & (Collins,
Voerman, 2010) 2001)
14
Performance Holds
feedback individuals
accountable for
controlled
performance
(Van
Dierendonck &
Nuijten, 2011)
Learning Enhances Shares Open Creates a safe
opportunities individual status and communication environment to
potential and promotes and shared make mistakes
focuses on others (Laub, knowledge and learn by
development 1999) (Laub, 1999) experience
(Trompenaars & (Van
Voerman, 2010; Dierendonck &
Van Nuijten, 2011)
Dierendonck &
Nuijten, 2011)
Participation in Encourages Creates an Teamwork
decision self-directed environment of (Van
making decision-making trust (Van Dierendonck
(Van Dierendonck & & Nuijten,
Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011) 2011)
15
Nuijten, 2011)
Effective Shares
communication information (Van
Dierendonck &
Nuijten, 2011)
16
1.2.3. The Relationship between Servant Leadership and Work Engagement
Research has indicated a significant correlation between work engagement and
certain leadership styles. A positive relationship exists between authentic,
transformational, and transactional leadership and work engagement (Alok & Israel,
2012; Breevaart et al., 2014), but limited research exists on the relationship between
work engagement and servant leadership (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Only two
studies could be found in this regard. These studies indicated that servant leadership
has a direct and indirect positive influence on work engagement (Carter & Baghurst,
2013; De Clercq et al., 2014). The first study was qualitative in nature, and indicated
that employees experienced higher work engagement when servant leadership was
evident, which resulted in higher employee commitment levels, better work-related
relationships, and enhanced involvement in achieving organisational goals (Carter &
Baghurst, 2013).
The second study used a quantitative approach, and indicated that servant
leadership enhanced work engagement, and that social interaction and goal
congruence strengthened the relationship between servant leadership and work
engagement (De Clercq et al., 2014). Therefore, the following hypothesis will be
investigated in the proposed study:
Hypothesis 3:
A positive significant relationship exists between servant leadership and work
engagement.
17
1.2.4. The Relationship between Servant Leadership and Burnout
Certain leadership characteristics influence the health diminishing process in the
Job Demands‒Resources Model. When leaders portray more democratic leadership
characteristics and less autocratic behaviour, individuals are less likely to experience
burnout (Altahayneh, 2013), and are more likely to experience work engagement
(Alok & Israel, 2012). Bakker and Demerouti (2007) argued that leadership support
lessens the effects of high job demands, because it assists individuals in coping with
job demands. Other researchers agree that job resources buffer the negative effects
of job demands in the health diminishing process of the Job Demands‒Resources
Model (De Beer et al., 2012). As servant leadership characteristics seem to be
related to several job resources (per Table 2), servant leadership might buffer the
harmful effects of job demands in a demanding workplace such as the construction
industry.
However, the relationship between burnout and servant leadership has not been
explored yet. Authentic leadership, which is similar to servant leadership, correlates
negatively with burnout. A study conducted by Laschinger et al. (2013) showed that
authentic leadership influenced burnout negatively, and that structural empowerment
mediated the relationship between the two constructs. Structural empowerment, in
this case, was conceptualised by four factors, namely opportunity, information,
support, and resources (Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, & Wilk, 2001). These
factors align well with the description of job resources. Although authentic leadership
and servant leadership are similar in terms of authenticity and humility (Van
Dierendonck, 2011), servant leadership includes additional leadership characteristics
that could be essential to buffer the negative effects of high job demands, which
18
might, in turn, lower burnout. The following hypothesis will therefore be investigated
in the proposed study.
Hypothesis 4:
A negative significant relationship exists between servant leadership and burnout.
1.2.5. Servant Leadership Interventions
The two most prominent servant leadership interventions available are the
learning programme of the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership (2016) and the
short course of Blanchard, Hodges, Pike, and McGuire (2009). The Servant
Leadership Institute also offers various short courses on servant leadership.
The Servant Leadership Programme of the Greenleaf Center for Servant
Leadership (2016) is divided into three modules, namely (1) Foundations of Servant
Leadership, (2) Key Principles of Servant Leadership, and (3) Implementation of
Servant Leadership. The programme is delivered via classroom training, website
conferencing, and telephonic group sessions. Experiential learning, psychometric
assessment, and coaching seem to be missing elements in this programme. The
programme also focusses mainly on the behavioural elements of servant leadership,
without including the strategic and operational competencies or transformational
elements of servant leadership. According to Allio (2005), leadership development
programmes often fail because they focus only on teaching leadership theories,
instead of equipping leaders with competencies.
The Servant Leader short course of Blanchard, Hodges, Pike, and McGuire
(2009) focusses on four dimensions of a servant leader, namely the heart, head,
hands, and habits of a servant leader. It is based on a transformational process that
19
starts with personal leadership, and then moves towards individual, team, and
organisational leadership. This course is currently delivered in a one-day workshop.
Learning methods such as coaching, digital learning, and experiential learning are
absent from this course. This course has also not been adjusted for the corporate
environment.
Although some servant leadership interventions are available, no empirical
evidence exists on its effectiveness. Van Dierendonck (2011) confirmed this view,
and suggested that servant leadership interventions should be evaluated using a
pre-test post-test experimental design. Taking the above-mentioned literature into
consideration, it is hypothesized that the implementation of a servant leadership
intervention will enhance the servant leadership behaviour of participating leaders,
using the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5:
The servant leadership characteristics of managers increase after the
implementation of a servant leadership intervention.
1.3. RESEARCH METHOD
1.3.1. Research Approach
An embedded experimental design was implemented to achieve the objectives of
the study. Creswell and Clark (2011) posited that this type of design is ideal when
the researcher wants to embed a qualitative method within a quantitative
methodology to study the process of an intervention, or examine the perspectives of
participants during or after an intervention, while measuring its effectiveness
quantitatively. The purpose of using a mixed-methods approach was to enrich the
20
quantitative findings regarding levels of servant leadership with qualitative data on
the antecedents of and barriers to servant leadership development. This data should
also enrich the quantitative data on the effectiveness of a servant leadership
intervention. The process of the embedded experimental design is depicted in
Figure 1, below.
From a quantitative perspective, a one-group pre-test post-test experimental
design was applied. Four surveys, namely the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS), the
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), and
the Job Demands‒Resources Scale (JDRS), were administered to Sample 2 (direct
reports and other employees), to collect data before and after the managers had
completed the intervention. Sample 1 (nominated managers) completed the Servant
Leadership Survey (SLS) (rating their own servant leadership) before and after the
intervention. The data were used to determine the effectiveness of the intervention.
From a qualitative perspective, a focus-group session was conducted with Sample
1 (nominated managers), to collect data after the intervention. The purpose of the
focus-group session was to determine the group’s experience of personal and
organisational antecedents of and barriers to the development of servant leadership
after the intervention.
21
Quantitative data Quantitative data
collection Intervention collection
(pre-test) (post-test)
Interpretation
Samples 1 and 2 Samples 1 and 2 based on
QUAN(qual)
results
Qualitative data collection
(focus groups)
Sample 1
Figure 1: Flow diagram of the embedded experimental design
1.3.2. Sample Framework
The research study was conducted within a construction company in South Africa.
The services rendered by this company included road construction, building
construction, civil engineering, urban development, and opencast mining. The
combined number of employees, at the time of the study, was approximately 5 526
and the company operated in six different countries.
Two samples were drawn from this company. Sample 1 consisted of managers
nominated by the company as high-performing managers to participate in the
servant leadership intervention. These managers were specifically chosen to
investigate possible reasons why these managers performed better than the rest in
the context of the research variables. Sample 2 consisted of the direct reports of the
participating managers and other employees. A non-probability sampling technique
was applied to select both samples. The demographic information of the samples is
provided in Chapters 3, 4, and 5.
22
1.3.3. Data Collection Method
1.3.3.1. Quantitative Data Collection
To collect quantitative data, four surveys, namely the Servant Leadership Survey
(SLS), the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), the Maslach Burnout Inventory
(MBI), and the Job Demands‒Resources Scale (JDRS) were administered to
Sample 2 (direct reports and other employees). Sample 1 (nominated managers)
only completed the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS) (to report on their own servant
leadership). All the surveys were administered both before and after managers had
undergone the intervention.
Servant Leadership Measurement
The Servant Leadership Survey (SLS) was developed and validated by Van
Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011), and consists of 30 items. It measures eight
characteristics related to servant leadership, namely (1) standing back, (2)
forgiveness, (3) courage, (4) empowerment, (5) accountability, (6) authenticity, (7)
humility, and (8) stewardship. The questionnaire uses a six-point Likert-type
response scale. Reliability scores (Cronbach alpha coefficient values) for the factors
are: Standing back (α = .92), Forgiveness (α = .90), Courage (α = .91),
Empowerment (α = .94), Accountability (α = .93), Authenticity (α = .76), Humility (α =
.95), and Stewardship (α = .87).
A comprehensive study was conducted by Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011),
in which eight samples, totalling 1 571 participants, were used to validate the
questionnaire. The Servant Leadership Survey (SLS) has been administered in
industries such as finance, consulting, healthcare, education, and the civil service in
the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. It was also used in a later study by De
23
Waal and Sivro (2012), who found acceptable reliability values. To date, the Servant
Leadership Survey (SLS) has not been used in the construction industry. This
questionnaire was chosen for the present study because it is the latest survey
available to measure servant leadership characteristics.
The survey was adapted for Sample 1 (nominated managers), to evaluate their
own servant leadership characteristics, before and after the intervention. Sample 2
completed the original version, to evaluate their managers’ servant leader behaviour,
both before and after the intervention.
Work Engagement Measurement
The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) was developed by Schaufeli and
Bakker (2003), and measures the three dimensions of Work engagement, namely
Vigour (α = .83), Dedication (α = .92), and Absorption (α = .82). This 17-item survey
uses a seven-point Likert-type scale. Sample 2 completed this survey to evaluate
their own work engagement levels before and after the intervention.
Burnout Measurement
The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) measures the three variables of Burnout,
namely Emotional exhaustion, Personal accomplishment, and Depersonalisation
(Maslach & Jackson, 1981). The survey uses a six-point Likert-type scale to collect
data via 22 items. The internal consistencies of the variables are α = .83 for
Emotional exhaustion, α = .74 for Personal accomplishment, and α = .57 for
Depersonalisation.
Sample 2 completed this survey to evaluate their own level of burnout before and
after the intervention.
24
Job Demands-Resources Measurement
The Job Demands‒Resources Scale (JDRS) consists of 40 items, and measures
seven latent variables, namely (1) Organisational support, (2) Growth opportunities,
(3) Overload, (4) Job insecurity, (5) Relationship with colleagues, (6) Control, and (7)
Rewards (Rothmann, Mostert, & Strydom, 2006). This study used only the three sub-
scales Organisational support, Growth opportunities, and Overload. These three
variables seem to correlate well with servant leadership theoretically. The subscale
Overload, was used to determine the relationship between servant leadership and
job demands. The alpha coefficient values for these three variables are α = .88 for
Organisational support, α = .80 for Growth opportunities, and α = .75 for Overload.
Sample 2 completed this survey, to evaluate their own level of overload, as well
as the extent of job resources received before and after their managers had attended
the intervention.
1.3.3.2. Qualitative Data Collection
From a qualitative perspective, a focus-group session was conducted with the
nominated managers (Sample 1) after the intervention. The purpose of this focus-
group session was to understand the personal and organisational antecedents of
and barriers to developing servant leaders. Morgan (1996) describes a focus-group
session as an activity to collect qualitative data through focussed group discussions
(facilitated by the researcher), commonly used in combination with other research
methods to enrich the interpretation of research results. The data collected during
the focus-group session was used to support the interpretation of the quantitative
results.
25
Collins and Hussey (2009) provided a standard procedure, consisting of five
steps, to conduct a focus-group session: (1) prepare a list of issues or questions, (2)
invite participants with exposure to or experience of the topic, (3) create a
comfortable atmosphere and explain the purpose, (4) start the session with a broad,
open-ended question, and (5) allow the group to discuss the issue or topic. These
steps were followed in this research study.
A focus-group session was conducted, using semi-structured questions. The
questions focussed on the personal and organisational antecedents of and barriers
to servant leadership development. The following open questions were posed in the
focus-group session:
1. Which personal factors enabled (helped) you to become a servant leader?
2. Which organisational factors promoted the implementation of servant leadership?
3. What can organisations and leaders do to create a serving culture?
4. Which personal factors made it difficult for you to become a servant leader?
5. Which organisational factors made it difficult for you to apply servant leadership?
6. What can be done to overcome the organisational barriers to servant leadership?
The focus-group session was also audio-recorded, and the researcher took notes
during the session. Participants received a hard copy of the questions in the session
and were given the opportunity to answer each question in his or her own words in
the space provided.
1.3.4. Data Analysis
1.3.4.1. Quantitative Data Analysis
Several descriptive and inferential statistical methods were used to analyse the
quantitative data. Descriptive statistics, such as mean, median, standard deviation,
26
skewness, and kurtosis were calculated to determine the central tendency of the
data. The Shapiro-Wilk and Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality tests were used to
evaluate data normality. A comprehensive explanation of these descriptive statistical
methods is provided in the relevant chapters.
The following inferential statistical methods were used: (1) principal component
analysis, to determine the number of factors in each measuring instrument, (2)
confirmatory factor analysis, to evaluate the factor loadings, (3) McDonald’s omega
coefficient, to evaluate reliability, and (4) structural equation modelling, to evaluate
various structural models. These methods were used to explore the relationship
between Servant leadership and four latent variables, namely (1) Work engagement,
(2) Burnout, (3) Job demands, and (4) Job resources in the construction industry. A
detailed description of these methods is provided in Chapter 3.
The Wilcoxon signed-rank test (a non-parametric paired sample t-test) was used
to evaluate the effectiveness of the servant leadership intervention, in other words, to
evaluate the difference between pre- and post-intervention test results for Servant
leadership. This provided some insight into whether the intervention was successful
in enhancing servant leadership behaviour. More details on this statistical method
are provided in Chapter 5.
Three different statistical software were used to compute descriptive and
inferential statistical analysis, namely SPSS, Rstudio, and Mplus. More information is
provided in the respective chapters on how these programs were used.
1.3.4.2. Quantitative Data Analysis
Thematic analysis was applied to analyse the qualitative data collected from the
focus group. This provided a better understanding of the personal and organisational
27
barriers to and antecedents of the development of servant leaders. More details are
provided in Chapter 4. ATLAS.ti, a qualitative statistical program, was used to
conduct the analysis.
1.3.5. Research Procedure
The research procedure, followed in this study, consisted of ten steps, namely (1)
a literature review, (2) intervention development, (3) obtaining permission, (4)
compiling questionnaires, (5) collecting pre-test data, (6) intervention
implementation, (7) collecting qualitative data, (8) collecting post-test data, (9)
analysing the data, and (10) writing up the results.
1.3.5.1. Literature Review
A systematic literature review was conducted, in Chapter 2, with the aim of
establishing a framework to operationalise servant leadership. This literature review
focussed on the characteristics, competencies, measures, and outcomes related to
servant leadership. It is the first manuscript of this thesis.
Additional literature reviews were conducted on:
• the differences between servant leadership and other leadership theories
(discussed in Chapter 2);
• the relationship between servant leadership and (a) work engagement, (b)
burnout, (c) job demands, and (d) job resources (discussed in Chapter 3);
• the antecedents of and barriers to developing servant leaders (discussed in
Chapter 4); and
• servant leadership interventions (discussed in Chapter 5).
28
1.3.5.2. Intervention Development
The conceptual theoretical framework, developed in the previous step (Chapter 2),
was then used to develop a new servant leadership development intervention. This
intervention consisted of (a) pre- and post-intervention assessments, (b) a three-day
classroom training session, (c) 12 experiential learning challenges, and (d) eight
digital learning assignments. The classroom training included practical exercises and
gamification and the experiential learning challenges were supported with leadership
toolkits. This addressed the need for a leadership development programme that
combines multi-learning methods into one intervention (Bersin et al., 2016; Schatsky
& Schwartz, 2015; Sinar et al., 2015). A graphical outline of the intervention is
provided in Chapter 5.
1.3.5.3. Obtaining Permission
The researcher obtained permission from the executive of human resources to
conduct this research study within the company. The purpose, process, and ethical
considerations of this research study were explained, and the company’s interests
were protected at all times.
1.3.5.4. Compiling Questionnaires
Permission was obtained from the surveys’ developers before these were used.
An electronic survey platform named SurveyMonkey was used to provide access to
the four quantitative surveys. It included a page to gather biographical data, such as
job title, occupation level, years of service, age, gender, race, home language, and
highest qualification. Reporting-line information of the participating managers was
retrieved from the HR Department, and direct reports were grouped per the relevant
29
manager. A participant number was allocated to each participant, to track responses
per manager and direct report. This enabled the researcher to compare pre- and
post-intervention assessment data.
1.3.5.5. Collecting Pre-intervention Assessment Data
Participants were invited via an email containing an internet link to complete the
four surveys. The purpose, confidentiality, voluntary participation, and anonymity
were explained. A timeframe of two weeks was provided for participants to complete
the surveys. Afterwards, responses were consolidated and saved in a secure
database for statistical analysis.
1.3.5.6. Intervention Implementation
Intervention dates were confirmed and scheduled with management, and sampled
managers were invited to attend the classroom training session. The pre-intervention
assessment was done one month prior to the classroom training. The sampled
managers were divided into two groups, and each group attended a three-day
classroom training session. Thereafter, six months were allocated for managers to
complete the digital learning assignments and experiential challenges. Post-
intervention assessments were conducted four months after the classroom session.
1.3.5.7. Collecting Qualitative Data
After the intervention, a focus-group session was conducted, to collect qualitative
data on the barriers to and antecedents of developing servant leaders. An invitation
was sent to the sampled managers after they had completed the classroom training.
The researcher and an assistant conducted the focus-group session. The session
30
was recorded, and notes were taken during the session. Participants received a
hard-copy of the questions that were posed during the focus-group session. After a
question has been discussed, they were given time to record their answers. After the
focus-group session, the data were reviewed and saved for further analysis.
1.3.5.8. Collecting Post-intervention Assessment Data
The same process used to collect the pre-intervention quantitative data was
utilised to collect post-intervention assessment data. The data were sorted and
archived for data analysis purposes.
1.3.5.9. Analysing the Data
The collected quantitative data were cleaned and analysed as described in 1.3.4.
1.3.5.10. Writing Up Results
The results of the data analysis were documented in three additional manuscripts,
each representing a chapter in this thesis (Chapter 3, 4, and 5).
1.4. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Participation in this research study was voluntary. Informed consent was obtained
prior to the research study being conducted. Participants completed the surveys
anonymously. Confidentiality was safeguarded through the use of passwords.
Participants were informed of the purpose and context of the research study.
The interests of the company were respected at all times. Management was
informed of the purpose, benefits, confidentiality, process, and time frame of the
research study, prior to its commencement.
31
The findings of the research study were shared with management and the
participants.
1.5. THESIS STRUCTURE
This thesis is written in an article or essay format. The first chapter comprises a
general introduction, followed by four related manuscripts. Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5
are four separate (but related) manuscripts, each with its own introduction, literature
review, description of the research method, results, and discussion of the findings. A
systematic literature review is presented in Chapter 2. The results of this review were
used to conceptualise a framework to operationalise servant leadership in an
organisation (the first objective of this study). In Chapter 3, the relationships between
servant leadership and (a) work engagement, (b) burnout, (c) job demands, and (d)
job resources were investigated (the second objective of this study). In Chapter 4,
the third objective of this study was addressed, namely to determine the personal
and organisational antecedents of and barriers to developing servant leaders. In
Chapter 5, the effectiveness of the servant leadership intervention was evaluated
(the fourth objective of this study). In Chapter 6, a general discussion explains the
combined findings of the four essays and the interpretation of the results.
The structure of the thesis is therefore as follows:
• Chapter 1: General introduction
• Chapter 2: A conceptual model to operationalise servant leadership (Manuscript
1)
• Chapter 3: The relationship between servant leadership, work engagement, and
burnout (Manuscript 2)
32
• Chapter 4: Antecedents of and barriers to developing servant leaders (Manuscript
3)
• Chapter 5: Evaluation of a servant leadership intervention in the construction
industry (Manuscript 4)
• Chapter 6: General discussion
Table 3 provides the association between the human capital challenges,
theoretical challenges, research objectives, research methods, and chapters of the
thesis.
33
Table 3
Human Capital Challenges, Theoretical Challenges, Research Objectives, Research Methods, and Thesis Chapters
Human
Capital Research Thesis
Challenge Possible Cause Possible Solution Theoretical Challenge Research Objective Method Chapter
Engagement, Ineffective New leadership • No framework available • Establish framework Systematic 2
retention, leadership approach: Servant to implement servant to operationalise literature
culture, and leadership leadership servant leadership review
wellness • Limited empirical • Explore relationship Quantitative 3
evidence available on between servant surveys (pre-
the relationship between leadership and work test data)
servant leadership and engagement
work engagement
• Limited empirical • Explore relationship Quantitative 3
the relationship between leadership and test data)
servant leadership and burnout
burnout
• Limited empirical • Explore relationship Quantitative 3
the relationship between leadership and job test data)
servant leadership and demands and job
34
job characteristics resources
Leadership • Lack of • Understand • Lack of empirical • Determine personal Focus groups 4
capability understanding personal and evidence on the and organisational (qualitative
of personal and organisational personal and barriers and data)
organisational barriers and organisational antecedents in
barriers to antecedents in antecedents and barriers developing servant
servant servant leadership in developing servant leaders
leadership development leaders
development
• Ineffective • Apply multi-learning • No servant leadership • Evaluate Pre-test post- 5
leadership methods intervention validated effectiveness of a test
development (using multi-learning servant leadership experimental
methods) intervention design
35
CHAPTER 2: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK TO OPERATIONALISE SERVANT
LEADERSHIP (MANUSCRIPT 1)
ABSTRACT
Background: Servant leadership is a comprehensive leadership theory that is
similar, but also different to other leadership practices. Although servant leadership
has been researched internationally and various types of favourable individual, team,
and organisational outcomes have been linked to the construct, research on the
effective implementation of servant leadership is still in need. A framework to
operationalise servant leadership is thus needed to make servant leadership
practical in organisations.
Research Purpose: The aim of this study was to establish a framework to
operationalise servant leadership within an organisation, after reviewing servant
leadership literature.
Research Method: A systematic literature review was applied to achieve the
objectives of this study. The sample consisted of 87 peer-reviewed articles,
published in scientific journals. Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to
select articles. The quality of quantitative, qualitative, and literature type articles was
evaluated differently.
Main Findings: The results revealed that servant leadership is characterised by
authenticity, humility, integrity, listening, compassion, accountability, courage, and
altruism. The competencies of servant leadership are: building relationships,
empowerment, stewardship, and creating a compelling vision. The outcomes of
servant leadership are: higher work engagement, organisational citizenship
behaviour, creativity and innovation, organisational commitment, trust, self-efficacy,
36
job satisfaction, person‒job fit, person‒organisation fit, leader‒member exchange,
work‒life balance, group organisational citizenship behaviour, group identification,
service culture or climate, procedural justice climate, customer service, and sales
performance. The literature also shows that servant leadership decreases levels of
burnout and turnover intention.
Managerial Implications: The results of this study were used to conceptualise a
framework to operationalise servant leadership in an organisation. The conceptual
framework summarises the functions of a servant leader into strategic and
operational servant leadership, lists three dimensions of servant leadership (the
heart, head, and hands), and proposes a talent wheel to develop servant leaders
effectively.
Contribution: A new framework to operationalise servant leadership was
proposed by this study. It therefore makes a theoretical and practice contribution to
the body of knowledge on servant leadership.
Keywords: servant leadership, practice, organisational development, systematic
literature review.
37
2.1. INTRODUCTION
For the past four decades, servant leadership has evolved as a reputable
leadership theory. The majority of research in this period focussed on defining the
characteristics and measures of servant leadership. Recent research has started to
determine the outcomes that servant leadership produces for individuals,
organisations, and societies.
Servant leadership is a multidimensional leadership theory that encompasses all
aspects of leadership, including the ethical, relational, and result-based dimensions
(Christensen, Mackey, & Whetten, 2014; Dannhauser & Boshoff, 2007a). It is similar,
but also different, to other current leadership theories proposing a more meaningful
way of leadership to ensure sustainable results for individuals, organisations, and
societies. The servant leadership theory differentiates itself from transactional
leadership in the methods it applies to achieve results with a core focus on people
(Chathury, 2008).
Servant leadership incorporates the principles of transformational leadership, but
differs in the way it applies leadership intent and focus (Stone, Russell, & Patterson,
2004). It is similar to the relational aspects of leader‒member exchange (LMX)
(Hanse, Harlin, Jarebrant, Ulin, & Winkel, 2016), and uses the principles of
situational leadership to develop people (Chathury, 2008). Servant leadership
includes aspects of authentic leadership, but offers a more comprehensive
leadership theory (Van Dierendonck, 2011). It also includes some of the components
of Level 5 leadership (Van Dierendonck, 2011), recognises follower-, leader-, and
situational relationships (Dannhauser & Boshoff, 2007a), and includes aspects of
spiritual leadership (Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008).
38
Servant leadership is unique, because it focusses on serving people first (Stone et
al., 2004), aims to achieve an extraordinary vision for creating value for the
community (Barbuto, Gottfredson, & Searle, 2014), and includes situational,
transformational, and personal trait dimensions of leadership. It also includes
practices that sustain high-performing organisations, such as establishing a higher-
purpose vision and strategy, developing standardised and simplified procedures,
cultivating customer orientation, ensuring continuous growth and development,
sharing power and information, and developing a quality workforce (Blanchard, 2010;
De Waal, 2007; Kaplan & Norton, 1992). In addition, servant leadership is associated
with several positive individual and organisational outcomes, such as corporate
citizenship behaviour (Bobbio, Van Dierendonck, & Manganelli, 2012; Ozyilmaz &
Cicek, 2015), work engagement (De Clercq et al., 2014; De Sousa & Van
Dierendonck, 2014; Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2015), reduced turnover intention
(Hunter et al., 2013; Kashyap & Rangnekar, 2016), organisational commitment
(Bobbio et al., 2012; Chinomona, Mashiloane, & Pooe, 2013; Jaramillo, Grisaffe,
Chonko, & Roberts, 2009a), and sales performance (Jaramillo, Bande, & Varela,
2015).
Although the construct of servant leadership is well conceptualised in the
literature and seems to provide favourable individual, team, and organisational
results, research on the effective implementation thereof is still lacking (De Clercq et
al., 2014; Parris & Peachey, 2013). The operationalisation of servant leadership
remains a challenge for researchers and managers (Parris & Peachey, 2013), as no
current model or framework is available to implement servant leadership effectively
(Van Dierendonck, 2011). Researchers have called for more clarity on ways to apply
servant leadership in organisations (Hunter et al., 2013).
39
An operational framework for servant leadership might assist researchers,
practitioners, and managers to systematically and consistently implement servant
leadership in organisations. Such a framework could be helpful if it is based on the
characteristics, competencies, and outcomes of servant leadership as defined in
current servant leadership literature.
2.1.1. Research Aim
The aim of this study was to establish a framework to operationalise servant
leadership within an organisation, after reviewing servant leadership literature. This
chapter focuses on defining the characteristics, competencies, measures, and
outcomes of servant leadership as recently described in the literature. These
characteristics, competencies, measures, and outcomes of servant leadership were
used to establish a framework to make servant leadership practical within an
organisation.
2.1.2. Research Questions
• What are the characteristics of a servant leader?
• What are the competencies of a servant leader?
• How is servant leadership measured?
• Which organisational outcomes are linked to servant leadership?
As the results of this study include discussions of the characteristics,
competencies, measures, and outcomes of servant leadership, this literature review
40
only focusses on a broad definition of servant leadership and the similarities and
differences between it and other leadership theories.
Although servant leadership was philosophised by Greenleaf (1998), its principles
can be found in the Bible. For example, in Luke 22: 25-26 (New International
Version), Jesus said: “…The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those who
exercise authority over them call themselves benefactors. But you are not to be like
that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who
rules like the one who serves” (p 115).
This philanthropic leadership construct can be defined as a multidimensional
leadership theory that starts with a desire to serve (Greenleaf, 1998), followed by an
intent to lead and develop others (Spears, 2010), to achieve higher-purpose
objectives to the benefit of individuals, organisations, and societies (Van
Dierendonck, 2011). Servant leadership is differentiated in the literature from other
leadership theories such as transactional leadership, transformational leadership,
authentic leadership, Level 5 leadership, situational leadership, spiritual leadership,
charismatic leadership, and leader‒member exchange (LMX).
2.2.1 Transactional Leadership versus Servant Leadership
Transactional leadership differs from servant leadership in several ways. Firstly,
transactional leadership uses positional power to exchange effort for reward, and
uses corrective action or punishment to address undesired behaviour (Chen, Chen,
& Li, 2013; Thompson et al., 2010). Power-based leadership styles such as
transactional leadership might use mankind’s greed or fear to obtain results. An
organisation based on greed and fear cannot be effective or sustainable (Schuitema,
2004). Servant leadership, on the other hand, uses purpose (Barbuto et al., 2014)
41
and love (Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014) to obtain results. An individual’s
purpose, passion, and talent are aligned with a higher purpose, activated with love,
to obtain favourable results for all stakeholders. Servant leadership does not discard
the achievement of organisational objectives, but uses a different method or style to
achieve these.
Secondly, transactional leadership lacks a focus on people development, while
this is a fundamental focus area of servant leadership (Van Dierendonck, 2011).
Servant leadership focusses on empowering the individual first, whereas
transactional leadership focusses on the outcomes first (Chathury, 2008).
Thirdly, transactional leadership uses punishment to correct failure, which could
damage relationships with followers when applied inappropriately. Servant leaders
create a safe environment for followers to learn from failures, and use forgiveness to
repair damaged relationships (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). Lastly,
transactional leadership focuses mainly on fulfilling the material needs of employees
(Bass, 2000), and may lack consideration of the psychological and spiritual needs of
the individual. Servant leadership goes beyond the physical needs of employees, to
also satisfy their psychological needs (Chen et al., 2013) and optimise the general
well-being of individuals (Dannhauser & Boshoff, 2007b).
A potential problem with transactional leadership is that leaders can use this style
to exercise power over subordinates to unethically satisfy selfish ambitions and, in
the process, deviate from rules and regulations (Chen et al., 2013; Flint & Grayce,
2013). Servant leadership, in contrast, applies ethical and moral practices selflessly
to achieve favourable individual, organisational, and societal outcomes (Ehrhart,
2004; Spears, 2010).
42
2.2.2 Transformational Leadership versus Servant Leadership
Transformational and servant leadership are similar in the sense that both focus
on people and organisational results (Dannhauser & Boshoff, 2007b) by aiming to
achieve an organisational vision (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006), developing followers,
influencing followers, encouraging performance (Choudhary, Akhta, & Zaheer,
2012), and applying value-based leadership theories (Mahembe & Engelbrecht,
2013). However, servant leadership differs from transformational leadership in
several ways.
The first, most profound difference seems to be the focus and intent of the leader.
The main focus of a transformational leader is on organisational objectives, whereas
the main focus of a servant leader is on the individual (Chathury, 2008; Choudhary et
al., 2012; Christensen et al., 2014; Flint & Grayce, 2013; Liden et al., 2008;
Mahembe & Engelbrecht, 2013; Mehta & Pillay, 2011; Melchar & Bosco, 2010;
Sendjaya, 2015; Sendjaya et al., 2008; Stone et al., 2004; Van Dierendonck, 2011;
Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011; Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010). A servant
leader focusses on people first, then on results, whereas a transformational leader
focusses first on results, then on people (Stone et al., 2004).
Servant leadership aims to support the needs of followers by creating a climate
and an environment that enhance individual well-being and functioning, whereas
transformational leadership’s aim is to enhance performance only (Van Dierendonck,
2011). With servant leadership, the purpose of the leader‒followers relationship is to
help the followers prosper and become servant leaders themselves (Greenleaf,
1998). With transformational leadership, the purpose of the leader‒follower
relationship is to obtain organisational goals (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). A servant
leader believes that sustainable organisational outcomes can only be achieved by
43
having competent, committed, and healthy employees (Stone et al., 2004), which is
why these leaders focus on the individual first.
A second difference between these two leadership styles is that, in the servant
leadership theory, the hierarchy is turned upside-down after organisational goals
have been set (Blanchard & Hodges, 2008). A servant leader sets a compelling
vision, and thereafter serves the needs of employees to obtain that vision. In the
case of transformational leadership, leaders remain superior to employees (Chen,
Zhu, & Zhou, 2015). In other words, in the servant leadership theory, the leader
serves the employee, while, in transformational leadership theory, the employee
serves the leader.
Another difference between these two styles is the span of leadership impact. A
servant leader aims to leave a positive legacy, not only for the organisation, but also
for individuals and larger society (Peterson, Galvin, & Lange, 2012).
Transformational leadership focusses mainly on what is beneficial for the
organisation (Mehta & Pillay, 2011).
Servant leadership includes traits such as compassionate love (Van Dierendonck
& Patterson, 2014), altruism (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006), humility (Dennis &
Bocarnea, 2005), authenticity, forgiveness, and stewardship (Van Dierendonck &
Nuijten, 2011). These characteristics are absent from transformational leadership.
This poses a potential risk or limitation in applying the transformational leadership
theory (Mehta & Pillay, 2011). When a leader applies transformational leadership
unethically or with selfish intentions, destructive results may follow (Van
Dierendonck, 2011).
Research indicates that servant leadership has a greater influence on service
performance (Chen et al., 2015), citizenship behaviour, in-role performance, and
44
organisational commitment than transformational leadership does (Liden et al.,
2008). In addition, servant leadership seems to enhance leader‒member exchange
(LMX) relationships more effectively than transformational leadership does (Barbuto
& Wheeler, 2006).
2.2.3 Authentic Leadership versus Servant Leadership
Several components of authentic leadership overlap with dimensions of servant
leadership, such as being ethical, authentic, and a role model for others, showing
compassion, having high integrity, practising self-awareness and self-regulation
(Chen et al., 2013; Reed, Vidaver-Cohen, & Colwell, 2011), and being humble (Van
Dierendonck, 2011). However, servant leadership differs from authentic leadership
in the way it renders service to all stakeholders, including the individual, the
organisation, and the community (Van Dierendonck, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2010).
These levels of impact are lacking in the authentic leadership theory. In addition,
servant leadership theory includes aspects such as stewardship, empowerment,
developing followers, and achieving a higher purpose vision, to create value for the
community, which are absent in authentic leadership (Mittal & Dorfman, 2012; Van
Dierendonck, 2011). Due to these missing components, leaders might apply
authentic leadership to achieve only shareholders’ goals, instead of adding value to
a variety of stakeholders, including individuals, organisations, and communities
(Mahembe & Engelbrecht, 2013). Although servant leadership includes some of the
principles of authentic leadership, it is much more comprehensive.
45
2.2.4 Level 5 Leadership versus Servant Leadership.
Level 5 leadership is similar to servant leadership in its focus on people first and
then on results or strategy (Collins, 2001). Both theories include humility,
accountability, and the willingness to learn as characteristics (Van Dierendonck,
2011). Servant leadership, however, is more comprehensive than Level 5 leadership.
It is a multi-dimensional theory that includes dimensions such as authenticity (Laub,
1999), compassion (Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014), courage (Van
Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), altruism, stewardship (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006),
integrity (Page & Wong, 2000), listening (Spears, 2010), empowerment (Dennis &
Bocarnea, 2005), building relationships (Ehrhart, 2004), providing a compelling
vision (Hale & Fields, 2007), and adding value, to the benefit of individuals,
organisations, and societies (Van Dierendonck, 2011). These dimensions are absent
from Level 5 leadership theory.
2.2.5 Situational Leadership versus Servant Leadership
The situational leadership theory (Blanchard, Zigarmi, Zigarmi, & Halsey, 2013)
shares certain dimensions with servant leadership theory. Both recognise the
relationship between the follower, leader, and the situation (Dannhauser & Boshoff,
2007b). Servant leaders also provide direction, set organisational goals, align
follower goals, and aim to understand and meet the development needs of followers,
as with situational leadership. Chathury (2008) is of the opinion that servant leaders
apply the principles of situational leadership to empower followers. Blanchard and
Hodges (2008) seem to agree with this view. However, situational leadership only
includes the situational components of leadership (Duff, 2013), while servant
46
leadership includes both situational and personal trait dimensions of leadership
(Polleys, 2002).
2.2.6 Spiritual Leadership versus Servant Leadership
The spiritual leadership theory is characterised by vision, altruistic love
(forgiveness, integrity, compassion, courage, trust or loyalty, and humility), hope, and
faith (Fry, 2003). These traits are similar to the servant leadership characteristics of
vision (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005), forgiveness, humility, accountability, courage
(Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), integrity (Wong & Davey, 2007), love (Patterson,
2003), and altruism (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Both theories apply virtuous
principles to create meaning, enhance purpose, and cultivate intrinsic motivation
(Sendjaya et al., 2008). Sendjaya (2015) is of opinion that spirituality is one of the
many dimensions of servant leadership. Servant leadership, however, extends
beyond the components of spiritual leadership by including additional characteristics,
such as authenticity, empowerment, stewardship (Van Dierendonck, 2011), creating
wellness for the community (Barbuto et al., 2014), and building trustful relationships
(Beck, 2014).
2.2.7 Charismatic Leadership versus Servant Leadership
Charismatic leadership shares characteristics with servant leadership, such as
vision, role modelling, caring, and self-awareness (Chen et al., 2013). Both these
theories acknowledge the importance of followers, leaders, and situations
(Dannhauser & Boshoff, 2007b). However, charismatic leadership theory is limited
by a lack of ethical and moral components (Walumbwa et al., 2010). Charismatic
leaders might emotionally inspire followers to achieve unethical or immoral causes
47
(Sendjaya, 2015), especially when they apply charisma out of self-interest. The main
differences between servant leadership and charismatic leadership seem to be the
leader’s intent and the way in which followers are motivated. Charismatic leaders
motivate their followers emotionally, while servant leaders motivate followers through
service (Chathury, 2008). In addition, the main focus of a servant leader is to serve
individuals, whereas the main focus of a charismatic leader is to achieve the
organisational objectives or the desires of the leader.
2.2.8 Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) versus Servant Leadership
LMX theory proposes principles to enhance dyad relationships, such as mutual
respect, creating trust, and regular interaction (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). These
principles are similar to the relationship-building component of servant leadership.
Servant leaders develop trustful relationships with followers (Liden et al., 2008) and
create high LMX (Hanse et al., 2016; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). Servant
leaders therefore practise the principles of LMX.
Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) distinguish servant leadership from LMX theory in
the following ways:
• Servant leadership extends the purpose of follower relationships towards serving,
developing, and empowering followers.
• LMX theory lacks the ethical and moral components evident in servant leadership
(Dannhauser & Boshoff, 2007b; Mittal & Dorfman, 2012).
• The servant leader also focusses on the team, the organisation, and society, not
only on the individual.
In addition, LMX theory does not specify personal healing (Chinomona et al.,
2013), humility (Mittal & Dorfman, 2012), accountability, and forgiveness (Van
48
Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011) as part of leader‒follower relationship, as is the case
with servant leadership. Servant leaders serve the psychological needs of followers
more than LMX does (Chen et al., 2013), and appears to enhance community
citizenship behaviour, in-role performance, and organisational commitment to a
greater extent (Liden et al., 2008).
Servant leadership seems to cut across a variety of leadership theories, but is
unique in its philanthropic characteristics, leadership intent and focus, and multi-
dimensional leadership attributes. In Table 4, a summary of similarities between
servant leadership and other leadership theories is provided. Table 5 provides a
summary of the differences between servant leadership and other leadership
theories.
49
Table 4
Similarities between Servant Leadership and Other Leadership Theories
Leadership Theory Similarities with Servant Leadership

Transactional leadership Focuses on results
Transformational leadership Focuses on people and results
Vision, developing followers, enhancing performance
Value-based leadership theory
Authentic leadership Authenticity, role modelling, compassion, integrity, self-awareness, self-regulation, humility
Level 5 leadership Focuses first on people, second on strategy
Humility, accountability, and willingness to learn
Situational leadership Recognises follower, leader, and situational relationships
Provides direction and support
Spiritual leadership Vision, forgiveness, humility, accountability, courage, integrity, love, and altruism
Creates meaning, enhances purpose, and cultivates intrinsic motivation
Charismatic leadership Vision, role modelling, caring, and self-awareness
Recognises follower, leader, and situational relationships
Leader‒member exchange Develops trustful relationships with followers
50
Table 5
Differences between Servant Leadership and Other Leadership Theories
Leadership Theory Dimension Servant Leadership

Transactional leadership Uses practices based on positional power, reward, Uses practices based on purpose, love, and
corrective action, and punishment servanthood
Uses punishment to correct failure Uses compassion, understanding, forgiveness, and
development to correct failure
Promotes greed and fear Promote values of unconditional love and purpose
Unspecified Develops and empowers followers
Unspecified Applies ethical and moral practices
Focuses mainly on results Focuses on people and results (but people first)
Focuses on organisational goals Focuses on individual, organisational, and societal
goals
Fulfils basic needs of followers Fulfils basic, psychological, and spiritual needs of
followers
Transformational leadership Focuses mainly on the organisation Focuses mainly on the individual
Focuses first on results, then people Focuses first on people, then results
Enhances performance through motivation Enhances performance by serving the needs of
people
Main purpose of leader‒follower relationship is to Main purpose of leader‒follower relationship is talent
attain organisational objectives development and activation
Individual serves leader Leader serves individual
51
Impacts the individual and organisation Impacts the individual, organisation, and society
Unspecified Includes love, altruism, humility, authenticity,
forgiveness, and stewardship
Authentic leadership Unspecified Serves the individual, organisation, and society
Unspecified Includes stewardship and empowerment, developing
followers and creating value to the community
Level 5 leadership Unspecified Includes authenticity, compassion, altruism,
stewardship, integrity, listening, empowerment,
building relationships, and higher-purpose vision
Situational leadership Includes situational leadership components Includes situational and personal trait leadership
components
Spiritual leadership Unspecified Includes authenticity, empowerment, and
stewardship, creating value for the community and
building internal and external relationships
Charismatic leadership Unspecified Includes ethical and moral characteristics
Motivates followers emotionally Motivates followers through service
Focuses mainly on the organisation Focuses mainly on the individual
Leader‒member exchange Unspecified Builds relationships to serve, develop, and empower
followers
Unspecified Includes ethical and moral characteristics
Focuses on individual relationships Focuses on individual, team, and community
relationships
Unspecified Includes personal healing, humility, accountability,
52
and forgiveness in relationships
53
2.3. RESEARCH METHOD
A systematic literature review was conducted to answer the research questions.
The five-step procedure proposed by Khan, Kunz, Kleijnen, and Antes (2003) was
used to conduct the systematic literature review, namely (1) framing the question, (2)
identifying relevant publications, (3) assessing study quality, (4) summarising the
evidence, and (5) interpreting the findings.
2.3.2. Research Procedure
In Step 1 of the systematic literature review, four framing questions were used,
namely:
• What are the characteristics of a servant leader?
• What are the competencies of a servant leader?
• How is servant leadership measured?
• What organisational outcomes are linked to servant leadership?
In Step 2, inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed to identify relevant
publications. Academic articles were sourced from the university’s library databases
that included the wording: servant leadership in the title. The results were filtered to
include only peer-reviewed articles that had been published in scientific journals in
the period 2000 to 2015. The full-text option was activated in the search. Filtered
results were saved in a Mendeley folder. The titles and abstracts of the articles were
read and screened using the inclusion and exclusion criteria. An additional folder
was created to save suitable articles. Another folder was created for the excluded
articles. Reasons for exclusion were captured in notes on the articles. Duplicate
articles were removed, and the final list of articles was recorded and coded.
54
In the third step, the quality of the articles was evaluated using three quality
review methods. The same evaluation criteria that Parris and Peachey (2013) used
in their systematic literature review was used in the present study to evaluate both
quantitative and qualitative studies. To evaluate mixed-method studies, a
combination of both quantitative and qualitative evaluation questions was used. The
evaluation criteria of Pyrczak (1999) were used for literature-review-type studies.
Three additional evaluation questions were added to the criteria, namely (1) Is the
literature review focussed?; (2) Is the literature review well organised?; and (3) Were
quality literature sources used? A summary of the evaluation criteria used for each
type of study is provided in Table 6.
Table 6
Summary of Evaluation Criteria
Type of Study Evaluation Criteria

Quantitative Clearly focused study
Sufficient background provided
Well planned
Appropriate method
Measures were validated
Applicable and adequate number of participants
Data analysis sufficiently rigorous, with adequate statistical methods
Findings clearly stated
Qualitative Purpose stated clearly
Relevant background literature reviewed
Design is appropriate
Identified researcher’s theoretical or philosophical perspective
Relevant and well-described selection of participants and context
Procedural rigour in data collection strategies and analysis
Evidence of the four components of trustworthiness (credibility,
transferability, dependability, and conformability)
55
Results comprehensive and well described
Literature review Literature review was focussed
Literature review was organised
Literature review was extensive on a topic
Literature review was critical
Current research was cited
Researcher distinguished between research, theory, and opinion
Quality literature sources were used
In the fourth step, the evidence was summarised in four tables according to, firstly,
the characteristics of servant leadership, secondly, the competencies of a servant
leader, thirdly, the instruments used to measure servant leadership, and, lastly, the
outcomes of servant leadership.
In the final step, the findings were interpreted to conceptualise a framework to
operationalise servant leadership in an organisation, using the evidence from Step 4.
Initially, 114 articles were found with the keywords ‘servant leadership’ in the title
that had been peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals in the period 2000 to
2015. A total of 12 duplicates were removed. An additional 26 key referenced
articles were added to the list. A total of 41 articles were removed from the list after a
second review of the articles (using the exclusion criteria). The final number of
articles that met the requirements was 87. The final list of articles used in this
systematic literature review is provided in Table 7, below.
Of the 87 articles, 28% (n = 24) were literature-type studies, 63% (n = 55) were
quantitative studies, 6% (n = 5) were qualitative studies, and 3% (n = 3) were mixed-
method studies. Only three studies had been conducted in South Africa. The rest
were conducted in Australia (n = 3), China (n = 10), India (n = 2), Italy (n = 1), Kenya
56
(n = 1), Korea (n = 1), Malaysia (n = 1), the Netherlands (n = 2), the United Kingdom
(n = 1), New Zealand (n = 1), Pakistan (n = 2), Portugal (n = 1), Spain (n = 2),
Argentina (n = 1), Mexico (n = 2), Sweden (n = 1), Taiwan (n = 2), Turkey (n = 1),
Ukraine (n = 1), and the United States of America (n = 16).
57
Table 7
Final List of Articles Reviewed
Article Code Article Article Type

LIT01 Bambale, A. J. (2014). Relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behaviours: Literature review
Review of literature and future research directions. Journal of Marketing and Management, 5(1), 1–16.
LIT02 Berger, T. A. (2014). Servant leadership 2.0: A call for strong theory. Sociological Viewpoints, 30(1), 146– Literature review
167.
LIT03 Crippen, C. (2005). Servant-leadership as an effective model for educational leadership and management: Literature review
First to serve, then to lead. Management in Education, 18(5), 11–17.
LIT04 Duff, A. J. (2013). Performance management coaching: Servant leadership and gender implications. Literature review
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34(3), 204–221.
LIT05 Edwards, T. (2010). A content and contextual comparison of contemporary leadership approaches with Literature review
specific reference to ethical and servant leadership: An imperative for service delivery and good governance.
Journal for Christian Scholarship, 46(1), 93–109.
LIT06 Eicher-Catt, D. (2005). The myth of servant-leadership: A feminist perspective. Women and Language, Literature review
28(1), 17‒25.
LIT07 Finley, S. (2012). Servant leadership: A literature review. Review of Management Innovation and Creativity, Literature review
5(14), 135–144.
LIT08 Flint, B., & Grayce, M. (2013). Servant leadership: History, a conceptual model, multicultural fit, and the Literature review
servant leadership solution for continuous improvement. Collective Efficacy: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on
International Leadership, 20, 59–72.
LIT09 Gupta, S. (2013). Serving the bottom of pyramid: A servant leadership perspective. Journal of Leadership, Literature review
58
Accountability and Ethics, 10(3), 98–107.
LIT11 Kincaid, M. (2012). Building corporate social responsibility through servant-leadership. International Journal Literature review
of Leadership Studies, 7(2), 151–171.
LIT12 Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in Literature review
organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377–393.
LIT13 Rai, R., & Prakash, A. (2012). A relationship perspective to knowledge creation: Role of servant leadership. Literature review
Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(2), 61–85.
LIT14 Ruíz, P., Martínez, R., & Rodrigo, J. (2010). Intra-organizational social capital in business organizations: A Literature review
theoretical model with a focus on servant leadership as antecedent. Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics, 1,
43–59.
LIT15 Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical model. Literature review
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23(3), 145–157.
LIT16 Russell, R. F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Literature review
Journal, 22(2), 76–84.
LIT17 Searle, T. P., & Barbuto, J. E. (2011). Servant leadership, hope, and organizational virtuousness: A Literature review
framework exploring positive micro and macro behaviours and performance impact. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 18(1), 107–117.
LIT18 Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application in Literature review
organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2), 57–64.
LIT19 Spears, L. C. (2010). Character and servant leadership: Ten characteristics of effective, caring leaders. The Literature review
Journal of Virtues & Leadership, 1(1), 25–30.
LIT20 Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant leadership: A difference Literature review
in leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(4), 349–361.
59
LIT21 Sun, P. Y. T. (2013). The servant identity: Influences on the cognition and behaviour of servant leaders. The Literature review
Leadership Quarterly, 24(4), 544–557.
LIT22 Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), Literature review
1228–1261.
LIT23 Van Dierendonck, D., & Patterson, K. (2014). Compassionate love as a cornerstone of servant leadership: Literature review
An integration of previous theorizing and research. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 119–131.
LIT24 Waterman, H. (2011). Principles of servant leadership and how they can enhance practice. Nursing Literature review
Management, 17(9), 24–26.
LIT25 Weinstein, R. B. (2013). Servant leadership and public administration: Solving the public sector financial Literature review
problems through service. Journal of Management Policy & Practice, 14(3), 84–92.
MIXED01 Beck, C. D. (2014). Antecedents of servant leadership: A mixed methods study. Journal of Leadership & Mixed-methods
Organizational Studies, 21(3), 299–314.
MIXED02 Melchar, D. E., & Bosco, S. M. (2010). Achieving high organization performance through servant leadership. Mixed-methods
The Journal of Business Inquiry, 9(1), 74–88.
MIXED03 Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in Mixed-methods
organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402–424.
QAL01 Carter, D., & Baghurst, T. (2013). The influence of servant leadership on restaurant employee engagement. Qualitative
Journal of Business Ethics, 124(3), 453–464.
QAL02 Jones, D. (2012). Does servant leadership lead to greater customer focus and employee satisfaction? Qualitative
Business Studies Journal, 4(2), 21–36.
QAL04 Savage-Austin, A. R., & Honeycutt, A. (2011). Servant leadership: A phenomenological study of practices, Qualitative
experiences, organizational effectiveness, and barriers. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 9(1),
49–54.
60
QAL05 Sturm, B. A. (2009). Principles of servant-leadership in community health nursing. Home Health Care Qualitative
Management and Practice, 21(2), 82–89.
QAL07 Humphreys, H. J. (2005). Contextual implications for transformational and servant leadership: A historical Qualitative
investigation. Management Decision, 43(10), 1410–1431.
QNT01 Babakus, E., Yavas, U., & Ashill, N. J. (2011). Service worker burnout and turnover intentions: Roles of Quantitative
person‒job fit, servant leadership, and customer orientation. Services Marketing Quarterly, 32(1), 17–31.
QNT02 Bakar, H. A., & McCann, R. M. (2016). The mediating effect of leader–member dyadic communication style Quantitative
agreement on the relationship between servant leadership and group-level organizational citizenship
behaviour. Management Communication Quarterly, 30(1), 32-58
QNT03 Barbuto, J. E., Gottfredson, R. K., & Searle, T. P. (2014). An examination of emotional intelligence as an Quantitative
antecedent of servant leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(3), 315–323.
QNT04 Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Quantitative
Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 300–326.
QNT05 Bobbio, A., Van Dierendonck, D., & Manganelli, A. M. (2012). Servant leadership in Italy and its relation to Quantitative
organizational variables. Leadership, 8(3), 229–243.
QNT06 Chatbury, A., Beaty, D., & Kriek, H. S. (2011). Servant leadership, trust and implications for the base-of-the- Quantitative
pyramid segment in South Africa. South African Journal of Business Management, 42(4), 57–62.
QNT07 Chen, C. Y., Chen, C. H., & Li, C. I. (2013). The Influence of leaders’ spiritual values of servant leadership on Quantitative
employee motivational autonomy and eudemonic well-being. Journal of Religion and Health, 52(2), 418–438.
QNT08 Chen, Z., Zhu, J., & Zhou, M. (2015). How does a servant leader fuel the service fire? A multilevel model of Quantitative
servant leadership, individual self-identity, group competition climate, and customer service performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 511–521.
QNT09 Chinomona, R., Mashiloane, M., & Pooe, D. (2013). The influence of servant leadership on employee trust in Quantitative
61
a leader and commitment to the organization. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(14), 405–414.
QNT10 Choudhary, A. I., Akhta, S. A., & Zaheer, A. (2012). Impact of transformational and servant leadership on Quantitative
organizational performance: A comparative analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(2), 433–440.
QNT11 Chung, J. Y., Jung, C. S., Kyle, G. T., & Petrick, J. F. (2010). Servant leadership and procedural justice in the Quantitative
U.S. National Park Service: The antecedents of job satisfaction. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration,
28(3), 1–15.
QNT12 Dannhauser, Z., & Boshoff, A. B. (2007). Structural equivalence of the Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) Servant Quantitative
Leadership Questionnaire on North American and South African samples. International Journal of Leadership
Studies, 2(2), 148–168.
QNT13 De Clercq, D., Bouckenooghe, D., Raja, U., & Matsyborska, G. (2014). Servant leadership and work Quantitative
engagement: The contingency effects of leader‒follower social capital. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 25(2), 183–212.
QNT14 De Sousa, M. J. C., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2014). Servant leadership and engagement in a merge process Quantitative
under high uncertainty. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(6), 877–899.
QNT15 Sousa, M., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2015). Servant leadership and the effect of the interaction between Quantitative
humility, action, and hierarchical power on follower engagement. Journal of Business Ethics. Advance online
publication. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2725-y
QNT16 De Waal, A., Sivro, M., & Mirna, S. (2012). The relation between servant leadership, organizational Quantitative
performance, and the high-performance organization framework. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 19(2), 173–190.
QNT17 Garber, J. S., Madigan, E. A., Click, E. R., & Fitzpatrick, J. J. (2009). Attitudes towards collaboration and Quantitative
servant leadership among nurses, physicians and residents. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 23(4), 331–
340.
62
QNT18 Hale, J. R., & Fields, D. L. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A study of followers in Ghana Quantitative
and the USA. Leadership, 3(4), 397–417.
QNT19 Hanse, J. J., Harlin, U., Jarebrant, C., Ulin, K., & Winkel, J. (2016). The impact of servant leadership Quantitative
dimensions on leader‒member exchange among health care professionals. Journal of Nursing Management,
24(2), 228–234.
QNT20 Hsiao, C., Lee, Y., & Chen, W. (2015). The effect of servant leadership on customer value co-creation: A Quantitative
cross-level analysis of key mediating roles. Tourism Management, 49, 45–57.
QNT21 Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal Quantitative
and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 851–862.
QNT22 Hunter, E. M., Neubert, M. J., Perry, S. J., Witt, L. A., Penney, L. M., & Weinberger, E. (2013). Servant Quantitative
leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the organization. The
Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 316–331.
QNT23 Hwang, H. J., Kang, M., & Youn, M. (2014). The influence of a leader’s servant leadership on employees' Quantitative
perception of customers' satisfaction with the service and employees' perception of customers' trust in the
service firm: The moderating role of employees' trust in the leader. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing
Science, 24(1), 65–76.
QNT24 Jaramillo, F., Bande, B., & Varela, J. (2015). Servant leadership and ethics: A dyadic examination of Quantitative
supervisor behaviours and salesperson perceptions. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 35(2),
108–124.
QNT25 Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2009a). Examining the impact of servant Quantitative
leadership on sales force performance. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 29(3), 257–275.
QNT26 Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2009b). Examining the impact of servant Quantitative
leadership on salespersons’ turnover intention. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 29(4),
63
351–366.
QNT27 Kashyap, V., & Rangnekar, S. (2016). Servant leadership, employer brand perception, trust in leaders and Quantitative
turnover intentions: A sequential mediation model. Review of Managerial Science, 10(3), 437–461.
QNT28 Khan, K. E., Khan, S. E., & Chaudhry, A. G. (2015). Impact of servant leadership on workplace spirituality: Quantitative
Moderating role of involvement culture. Pakistan Journal of Science, 67(1), 109–113.
QNT29 Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a Quantitative
multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161–177.
QNT30 Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leadership and serving culture: Quantitative
Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1434–1452.
QNT31 Liu, B., Hu, W., & Cheng, Y. (2015). From the west to the east: Validating servant leadership in the Chinese Quantitative
public sector. Public Personnel Management, 44(1), 25–45.
QNT32 Mehta, S., & Pillay, R. (2011). Revisiting servant leadership: An empirical study in Indian context. The Quantitative
Journal of Contemporary Management Research, 5(2), 24–41.
QNT33 Mertel, T., & Brill, C. (2015). What every leader ought to know about becoming a servant leader. Industrial Quantitative
and Commercial Training, 47(5), 228–235.
QNT34 Miao, Q., Newman, A., Schwarz, G., & Xu, L. (2014). Servant leadership, trust, and the organizational Quantitative
commitment of public sector employees in China. Public Administration, 92(3), 727–743.
QNT35 Mittal, R., & Dorfman, P. W. (2012). Servant leadership across cultures. Journal of World Business, 47(4), Quantitative
555–570.
QNT36 Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a Quantitative
mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behaviour. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1220–1233.
QNT37 Newman, A., Schwarz, G., Cooper, B., & Sendjaya, S. (2015). How servant leadership influences Quantitative
64
organizational citizenship behavior: The roles of LMX, empowerment, and proactive personality. Journal of
Business Ethics. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2827-6
QNT38 Ozyilmaz, A., & Cicek, S. S. (2015). How does servant leadership affect employee attitudes, behaviours, and Quantitative
psychological climates in a for-profit organizational context? Journal of Management & Organization, 21(03),
263–290.
QNT39 Panaccio, A., Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Cao, X. (2015). Toward an understanding of Quantitative
when and why servant leadership accounts for employee extra-role behaviours. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 30(4), 657-675.
QNT40 Pekerti, A. A., & Sendjaya, S. (2010). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: Comparative study in Quantitative
Australia and Indonesia. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(5), 754–780.
QNT41 Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B. M., & Lange, D. (2012). CEO servant leadership: Exploring executive Quantitative
characteristics and firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 565–596.
QNT42 Rodríguez-Carvajal, R., De Rivas, S., Herrero, M., Moreno-Jiménez, B., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2014). Quantitative
Leading people positively: Cross-cultural validation of the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS). The Spanish
Journal of Psychology, 17(63), 1–13.
QNT43 Rodriguez-Rubio, A., & Kiser, A. I. T. (2013). An examination of servant leadership in the United States and Quantitative
Mexico: Do age and gender make a difference? The Global Studies Journal, 5(2), 127–149.
QNT44 Rubio-Sanchez, A., Bosco, S. M., & Melchar, D. E. (2013). Servant leadership and world values. The Global Quantitative
Studies Journal, 5(3), 19–33.
QNT45 Schwepker, C. H., & Schultz, R. J. (2015). Influence of the ethical servant leader and ethical climate on Quantitative
customer value enhancing sales performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 35(2), 93–
107.
QNT47 Sendjaya, S., & Cooper, B. (2011). Servant Leadership Behaviour Scale: A hierarchical model and test of Quantitative
65
construct validity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(3), 416–436.
QNT48 Sun, J., & Wang, B. (2009). Servant leadership in China: Conceptualization and measurement. Advances in Quantitative
Global Leadership, 5, 321–344.
QNT49 Tang, G., Kwan, H. K., Zhang, D., & Zhu, Z. (2015). Work–family effects of servant leadership: The roles of Quantitative
emotional exhaustion and personal learning. Journal of Business Ethics. Advance online publication. doi:
10.1007/s10551-015-2559-7
QNT50 Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and validation of a Quantitative
multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 249–267.
QNT51 Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service Quantitative
climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behaviour: A cross-level investigation. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95(3), 517–529.
QNT52 Washington, R. R., Sutton, C. D., & Feild, H. S. (2006). Individual differences in servant leadership: The roles Quantitative
of values and personality. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(8), 700–716.
QNT53 Winston, B., & Fields, D. (2015). Seeking and measuring the essential behaviours of servant leadership. Quantitative
Leadership & Organizational Development, 36(4), 413–434.
QNT54 Wu, L., Tse, E. C., Fu, P., Kwan, H. K., & Liu, J. (2013). The impact of servant leadership on hotel Quantitative
employees’ servant behaviour. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(4), 383–395.
QNT55 Zhang, H., Kwan, H. K., Everett, A. M., & Jian, Z. (2012). Servant leadership, organizational identification, Quantitative
and work-to-family enrichment: The moderating role of work climate for sharing concerns. Human Resource
Management, 51(5), 747–768.
QNT56 Zhou, Y., & Miao, Q. (2014). Servant leadership and affective commitment in the Chinese public sector: The Quantitative
mediating role of perceived organizational support. Psychological Reports, 115(2), 381–395.
66
Articles were retrieved from several databases of the university’s library. The
following databases were searched: EBSCO host, McGraw Hill, Cambridge Journals,
Emerald, JSTOR, Oxford Journals Online, SAGE Journals Online, Springerlink,
Taylor and Francis online, and Wiley Online Library. A search was conducted within
the business studies, entrepreneurship, human resources, humanities, management,
multidisciplinary, and psychology discipline options.
Wide inclusion criteria were used to ensure a comprehensive literature search.
The articles that were included had (a) been published in English, (b) contained the
words ‘servant leadership’ in the title, (c) had been published in a peer-reviewed
scientific journal, (d) had been published in the period 2000 to 2015, (e) had used a
sample from the primary, secondary, or tertiary sectors, and (f) were qualitative,
quantitative, or literature-review-type studies. Inclusion decisions were made after
having read the title and abstract of each article. The reason for limiting the
publishing period to 2015 was that this systematic literature review was conducted in
the year of 2015.
After a more in-depth evaluation of each article, the ones that were excluded (a)
had been published in a language other than English, (b) did not study servant
leadership as the main topic, (c) had been published in a non-scientific journal, (d)
had been published outside of the period 2000 to 2015, (e) had used a sample
outside the primary, secondary, or tertiary sectors, or (f) had used literature from
sources other than qualitative studies, quantitative studies, or literature reviews (i.e.
grey literature, books, book reviews, magazine articles, conference presentations,
and white papers).
67
The inclusion and exclusion criteria used in this study are summarised in Table 8,
below.
Table 8
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria

• Published in English • Published in a language other than
• “Servant leadership” in article title English
• Published in a peer-reviewed journal • Published in a non-scientific journal
• Published in the period 2000 to 2015 • Published before the year 2000 or after
• Sample from the primary, secondary, or the year 2015
tertiary sector • Sample outside the primary, secondary,
• Qualitative, quantitative, or literature- or tertiary sectors
review-type study • Grey literature, books, book reviews,
magazine articles, conference
presentations, and white papers
2.3.5. Data Analysis
The quality of included articles was evaluated using quality-review forms. For
each study type, a different quality-review form was used.
Quantitative studies were evaluated using eight quality evaluation questions
recommended by the Institute for Public Health Sciences (2002), namely (1) Was the
study clearly focussed?; (2) Was sufficient background provided?; (3) Was the study
planned well?; (4) Was the method used appropriate?; (5) Were the measures used
validated?; (6) Was the number of participants adequate and applicable?; (7) Were
appropriate statistical methods used?; and (8) Were the findings clearly stated?
Qualitative studies were evaluated using a critical-review form (Ball, Bradley,
Dunn, Durando, Gaines, Home, Housser, Lou, Mathews, McCluskey, Michlovitz,
Missiuna, Pollock, Telford, Thompson, Tickle-Degnen, & Watson, 2008) consisting of

68
eight quality questions, namely (1) Was the purpose of the study clearly stated?; (2)
Was relevant background literature provided?; (3) Was the research design
appropriate?; (4) Were theoretical or philosophical perspectives identified?; (5) Were
the selection and context of participants well described and relevant?; (6) Was
procedural rigour evident in the data collection and analysis?; (7) Was there
evidence of the four components of trustworthiness (credibility, transferability,
dependability, and conformability)?; and (8) Were the results comprehensive and
well described? For mixed-methods studies, both quantitative and qualitative review
forms were used.
Literature-review-type studies were evaluated using seven quality review
questions. Four questions proposed by Pyrczak (1999) were used, namely (1) Was
the literature review extensive?; (2) Was the literature review critical?; (3) Was
current research cited?; and (4) Did the researcher distinguish between research,
theory, and opinion? The following three additional questions were asked: (5) Was
the literature focused?; (6) Was the literature review well organised?; and (7) Were
quality literature sources used?
Articles were appraised individually, using the above-mentioned quality review
forms. If an evaluation criterion was met, a score of 1 was allocated. A total score
and percentage were then calculated for each article. Thereafter, the articles were
categorised into High quality, Medium quality, and Low quality.
After evaluation, the research questions were used to extract data from the
articles. The results were themed and summarised into four data tables. The quality
ratings of the articles were used to classify the strength of evidence supporting a
theme. Three evidence classifications were created, namely (a) Strong evidence, (b)
Moderate evidence, and (c) Insufficient evidence (Parris & Peachey, 2013). When
69
two or more high-quality articles, or one high- and two medium-quality articles
supported a theme, a Strong evidence classification was assigned. When one High-
quality and one Medium-quality article, or two Medium-quality articles, supported a
theme, a Moderate evidence classification was assigned. If a theme was not
supported by strong or moderate evidence, the Insufficient evidence classification
was assigned.
The results of the data analysis are described in the next section.
2.4. RESULTS
Overall, the findings indicated that servant leadership is researched
internationally, is measured by different instruments, and is linked to favourable
individual, team, and organisational outcomes. The findings showed that, to date, no
consensus has been reached among researchers on the characteristics,
competencies, and measurement of servant leadership. However, servant leadership
has shown to be a reputable leadership theory, distinguishable from other current
leadership theories.
The present researcher found that servant leadership has been researched in 21
countries, in five qualitative studies, 55 quantitative studies, three mixed-methods
studies, and 24 literature reviews. Two (40%) qualitative studies were rated High
quality, one (20%) was rated Medium quality, and two (40%) were rated Low quality.
Regarding the quantitative studies, 48 (87%) were rated High quality, five (9%) were
rated Medium quality, and two (4%) were rated Low quality. Two (67%) mixed-
methods studies were rated High quality, and one (33%) was rated Low quality. A
total of 12 (50%) literature-review-type studies were rated High quality, eight (33%)
were rated Medium quality, and four (17%) were rated Low quality.
70
The data and themes are discussed in accordance with the research questions.
2.4.1. The Characteristics of a Servant Leader
This literature review identified eight characteristics of a servant leader, namely
(1) authenticity, (2) humility, (3) compassion, (4) accountability, (5) courage, (6)
altruism, (7) integrity, and (8) listening. Strong evidence was found for all these
characteristics.
Authenticity is described in the literature as showing one’s true identity,
intentions, and motivations (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), adhering to strong moral
principles (Russell & Stone, 2002), and being true to oneself (Pekerti & Sendjaya,
2010). It is also seen as being open to learn from criticism (Sendjaya & Cooper,
2011), and displaying consistent behaviour. Authenticity was mentioned in 17 articles
as a characteristic of a servant leader.
Humility is defined as being stable and modest, with a high self-awareness
regarding one’s strengths and development areas (De Sousa & Van Dierendonck,
2014; Patterson, 2003), having a humble attitude (Bobbio et al., 2012), being open to
new learning opportunities (Van Dierendonck, 2011), and perceiving one’s talent and
achievements in the right perspective (Patterson, 2003). Humility is not perceived as
a self-deprecating attribute (thinking less of oneself), but rather as a characteristic
that focusses more on others (thinking of oneself less) (Flint & Grayce, 2013; Liden
et al., 2014; Van Dierendonck, 2011; Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014). Humility
seems to be the opposite of prideful or egocentric behaviour (Mertel & Brill, 2015;
Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014). Humble leaders value and activate the talent
of others, enjoy helping others succeed, and give credit to others when a task was
completed successfully (Sun, 2013; Van Dierendonck, 2011). Humility is also
71
described as a virtuous attitude that uses positional power for the advancement of
others (Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014). Humility was cited in 27 articles as a
characteristic of servant leadership.
Compassion is perceived as having empathy (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Berger,
2014; Crippen, 2005; Kincaid, 2012; Liden et al., 2008; Spears, 2010), caring for
others, being kind (Barbuto et al., 2014; Finley, 2012; Jones, 2012; Spears, 2010),
forgiving others for mistakes (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), accepting and
appreciating others for who they are (Mertel & Brill, 2015; Russell & Stone, 2002;
Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), and showing unconditional love (agape love)
towards others (Finley, 2012; Sun, 2013; Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014).
Additional terms in the literature to describe compassion were: to value people,
serving others, putting others first, and being good to others (Beck, 2014; Hale &
Fields, 2007; Jones, 2012; Mehta & Pillay, 2011; Melchar & Bosco, 2010; Neubert,
Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, & Roberts, 2008; Parris & Peachey, 2013; Russell, 2001;
Van Dierendonck, 2011). Emotional healing has also been shown to be closely
related to compassion. It is described as helping others recover from hardships or
difficulties (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006), showing concern for the well-being of others
(Finley, 2012), being sensitive towards others (Liden et al., 2008), reconciling
relationships (Spears, 2010), and healing oneself and others to become whole
(Kincaid, 2012). Compassion was mentioned in 42 articles as a characteristic of
servant leadership.
Accountability is described in the literature as being responsible (Van
Dierendonck, 2011), ensuring transparent practices (Edwards, 2010), holding others
accountable, monitoring performance (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), and
setting clear expectations, in accordance with an individual’s capability (Sousa & Van
72
Dierendonck, 2015). It was mentioned in seven articles as being a characteristic of
servant leadership.
Courage was cited in six articles as one of the characteristics of servant
leadership. It is defined as being open to taking calculated risks, standing up for
what is morally right despite negative adversaries (Russell & Stone, 2002; Van
Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), and displaying ethical conduct (Jaramillo et al., 2015).
Altruism is described as being others-orientated, selfless (Beck, 2014; Melchar &
Bosco, 2010; Mertel & Brill, 2015), and having the desire to positively influence and
help others become better in life by consistently serving their needs (Barbuto &
Wheeler, 2006; Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014). This behaviour is extended to
making a positive difference, not only in people, but also in organisations and in
society (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Melchar & Bosco, 2010). This servant leadership
characteristic was mentioned in 17 articles.
Integrity is considered being honest, fair (Russell & Stone, 2002), having strong
moral principles (Edwards, 2010; Melchar & Bosco, 2010; Pekerti & Sendjaya,
2010), behaving ethically, and creating an ethical work climate (Liden et al., 2008;
Melchar & Bosco, 2010; Pekerti & Sendjaya, 2010). Integrity was cited in 30 articles
as a characteristic of a servant leader.
Listening is described as a deep commitment of a leader to listen actively and
respectfully (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Humphreys, 2005; Spears, 2010), by asking
questions to create knowledge (Humphreys, 2005; Rai & Prakash, 2012), providing
time for reflection and silence (Spears, 2010), and being conscious of what is unsaid
(Neubert et al., 2008; Spears, 2010). Listening was referenced as a servant
leadership characteristic in 20 articles.
73
A summary of the terms used to describe the eight characteristics of servant
leadership is presented in Table 9, below, together with the article count and
evidence classification for each characteristic.
74
Table 9
Results: Servant Leadership Characteristics
Rating of
Result Theme Keywords Cited Article Code Total Article Codes Count Evidence
Authenticity Self-awareness, self-identity LIT02, QNT32 LIT02, QNT05, QAL01, 17 Strong
Authentic self, authenticity, LIT02, QNT05, QAL01, QNT14, QNT20 QNT14, QNT20, QNT32,
authentic, leading QNT32, LIT05, LIT12, MIXED03, LIT22, LIT05, LIT12, MIXED03, LIT22,
authentically LIT23, QNT50, QNT53, QNT40, LIT13, LIT23, QNT50, QNT53,
QNT42, QNT47 QNT40, LIT13, QNT42, QNT47
Humility Humility LIT02, QAL01, QNT04, MIXED01, LIT02, QAL01, QNT04, 27 Strong
QNT07, QNT14, LIT05, LIT07, LIT08, MIXED01, QNT07, QNT14,
QNT18, QNT20, QNT30, QNT32, QNT33, LIT05, LIT07, LIT08, QNT18,
QNT35, LIT12, MIXED03, LIT23, LIT22, QNT20, QNT30, QNT32,
LIT23, QNT50, QNT53, QNT26, LIT13, QNT33, QNT35, LIT12,
QNT15, QNT48, LIT24 MIXED03, LIT23, LIT22,
QNT50, QNT53, QNT26,
LIT13, QNT15, QNT48, LIT24,
LIT05
Voluntary subordination LIT05
Compassion Emotional healing QNT02, LIT02, LIT03, LIT09, QNT18, QNT02, LIT02, LIT03, LIT07, 42 Strong
QAL02, LIT11, QNT29, QNT30, QNT32, LIT09, LIT11, LIT12, LIT13,
MIXED02, LIT12, LIT17, QNT52, QNT44, LIT16, LIT17, LIT19, LIT21,
75
QNT48, QNT49, QNT56 LIT22, LIT23, LIT24, MIXED01,
Compassion QNT02, QAL01, QNT35, QNT40 MIXED02, QAL01, QAL02,
Forgiveness QNT05 QNT04, QNT05, QNT06;
Empathy, empathize, LIT02, LIT03, QNT04, MIXED01, QNT06; QNT07, QNT14, QNT18,
empathetic listeners QNT14, LIT07, QAL02, LIT11, QNT30, QNT20, QNT21, QNT24,
QNT32, QNT35, LIT12, LIT17, LIT21, QNT29, QNT30, QNT31,
QNT52, QNT44, QNT48 QNT32, QNT33, QNT35,
Agape love, unconditional LIT02, MIXED01, QNT07, LIT07, QNT18, QNT36, QNT40, QNT43,
love QNT32, QNT33, LIT16, LIT21, LIT22, QNT44, QNT48, QNT49,
LIT23 QNT52, QNT56
Care, concern, kindness QNT21, LIT07, QNT20, QAL02, QNT30,
QNT33, QNT43, LIT19, LIT22, QNT24,
QNT31, LIT13, LIT24
Others-orientated, benefit of MIXED01, QNT18, QAL02, QNT32,
others, service orientated, put MIXED02, LIT12, LIT16, LIT22, QNT36,
others first, value people, QNT44
appreciating others, good to
others
Interpersonal acceptance LIT12
Accountability Responsibility, delegating QAL01, LIT13, QNT42, QNT15 QAL01, LIT13, QNT42, 7 Strong
responsibilities, responsible QNT15, QNT14, LIT05, QNT50
for results
Accountability, accountable QNT14, LIT05, QNT50
76
practices
Courage Courage (take risks), moral QNT05, QNT14, QNT50, QNT24, QNT42 QNT05, QNT14, QNT50, 6 Strong
courage QNT24, QNT42, QNT26
High ethical conduct QNT26
Altruism Altruistic calling, altruism, QNT05, QAL07, QNT04, MIXED01, QNT05, QAL07, QNT04, 17 Strong
altruism mind-set, altruistic QNT07, LIT08, QNT18, QNT32, MIXED01, QNT07, LIT08,
MIXED02, LIT12, LIT17; LIT23, QNT53, QNT18, QNT32, MIXED02,
QNT36, QNT40, QNT48 LIT12, LIT17; LIT23, QNT53,
Serving others first QAL01 QNT36, QNT40, QNT48,
QAL01
Integrity Behave ethically, ethical work QNT02, LIT02, QNT22, QNT29, QNT30, QNT02, LIT02, QNT22, 30 Strong
climate, ethical models QNT24, QNT26, QNT39; QNT40, QNT44, QNT29, QNT30, QNT24,
QNT49, QNT56 QNT26, QNT39; QNT40,
Responsible morality, moral LIT02, LIT05, QNT32, QNT35, QNT41; QNT44, QNT49, QNT56,
integrity, moral, moral MIXED03, QNT24, QNT40, QNT47 LIT05, QNT32, QNT35,
compass QNT41; MIXED03, QNT47,
Integrity, personal integrity QNT05, LIT05, LIT07, LIT09, QAL02, QNT05, LIT07, LIT09, QAL02,
MIXED02, LIT12, QNT41, QNT43, MIXED02, LIT12, QNT41,
MIXED03, QNT52, QNT24; QNT26, QNT43, QNT52, QNT48,
QNT44, QNT48, LIT24 LIT24, QNT33
Honesty QNT33, LIT12, QNT24, QNT26
Listening Listening, active listening, QAL07, QNT04, MIXED01, QNT14, QAL07, QNT04, MIXED01, 20 Strong
listen respectively, listen first LIT05, LIT07, LIT09, QNT32, MIXED02, QNT14, LIT05, LIT07, LIT09,
77
QNT35, LIT12, LIT19, LIT22, QNT44, QNT32, MIXED02, QNT35,
LIT03, LIT11, QNT48 LIT12, LIT19, LIT22, QNT44,
Deep commitment LIT03, LIT19 LIT03, LIT11, QNT48, LIT03,
Need for silence, reflection, LIT03, LIT11, LIT19 LIT13, QNT36
meditation
Ask questions, knowledge QAL07, LIT13
creation
Feeling human condition, QNT36, LIT19
hearing inner voice, listening
to what is unsaid
78
2.4.2. The Competencies of a Servant Leader
The present researcher distinguished between the characteristics and the
competencies of a servant leader. A characteristic was considered a personality trait
that regulates the way a person thinks, feels, and behaves (Kazdin, 2000).
Competencies, on the other hand, are cognitive and technical skills and knowledge
(Epstein & Hundert, 2002; Shippmann, Ash, Battista, Carr, Eyde, Hesketh, Kehoe,
Pearlman, Prien, & Sanchez, 2000).
Four servant leadership competencies were identified from the literature review
results, namely (1) empowerment, (2) stewardship, (3) building relationships, and (4)
creating a compelling vision. Strong evidence was found for all four competencies.
Empowerment is explained as a commitment to:
• developing others to prosper personally, professionally, and spiritually (Berger,
2014; Carter & Baghurst, 2013; Crippen, 2005; Hu & Liden, 2011; Kincaid, 2012;
Mehta & Pillay, 2011; Spears, 2010; Van Dierendonck, 2011);
• having a transforming influence on followers (Sendjaya et al., 2008);
• transferring responsibility and authority to followers (Bobbio et al., 2012);
• providing clear directions and boundaries (Liden et al., 2008);
• aligning and activating individual talent (Bobbio et al., 2012; Flint & Grayce, 2013;
Humphreys, 2005; Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002; Van Dierendonck & Patterson,
2014);
• sharing information and encouraging independent problem-solving (Liden et al.,
2008; Spears, 2010);
• providing the necessary coaching, mentoring, and support according to the need
of each individual (Konczak, Stelly, & Trusty, 2000);
• creating an effective work environment (Mittal & Dorfman, 2012);
79
• building self-confidence, well-being, and proactive follower behaviour (De Sousa
& Van Dierendonck, 2014; Mittal & Dorfman, 2012; Rai & Prakash, 2012; Van
Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011); and
• helping followers to mature emotionally, intellectually, and ethically (Sendjaya &
Cooper, 2011).
Empowerment was mentioned in 54 of the sampled articles.
Stewardship is defined in the literature as the process of taking accountability
(Hwang, Kang, & Youn, 2014; Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2015) for the common
interests of a society, an organisation, and individuals (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006;
Melchar & Bosco, 2010; Ozyilmaz & Cicek, 2015; Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2015;
Sun & Wang, 2009; Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014), to leave a positive legacy
(Savage-Austin & Honeycutt, 2011), with the perspective of not being the owner, but
rather a caretaker (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Flint & Grayce, 2013; Melchar &
Bosco, 2010; Ozyilmaz & Cicek, 2015; Searle & Barbuto, 2011; Sendjaya & Sarros,
2002; Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2015; Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014).
Stewardship was mentioned in 37 articles in the sample.
Building relationships is defined as a fundamental role of a servant leader, and
was mentioned in 54 articles. It is explained in the literature as the process of:
• building trustful relationships with individuals, customers, and the community
(Bambale, 2014; Beck, 2014; Berger, 2014; Chatbury et al., 2011; Edwards,
2010; Humphreys, 2005; Jaramillo et al., 2015; Jones, 2012; Liden et al., 2008;
Pekerti & Sendjaya, 2010; Rai & Prakash, 2012; Sendjaya et al., 2008; Stone et
al., 2004; Van Dierendonck, 2011; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011; Van
Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014);
80
• creating an environment of care, support, encouragement, and acknowledgement
(Mertel & Brill, 2015; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011; Van Dierendonck, 2011);
• communicating effectively (Spears, 2010) by spending quality time with followers
(Sendjaya et al., 2008), in order to share and create knowledge (Humphreys,
2005; Rai & Prakash, 2012);
• understanding the needs, aspirations, potential, and mental model of others
(Carter & Baghurst, 2013; Humphreys, 2005; Liden et al., 2008; Pekerti &
Sendjaya, 2010; Rai & Prakash, 2012; Van Dierendonck, 2011); and
• working in collaboration (Sendjaya et al., 2008; Spears, 2010; Van Dierendonck,
2011) and having common values (Pekerti & Sendjaya, 2010).
Setting a compelling vision was described as the ability to conceptualise a
higher vision (Spears, 2010; Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014; Van Dierendonck,
2011), linking past events and current trends with potential future scenarios (Berger,
2014; Melchar & Bosco, 2010; Ozyilmaz & Cicek, 2015; Spears, 2010; Sun & Wang,
2009; Van Dierendonck, 2011), to create value for a community. Keywords related to
this role of a servant leader were mentioned in 31 articles.
In Table 10, the results of the themes of servant leadership competencies are
provided, together with the keywords cited, the article count, and the evidence
classification of each theme.
81
Table 10
Results: Servant Leadership Competencies
Result Theme Keywords Cited Article Code Total Article Codes Count Evidence
Empowerment Empowering employees, QNT02, LIT02, QNT05, QNT21, QNT02, LIT02, QNT05, 54 Strong
empowerment, psychological QNT07, QNT13, QNT14, LIT07, QAL01, QANT09, QNT11,
empowerment, empower LIT08, LIT09, QNT18, QNT29, LIT03, QNT21, QAL07,
QNT30, MIXED02, QNT35, QNT23, LIT01, QNT04,
QNT37, LIT12, QNT43, LIT16, MIXED01, QNT06, QNT07,
LIT22, LIT23, QNT50, QNT53, QNT13, QNT14, LIT07,
QNT25, QNT26, LIT13, QNT44, LIT08, LIT09, QNT18,
QNT47, QNT15, QNT48, QNT56 QNT22, QNT29, QNT30,
Commitment to growth of people, LIT02, QNT05, QAL01, QNT09, QNT32, MIXED02, QNT35,
developing people, employee QNT11, LIT03, QNT21, QAL07, QNT37, LIT12, QNT43,
growth, personal growth, learning, LIT01, QNT04, MIXED01, QNT06, LIT16, LIT17, MIXED03,
growing followers, enhance skills, LIT07, QNT18, QNT22, LIT11, LIT19, LIT22, LIT23,
provide opportunities, personal QNT32, MIXED02, QNT35, QNT50, QNT53, QNT24,
needs and growth, enable QNT37, LIT12, LIT17, LIT19, QNT25, QNT26, QNT31,
potential, make servant leaders, LIT22, LIT23, QNT50, QNT53, QNT36, LIT13, QNT42,
moral development, develop QNT24, QNT25, QNT26, QNT31, QNT44, QNT47, QNT15,
others, prioritize growth, healthy QNT36, LIT13, LIT13, QNT44, QNT48, QNT49, LIT42,
growth, follower development, QNT47, QNT48, QNT49, LIT24, QNT55, QNT56
helping subordinates grow and QNT55
82
succeed, personal, professional,
and spiritual growth, training,
enable employees, strengthen
capability, prosper
Transforming influence LIT02, QNT18, MIXED03, QNT53
Transfer responsibility, when and QNT05, QNT29
how to complete tasks, clear
expectations
Encouraging talents, help use QNT06, QNT14
personality and passion
Entrust authority, give personal QNT23, QNT50, QNT42
power
Autonomous decision-making, QNT14, QNT29, LIT19, LIT22,
identify and solve problems LIT13, QNT15
Sharing information QNT14, MIXED02, LIT22, QNT50,
QNT15
Coaching, mentoring, support QNT14, LIT22, QNT50, LIT13,
QNT15
Good work environment, fostering MIXED02, QNT35
environment
Proactive behaviour, self-confident QNT35, QNT50, QNT31, LIT13,
attitude, self-esteem, self-worth, QNT42, QNT55
strengthen well-being, feel safe
83
Mature vocationally, emotionally, QNT47
intellectually, and ethically
Stewardship Greater good of society, good of LIT02, QNT05, QNT04, LIT09, LIT02, QNT05, LIT03, 37 Strong
the whole, community LIT11, MIXED02, LIT22, LIT23, QNT23, LIT01, QNT04,
development, social responsibility, QNT53, QNT24, QNT34, QNT36, QNT14, LIT07, LIT08,
both organisation and members QNT38, LIT13, QNT15, QNT48, LIT09, QNT18, QNT19,
QNT49 QAL02, LIT11, QNT32,
Stewardship, organisational LIT02, QNT05, LIT01, QNT04, MIXED02, QNT35, LIT12,
stewardship, steward of QNT04, LIT07, LIT08, LIT09, LIT17, LIT18, LIT19, LIT22,
environment, not owner, QNT08, QNT19, QAL02, LIT11, LIT23, QNT50, QNT53,
caretaker, entrusted QNT32, MIXED02, LIT12, LIT17, QNT24, QNT34, QNT36,
LIT18, LIT19, LIT22, LIT23, QNT38, QNT40, LIT13,
QNT34, QNT36, QNT38, QNT40, QNT42, QNT44, QNT15,
LIT13, QNT42, QNT44, QNT15, QNT48, QNT49, LIT15
QNT48,
Ownership, accountable without LIT03, QNT23, LIT12, LIT22,
control, serving needs of others, QNT42, QNT15,
shared responsibility, common
interest,
Leave positive legacy QNT04, MIXED02
Building High trust, organisational trust, QNT02, QNT11, QNT21, QAL07, QNT02, LIT02, QNT05, 54 Strong
Relationships mutual trust QNT23, QNT06, QNT07, LIT07, QAL01, QNT09, QNT11,
LIT09, QNT18, QNT19, QNT20, QNT21, QAL07, QNT23,
84
QAL02, QNT30, QNT32, LIT01, QNT06, LIT05,
MIXED02, LIT12, LIT16, LIT07, LIT08, QNT18,
MIXED03, LIT22, QNT50, QNT53, QNT20, QNT22, QAL02,
QNT24, QNT26, QNT31, QNT34, QNT29, QNT32, QNT35,
QNT40, LIT13, QNT44, QNT48 QNT37, LIT20, LIT22,
Long-term relationships, QNT02, LIT02, QNT05, LIT02, QNT53, QNT24, QNT26,
conventional relationship, quality QNT09, QNT11, QNT21, LIT01, QNT31, QNT38, QNT40,
relationship, interpersonal bonds, MIXED01, QNT06, LIT05, LIT07, LIT13, QNT44, QNT47,
range of organisations and LIT08, QNT18, QNT19, QNT20, QNT48, LIT15, LIT02,
people, internal and community QNT22, QAL02, QNT29, QNT32, QNT04, MIXED01, QNT07,
relationships, long-term QNT35, QNT37, MIXED03, LIT20, QNT14, LIT09, QNT19,
commitment, relational power, LIT22, QNT50, QNT53, QNT26, QNT30, QNT32, MIXED02,
relationship with customers, QNT31, QNT38, LIT13, QNT47 QNT33, LIT12, LIT16,
followers and community, social MIXED03, LIT19, QNT50,
exchange relationships, high- QNT53, QNT31, QNT34
quality dyadic relationship, various
stakeholders
Interpersonal acceptance, LIT02, QAL07, MIXED02, LIT12,
nourishing followers, concern for LIT23, QNT50, QNT44, MIXED03,
welfare, forgiveness, patience QNT40, LIT13, QNT50, QNT33
Building confidence, positive QAL01, QNT20, QAL02, LIT22,
feelings, self-concept-based QNT31, QNT31
motivation, encouragement,
85
inspire, encourage
Understand, understand needs QAL01, QAL07, MIXED01,
and aspirations, know, understand QNT29, LIT22, QNT31, QNT40,
abilities, desires, goals and LIT13
potential, understand mental
models
Quality time, availability QNT09, QNT22, MIXED03
Share information, share QAL07, MIXED01, QNT31, LIT13
frustrations, knowledge sharing
and creation
Effective communication, listening, LIT05, LIT07, LIT08, LIT09,
interaction, one-on-one QNT20, QNT20, QNT32,
communication, provide feedback, MIXED02, QNT35, LIT12,
engage with, open-ended MIXED03, LIT19, LIT22, QNT31,
communication, reflection QNT44
Provide resources, support, feel QNT20, QNT29, QNT37, LIT22,
safe, loyalty QNT50, QNT31,
Influence, persuasion MIXED02, LIT12, LIT19, LIT22,
LIT13,
Respect, appreciation, QNT33, LIT16, MIXED03, LIT22,
acceptance, equality, equal QNT47
partners, intrinsic individual value,
acknowledgement, recognition,
86
realising abilities
Shared values MIXED03, QNT40
Collaboration, build consensus MIXED03, LIT19, LIT22
Compelling Providing direction, conceptual LIT02, QNT21, LIT07, QNT22, LIT02, QNT09, LIT03, 31 Strong
Vision skills, conceptualisation, intuitive QAL02, LIT11, QNT32, MIXED02, QNT21, LIT07, QNT22,
mind, vision, preoccupation with QNT35, LIT12, QNT43, LIT16, QAL02, LIT11, MIXED02,
future, visioning, goal setting, plan LIT19, LIT22, LIT23, QNT53, QNT35, QNT37, LIT12,
for future opportunities, creative, QNT26, QNT36, QNT44, QNT48, QNT43, LIT16, LIT17,
visionary LIT24 LIT19, LIT21, LIT22, LIT23,
Foresight, understand past, LIT02, QNT09, LIT03, LIT07, QNT53, QNT26, QNT36,
present and future, balancing daily QNT22, QAL22, LIT11, MIXED02, QNT38, LIT13, QNT44,
work with future vision, likely QNT35, LIT12, LIT17, LIT19, QNT15, QNT48, QNT49,
outcome, system thinker, LIT22, QNT38, QNT44, QNT48, LIT24, LIT15
foreseeing likely events, wisdom, QNT49, LIT24
knowledge of industry and
organisation, conscious about
present and future events,
gathering information from
environment, predict future, sound
judgement
Create value for community, LIT02, QNT37, LIT12, QNT53,
creating external value QNT26, QNT44, QNT49
87
2.4.3. Measurements of Servant Leadership
The sampled literature cited ten servant leadership measurement instruments.
The Organisational Leadership Assessment (OLA), developed by Laub (1999),
measures servant leadership as a six-factor construct. The factors included in this
instrument are: authenticity, sharing leadership, valuing people, developing people,
building a community, and providing leadership. The OLA had been used in one
High quality study in the sample, and was cited in another six High quality articles.
The servant leadership questionnaire developed by Page and Wong (2000)
measures 12 servant leadership attributes, namely humility, caring for others,
servanthood, integrity, empowering others, developing others, leading, role
modelling, team-building, sharing decision-making, visioning, and goal-setting. This
instrument had been used in two High quality studies in the sample, and was
referenced in seven High quality articles.
The instrument developed by Dennis and Bocarnea (2005) measures humility,
agape love, empowerment, trust, and vision as servant leadership characteristics.
This instrument had been used in one High quality study in the sampled literature,
and was cited in another six High quality articles.
A fourth servant leadership questionnaire evaluates seven servant leadership
attributes, namely putting subordinates first, behaving ethically, empowering
subordinates, helping subordinates grow and succeed, forming relationships with
subordinates, conceptual skills, and creating value for the community (Ehrhart,
2004). Thirteen High quality studies within the sample had used this instrument to
measure servant leadership. It was also mentioned in five High quality articles.
The Servant Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ) of Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) was
another instrument referenced. This instrument measures five servant leadership
88
dimensions, namely emotional healing, altruistic calling, organisational stewardship,
persuasive mapping, and wisdom. The SLQ had been used in eight studies (five
High quality, two Medium quality, and one Low quality) in the sampled literature, and
was cited in nine High quality articles.
Hale and Fields (2007) also developed a servant leadership questionnaire, which
measures three servant leadership attributes, namely humility, service, and vision.
This questionnaire was cited in one High quality article. No studies within the sample
had used this instrument.
Another servant leadership measure was developed by Wong and Davey (2007),
which measures servant leadership as a five-factor construct. The factors are:
humility and selflessness, serving and developing others, consulting and involving
others, inspiring and influencing others, and modelling integrity and authenticity. It
was referenced in two High quality articles. None of the sampled studies had used
this instrument.
Liden et al. (2008) combined the items of the three previously developed
questionnaires of Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), Ehrhart (2004), and Page and Wong
(2000) to develop the seven-factor SLQ. This questionnaire measures the following
attributes: emotional healing, putting subordinates first, behaving ethically, helping
subordinates grow and succeed, conceptual skills, and creating value for the
community. It had been used in nine High quality research studies in the sample,
and cited in another nine High quality articles.
An additional scale, the Servant Leadership Behaviour Scale (SLBS), was
validated by Sendjaya et al. (2008), which measures six servant leader
characteristics, namely authentic self, conventional relationship, voluntary
subordination, transforming influence, responsible morality, and transcendental
89
spirituality. This instrument had been used in four research studies of High quality
and referenced by an additional eight High quality articles.
The latest validated survey instrument was the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS)
of Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011). It measures eight servant leadership
attributes, namely authenticity, humility, forgiveness, accountability, courage,
standing back, empowerment, and stewardship. It had been used in four studies of
High quality, and was referenced in another seven High quality articles.
In Table 11, a summary of these measurements is provided, in association with
the aforementioned characteristics and competencies of a servant leader.
90
Table 11
Results: Servant Leadership Measures
Liden, Wayne, Van

Dennis and Barbuto and Hale and Wong and Zhao, and Sendjaya, Dierendonck
Characteristic/ Page and Bocarnea Wheeler Fields Davey Henderson Sarros, and and Nuijten
Competency Laub (1999) Wong (2000) (2005) Ehrhart (2004) (2006) (2007) (2007) (2008) Santora (2008) (2011)
Authentic Display Modelling Authentic self Authenticity
authenticity authenticity
Humility Shares Humility Humility Humility Humility Authentic self Humility
leadership and
selflessness
Compassion Valuing Caring for Agape love Emotional Emotional Conventional Forgiveness
people others healing healing relationship
Accountability Authentic self Accountability
Courage Courage
Altruism Servanthood Putting Altruistic Service Humility Putting Voluntary Standing back
subordinates calling and subordinates subordination
first selflessness first
Integrity Integrity Behaving Modelling Behaving Authentic self
ethically integrity ethically
Listening
Empowerment Developing Empowering Empowerment Empowering Serving and Empowerment/ Transforming Empowerment
people others/ subordinates/ developing Help influence
Developing Help others subordinates
others subordinates grow and
grow and succeed
succeed
91
Stewardship Builds Organisational Responsible Stewardship
community stewardship Morality
Building Leading/ Trust Forming Inspiring Conventional
relationships Modelling/ relationships and relationships/
Team-building/ with influencing Transforming
Shared subordinates others influence
decision-
making
Compelling Providing Visioning/ Vision Conceptual Persuasive Vision Conceptual Transcendental
vision leadership Goal-setting skills/Create mapping/ skills/ Creating spirituality/
value for Wisdom value for Transforming
community community influence
Used QNT35 QNT29 QNT52 QNT18 QNT20 QNT22 MIXED01 QNT08 QNT13 QNT06 QNT40 QNT14
QNT29 QNT37 QNT12 QNT30 QNT41 QNT47 QNT16
QNT51 QNT24 QNT29 QNT45 QNT53 QNT19
QNT25 QNT26 MIXED02 QNT31 QNT39 QNT42
QNT31 QNT34 QNT28 QNT49
QNT36 QNT54 QNT31
QNT56 QNT38
QNT55
Cited LIT02 QNT07, LIT12, QNT32, QNT37, LIT12, QNT04, QNT53 LIT22, QNT37, LIT12, QNT06, LIT02,
QNT32 MIXED03, LIT12, LIT22, LIT22, QNT50, MIXED01, QNT50 LIT22, QNT53, QNT37, LIT12, QNT05,
QNT37 LIT22, QNT50, QNT50, QNT31 QNT37, QNT31, LIT13, MIXED03, LIT12, LIT22,
MIXED03 QNT53, LIT13 QNT53, LIT12, QNT48, LIT22, QNT50, QNT53,
LIT22 QNT48 MIXED03, QNT49, LIT13, QNT47 LIT13, QNT15
QNT50 LIT22, QNT55
QNT53,
QNT31,
92
QNT48
QNT04 QNT29 MIXED03 QNT50
Evidence rating Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong Insufficient Strong Strong Strong Strong
93
2.4.4. Outcomes Linked to Servant Leadership
The outcomes linked to servant leadership were divided into three categories,
namely (1) individual outcomes, (2) team outcomes, and (3) organisational
outcomes. Literature-type studies were excluded in this section, as findings related
to outcomes were based on empirical evidence (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-
methods studies). The findings are discussed in line with the themes extracted from
the results that were supported by Strong evidence.
2.4.4.1 Individual Outcomes
The results of the sampled studies showed that servant leadership is positively
related to work engagement, organisational citizenship behaviour, innovative
behaviour, organisational commitment, trust, self-efficacy, job satisfaction, person‒
job fit, person‒organisation fit, leader‒member exchange (LMX), and work‒life
balance. Furthermore, servant leadership was found to be negatively related to
burnout and turnover intention.
In terms of work engagement, five High quality studies indicated that servant
leadership enhances work engagement (Carter & Baghurst, 2013; De Clercq et al.,
2014; De Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2014; Hunter et al., 2013; Sousa & Van
Dierendonck, 2015). Goal congruence and social interaction moderates the
relationship between servant leadership and work engagement (De Clercq et al.,
2014). In another study, organisational identification and psychological
empowerment were found to mediate the relationship between servant leadership
and work engagement (De Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2014). Servant leadership
also correlated negatively with disengagement (Hunter et al., 2013).
94
Seven High quality studies indicated that organisational citizenship behaviour is
enhanced by servant leadership on an individual level. Five studies found a positive
relationship between servant leadership and organisational citizenship behaviour
(Bobbio et al., 2012; Newman, Schwarz, Cooper, & Sendjaya, 2015; Ozyilmaz &
Cicek, 2015; Panaccio, Henderson, Liden, Wayne, & Cao, 2015; Walumbwa et al.,
2010). One study reported a positive relationship between servant leadership and
service-orientated organisational citizenship behaviour (Hsiao, Lee, & Chen, 2015),
and leader‒member exchange (LMX) mediated the relationship. Another study
reported a positive link between servant leadership and customer-orientated
organisational citizenship behaviour (Wu, Tse, Fu, Kwan, & Liu, 2013). Positive
psychological capital mediated the relationship between these two variables. Others
factors that mediated the relationship between servant leadership and organisational
citizenship behaviour were leader‒member exchange (LMX) (Newman et al., 2015),
psychological contract (Panaccio et al., 2015), commitment to supervisor, self-
efficacy, a procedural justice climate, and a service climate (Walumbwa et al., 2010).
Three High quality studies indicated that innovative behaviour is positively related
to servant leadership. The first study showed that servant leadership was positively
linked to a serving culture, which, in return, enhanced creative behaviour (Liden et
al., 2014). The second study reported that servant leadership increased creative
behaviour, mediated by promotion focus (Neubert et al., 2008). The third study
indicated that the psychological contract mediated the relationship between servant
leadership and innovative behaviour (Panaccio et al., 2015).
The relationship between servant leadership and organisational commitment was
confirmed in four High quality studies and one Medium quality study. Three studies
showed that servant leadership directly impacted organisational commitment (Bobbio
95
et al., 2012; Chinomona et al., 2013; Jaramillo et al., 2009b). One study indicated
that organisational support mediated the relationship between servant leadership
and affective commitment (Zhou & Miao, 2014). In another study, servant leadership
enhanced both affective and normative commitment (Miao, Newman, Schwarz, &
Xu, 2014), and organisational support mediated the relationship between servant
leadership and affective commitment.
Trust was found to be positively influenced by servant leadership in four studies.
The first study found a positive relationship between servant leadership and
interpersonal trust (Chatbury et al., 2011). The second study reported a positive
relationship with employee trust (Chinomona et al., 2013). The third study showed
that servant leadership enhanced affective trust (Miao et al., 2014), and the fourth
study reported a positive relationship between servant leadership and organisational
trust (Jones, 2012).
Five studies (four High quality and one Low quality) confirmed that servant
leadership increased the job satisfaction level of employees (Chung, Jung, Kyle, &
Petrick, 2010; Jones, 2012; Mehta & Pillay, 2011; Ozyilmaz & Cicek, 2015; Sturm,
2009). This relationship was mediated by procedural justice (Chung et al., 2010) and
psychological climate (Ozyilmaz & Cicek, 2015).
In terms of work‒life balance, one High quality study indicated that servant
leadership positively influenced positive work‒family spill-over, and negatively
influenced work‒family conflict (Tang, Kwan, Zhang, & Zhu, 2015). Another study
showed that organisational identification mediated the relationship between servant
leadership and work-to-family enrichment (Zhang, Kwan, Everett, & Jian, 2012).
Other findings were that servant leadership enhanced self-efficacy (Chen et al.,
2015; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), person‒job fit (Carter & Baghurst, 2013),
96
person‒organisation fit (Jaramillo et al., 2009b), and leader‒member exchange
(LMX) (Hanse et al., 2016; Newman et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2013). Three High quality
studies furthermore indicated that servant leadership negatively influenced burnout.
One study reported a negative relationship between servant leadership and burnout,
which was mediated by person‒job fit (Babakus, Yavas, & Ashill, 2011). Other
studies revealed that servant leadership decreased two components of burnout,
namely cynicism (Bobbio et al., 2012) and emotional exhaustion (Tang et al., 2015).
Six studies (five High quality and one Low quality) found a negative relationship
between servant leadership and turnover intention. Two studies reported a negative
relationship between servant leadership and turnover intention (Hunter et al., 2013;
Kashyap & Rangnekar, 2016), and another study reported a positive relationship
between servant leadership and employee retention (Sturm, 2009). The results also
revealed that the relationship between servant leadership and turnover intention was
mediated by burnout (Babakus et al., 2011), person‒job fit (Babakus et al., 2011;
Jaramillo et al., 2009b), person‒organisation fit (Jaramillo et al., 2009b), employer
brand perception, trust in the leader (Kashyap & Rangnekar, 2016), and a serving
culture (Liden et al., 2014).
2.4.4.2 Team Outcomes
Servant leadership has been positively related to four team- or group outcomes,
namely (1) group organisational citizenship behaviour, (2) group identification, (3)
service climate and culture, and (4) procedural justice climate.
The sampled research reported that servant leadership enhanced organisational
citizenship behaviour, not only on an individual level, but also on a group- or team
level. In one High quality study, dyadic communication style agreement mediated the
97
relationship between servant leadership and group organisational citizenship
behaviour (Bakar & McCann, 2016). Another study found that servant leadership
influenced team potency positively, which, in turn, enhanced team organisational
citizenship behaviour (Hu & Liden, 2011).
Group identification was enhanced by servant leadership in three High quality
studies. The first study showed a direct positive relationship with group identification
(Chen et al., 2015). A second study reported that a serving culture mediated the
relationship between servant leadership and employee identification (Liden et al.,
2014). A third related study indicated that servant leadership enhanced
organisational identification (Zhang et al., 2012).
Other findings were that servant leadership enhanced a serving culture (Liden et
al., 2014), a serving climate (Walumbwa et al., 2010), and procedural justice (Chung
et al., 2010; Walumbwa et al., 2010) within an organisation.
2.4.4.3 Organisational Outcomes
Two major organisational outcomes of servant leadership emerged from the data,
namely (1) customer service and (2) sales performance.
Seven High quality articles indicted that servant leadership influenced customer
service positively in different ways. Servant leadership was positively related to
customer service performance (Chen et al., 2015), service-orientated organisational
citizenship behaviour, customer value co-creation (Hsiao et al., 2015), customer trust
in the firm, customer satisfaction (Hwang et al., 2014), customer-orientation
(Jaramillo et al., 2009a), customer-serving behaviour (Liden et al., 2014), and value-
enhancing behaviour (Schwepker & Schultz, 2015). Servant leadership was also
negatively related to customer turnover (Jones, 2012). Mediating variables in the
98
aforementioned relationships were social identity (Chen et al., 2015), positive
psychological capital, service-orientated organisational citizenship behaviour (Hsiao
et al., 2015), employee trust (Hwang et al., 2014), and a caring ethical climate
(Schwepker & Schultz, 2015).
Servant leadership has also been found to impact sales performance in various
ways. In the study by Schwepker and Schultz (2015), servant leadership increased
sales performance directly. Another study indicated that an ethical climate mediated
the relationship between servant leadership and sales performance (Jaramillo et al.,
2015). Servant leadership was also positively related to a serving culture, which, in
turn, enhanced organisational performance (Liden et al., 2014). Customer-orientation
was also positively influenced by servant leadership, which produced higher
performance (Jaramillo et al., 2009a).
In conclusion, servant leadership was found to positively impact individuals,
teams, and the organisation in various ways. A summary of the above-mentioned
results is provided in Table 12.
99
Table 12
Results: Servant Leadership Outcomes
Impact Level Result Theme Research Result Quality Article Code Total Article Codes Count Evidence
Individual Burnout Servant leadership reduces burnout High QNT01 QNT01, QNT05, 3 Strong
QNT49
Servant leadership is negatively High QNT05
related to cynicism
Servant leadership is negative High QNT49
related to emotional exhaustion
Person‒job fit mediates negative High QNT01
relationship between servant
leadership and burnout
Work Servant leadership enhances work High, QNT13, QNT13, QNT14, 5 Strong
engagement engagement High, QNT14, QNT15, QNT22,
High, High QNT15, QAL01
QAL01
Goal congruence and social High QNT13
interaction moderate a positive
leadership and work engagement
Organisational identification and High QNT14
psychological empowerment
100
mediate a positive relationship
work engagement
related to disengagement
Turnover Servant leadership reduces turnover High, High QNT22, QNT01, QNT22, 6 Strong
intention intention QNT27 QNT26, QNT27,
QNT30, QAL05
Burnout mediates a negative High QNT01
leadership and turnover intention
Person‒job fit mediates a negative High QNT01
Person‒job fit and person‒ High QNT26
organisation fit mediate the negative
Employer brand perception and trust High QNT27
in leader mediate the negative
Serving culture mediates the High QNT30
101
negative relationship between
servant leadership and turnover
intention
Servant leadership enhances Low QAL05
employee retention
Dyadic Servant leadership is related to High QNT02 QNT02 1 Insufficient
communication dyadic communication style
style agreement agreement
Emotional EQ is not related to servant High QNT03 QNT03 1 Insufficient
intelligence leadership behaviour
(EQ)
Organisational Servant leadership is positive related High, High QNT05, QNT05, QNT20, 7 Strong
citizenship to OCB QNT38 QNT37, QNT38,
behaviour QNT39, QNT51,
(OCB) QNT54
Servant leadership is positively High QNT20
related to service-orientated OCB
(positive psychological capital
mediates relationship)
related to customer-orientated OCB
(LMX mediates relationship)
102
related to OCB (LMX mediates
relationship)
Servant leadership enhances OCB High QNT39
(individual initiative and loyal
boosterism) (psychological contract
related to OCB (commitment to
supervisor, self-efficacy, procedural
justice climate, and service climate
partially mediate relationship)
Helping Servant leadership enhances High QNT36 QNT36 1 Insufficient
behaviour helping behaviour (mediated by
promotion focus)
Creativity and Servant leadership is positively High QNT30 QNT30, QNT36, 3 Strong
innovativeness related to a serving culture. A QNT39
serving culture enhances creativity
Servant leadership enhances High QNT36
creative behaviour (mediated by
promotion focus)
innovative behaviour (psychological
contract mediates relationship)
103
Organisational Servant leadership is positively High, QNT05, QNT05, QNT09, 5 Strong
commitment related to organisational commitment Medium, QNT09, QNT26, QNT34,
High QNT26 QNT56
Servant leadership positive related High QNT34
to affective and normative
commitment (not continuance
commitment)
related to affective commitment
(organisational support mediates
relationship)
Affective trust mediates servant High QNT34
leadership and affective and
normative commitment
Supervisor Servant leadership is positively High QNT51 QNT52 1 Insufficient
commitment related to supervisor commitment
Trust Significant relationship between High QNT06 QNT06, QNT09, 4 Strong
servant leadership and interpersonal QNT34, QAL02
trust
Servant leadership is positively Medium QNT09
related to employee trust
related to affective trust
104
Servant leadership enhances trust High QAL02
and organisational trust
Eudaemonic Servant leadership is positively High QNT07 QNT07 1 Insufficient
well-being related to eudaemonic well-being
Autonomy of motivation mediates High QNT07
servant leadership and eudaemonic
well-being
Self-efficacy Servant leadership is positively High, High QNT08, QNT08, QNT50 2 Strong
related to self-efficacy QNT50
Job satisfaction Servant leadership is positively High, QNT32, QNT11, QNT32, 5 Strong
related to job satisfaction High, Low QNT38, QNT38, QAL02,
QAL05 QAL05
related to job satisfaction (partially
mediated by procedural justice)
related to job satisfaction (mediated
by psychological climate)
Servant leadership increases High QAL02
employee satisfaction
Person‒job fit Servant leadership enhances High QNT01 QNT01, QNT26 2 Strong
and person‒ person‒job fit
organisation fit
105
person‒organisation fit
Organisational Servant leadership is positively High QNT56 QNT56 1 Insufficient
support related to organisational support
Employee Servant leadership is positively High QNT30 QNT30 1 Insufficient
performance related to serving culture; Serving
culture enhances employee
performance
Public service Servant leadership is positively High QNT31 QNT32 1 Insufficient
motivation related to public service motivation
Psychological Servant leadership is positively High QNT37 QNT37 1 Insufficient
empowerment related to psychological
empowerment
Psychological Servant leadership is positively High QNT38 QNT38 1 Insufficient
climate related to psychological climate
Psychological Servant leadership is positive related High QNT39 QNT39 1 Insufficient
contract to psychological contract
Leader‒member Servant leadership is positively High, QNT19, QNT19, QNT37, 3 Strong
exchange (LMX) related to LMX High, High QNT37, QNT54
QNT54
Personal Servant leadership is positively High, Low QNT49, QNT49, QAL05 2 Insufficient
learning related to personal learning QAL05
Work‒life Servant leadership is positive related High QNT49 QNT49, QNT55 2 Strong
106
balance to positive work‒family spill-over
related to work‒family conflict
related to work-to-family enrichment
(mediated by organisational
identification)
Team/Group Organisational Dyadic communication style High QNT02 QNT02, QNT21 2 Strong
citizenship agreement mediates servant
behaviour leadership and group OCB
(OCB)
Servant leadership enhances team High QNT21
potency; Team potency enhances
team OCB
Group Servant leadership is positively High QNT08 QNT08, QNT30, 3 Strong
identification related to group identification QNT55
employee identification with the
organisation (mediated by serving
culture)
related to organisational
identification
107
Collaboration Servant leadership is positively High, Low QNT17, QNT17, QAL05 2 Insufficient
related to collaboration QAL05
Team Servant leadership enhances team High QNT21 QNT21 1 Insufficient
performance potency; Team potency enhances
team performance
Workplace Servant leadership is positive related Medium QNT28 QNT28 1 Insufficient
spirituality to workplace spirituality
Organisational culture moderates Medium QNT28
servant leadership and workplace
spirituality
Service culture Servant leadership is positively High QNT30 QNT30, QNT51 2 Strong
and climate related to serving culture
related to service climate
Procedural Servant leadership is positively High, High QNT11, QNT11, QNT51 1 Insufficient
justice climate related to procedural justice QNT51
Organisational Customer Servant leadership is positively High QNT08 QNT08, QNT20, 7 Strong
service related to customer service QNT23, QNT25,
performance QNT30, QNT45,
QAL02
Social identity mediates relationship High QNT08
customer service performance
108
related to service-orientated OCB
(positive psychological capital
mediates relationship) Psychological
capital enhances customer value co-
creation (service-orientated OCB
related to customers' trust in the firm
(employee trust moderates
relationship)
related to customer satisfaction
(employee trust moderates
relationship)
related to customer orientation
serving culture Serving culture
enhances customer-serving
behaviours
Servant leadership enhances value- High QNT45
enhancing behaviour performance
109
(moderated by caring ethical climate)
Servant leadership increases profits High QAL02
via reduced customer turnover
Organisational Servant leadership is positively Medium QNT10 QNT10 1 Insufficient
learning related to organisational learning;
Organisational learning enhances
organisational performance
Organisational No direct relationship between High QNT16 QNT16, QNT41 2 Insufficient
performance servant leadership and
organisational performance
CEO servant leadership predicts High QNT41
subsequent firm performance
(measured as return on assets)
Sales Servant leadership enhances sales High QNT24 QNT24, QNT25, 5 Strong
performance performance (mediated by ethical QNT30, QNT41,
climate) QNT45
customer orientation; Customer
orientation enhances outcome
performance
outcome of sales performance
110
related to serving culture; Serving
culture enhances organisational
performance
Employer brand Servant leadership is positively High QNT27 QNT27 1 Insufficient
perception related to employer brand perception
111
2.5. DISCUSSION
The final stage in this systematic literature review was to interpret the findings in a
meaningful way. This section integrates the findings in terms of the characteristics,
competencies, and outcomes of servant leadership into two main performance areas
of a servant leader, namely (1) strategic servant leadership and (2) operational
servant leadership.
2.5.1. Strategic Servant Leadership
Strategic servant leadership is divided into two main functions, namely to (1) set,
translate, and execute a higher-purpose vision and (2) to become a role model and
ambassador. These two functions are described in accordance with the study
results.
2.5.1.1 Function 1: Set, Translate, and Execute a Higher-Purpose Vision
One of the servant leadership competencies identified from the results was to set
a compelling vision for an organisation. This competency was described in the
literature as conceptualising a higher-purpose vision, linking past events and current
trends with potential future scenarios to create value for a community. It is important
to note that this vision consists of three major components, namely (1) a higher
purpose, (2) value-creation for the community, and (3) linking the past, present, and
the future. The first two components align well with concepts of conscious capitalism
and shared value.
Conscious capitalism is a way of doing business that (a) goes beyond making
profit, (b) creates value in a community, and (c) makes a positive difference in the
world for multiple stakeholders, including customers, employees, and shareholders
112
(Mackey & Sisodia, 2014). Profit, from this perspective, is seen as a means to an
end, instead of the end in itself. Although a business cannot create value for the
community without making a sustainable profit, profit is not perceived as the main
reason for its existence, but rather as a means to achieve a higher organisational
purpose (Christensen et al., 2014; Sendjaya, 2015). Shared value is an innovative
way of doing business that creates value for both the community and the
organisation. Porter and Kramer (2011) described shared value as the process of
generating economic opportunities from the needs in society, to enhance
sustainability for both the community and the organisation.
According to Mackey and Sisodia (2014), conscious businesses create value by
enhancing financial, intellectual, social, cultural, emotional, spiritual, physical, and
ecological prosperity for internal and external stakeholders. This can be clustered
into three value-creation dimensions, namely (1) wealth, (2) well-being, and (3)
welfare. Wealth refers to enhancing financial stability (Gupta, 2013), whereas well-
being relates to improving the intellectual, social, cultural, emotional, spiritual, and
physical well-being of external and internal stakeholders. Welfare, on the other hand,
can be seen as improving ecological sustainability (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006) and
enhancing the quality of living within the community (Gupta, 2013). A compelling
vision aligns these three value-creation dimensions with the purpose of the
organisation.
A higher-purpose vision is worthless without translation and execution. It is vital
that a servant leader translates the vision into workable goals that employees clearly
understand (Laub, 1999). This process involves translating the vision into a mission,
strategy, and practical goals. It also includes designing the capacity structure and
capability framework, as well as processes, policies, and systems to support the
113
vision, mission, and strategy. Capacity structure refers to the type and number of
positions required to execute the strategy, whereas the Capability framework is the
skills, knowledge, and attributes (competencies and values) required to achieve the
strategy. Processes refer to the business procedures and value chains of each
function within the organisation. Policies refer to the organisational policies or
standards that govern organisational practices. Systems, on the other hand, refer to
the information or technological systems required to achieve the vision, mission, and
strategy.
This process of developing the capability and capacity frameworks, and
supporting it with the processes, policies, and systems, correlates well with factors of
a high-performance organisation, such as (a) establishing and communicating a
clear vision, mission, and strategy, (b) being customer-orientated, (c) having simple,
standardised, and innovative processes and systems, (d) ensuring continuous
learning and development, and (e) sustaining a quality workforce (Blanchard, 2010;
De Waal, 2012; Kaplan & Norton, 1992; Owen, Mundy, Guild, & Guild, 2001). It also
relates to Mckinsey’s 7-S Model in co-ordinating seven factors to enhance
organisational effectiveness, namely strategy, style, skills, systems, structure, staff,
and shared values (Kaplan, 2005; Peters & Waterman, 2004; Singh, 2013). A
servant leader uses this process to prepare the organisation to serve the community.
This is different from the transformational leadership approach of encouraging
employees to achieve organisational goals (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). After
translating the vision, a servant leader continuously strives to achieve it by serving
employees and other stakeholders (Edwards, 2010).
The first function of a servant leader is summarised in Figure 2, below. It
illustrates how a servant leader first sets a higher-purpose vision and then translates
114
it into a mission, strategy, and goals. This strategy should focus primarily on the
customer and secondarily on employees, because employees are closest to serving
the customer (Blanchard et al., 2010). Thereafter, the capacity structure and
capability framework are developed, and processes, policies, and systems are
designed to support the strategy. Lastly, the skills and knowledge of employees have
to be aligned to the developed capacity structure and capability framework, and with
the designed processes and systems.
1
2 Higher-
Mission, purpose
Strategy & vision
Goals
4 4
Capability & 5 5 Processes,

Capacity Employees Policies &
Frameworks Systems
Customers & Community
Figure 2. Process to set, translate, and execute a higher-purpose vision
(conceptualised by the author)
The outcomes linked to servant leadership also support this process. A servant
leader enhances customer service and sales performance by focusing the mission,
strategy, and goals on the customer first (creating a serving culture), and putting the
infrastructure in place to enable employees to meet customer needs and to sell
authentically (Blanchard, 2010).
115
The characteristics of altruism and courage fit this function well. Altruism was
described by the results as being others-orientated and selfless. It was also
described as having the desire to help others become better in life and making a
positive difference in an organisation and society. Before a servant leader can set,
translate, and execute a higher-purpose vision, he or she needs to put the interests
of others above his or her own, and diligently serve people, to build sustainable
organisations and societies (Laub, 1999). The desire to serve others and make a
positive difference is engrained in a servant leader’s character (Greenleaf, 1998; Van
Dierendonck, 2011). Without this characteristic, leaders may set an egocentric or
selfish vision, focusing on self-advancement, instead of creating value for the
community (Chathury, 2008).
Courage was defined in the results as being open to taking calculated risks,
standing up for what is morally right, and displaying high ethical conduct. A
willingness to take calculated risks may become apparent when linking past events
and present trends with future scenarios while creating a compelling vision.
Portraying ethical conduct and standing up for the interests of others become
important when serving the needs of others (employees, customers, and the
community). Without the courage to stand up for what is right and doing things
ethically, with the best interests of others at heart, employees or a community might
become victims of destructive outcomes caused by selfish leaders (Karanja, 2013).
The objectives, characteristics, and competencies related to the function of
setting, translating, and executing a higher-purpose vision are summarised in Table
13, below.
116
Table 13
Summary of Function 1: Objectives, Characteristics, and Competencies
Area Description
Function Set, translate, and execute a higher-purpose vision
Leadership question What is the higher vision?
Objectives • Set a higher-purpose vision
• Translate the vision into a mission, strategy, and goals
• Execute the vision by serving others
• Stand up for what is right
Characteristics Courage
Altruism
Competencies Compelling vision
2.5.1.2 Function 2: Become a Role Model and Ambassador
Once a servant leader has set a higher-purpose vision, mission, and strategy, he
(or she) must first lead himself, before he leads others (Blanchard & Hodges, 2008).
Leading and managing oneself means to enhance personal capability in terms of
personal effectiveness, high productivity, continuous development, excellence, high
individual performance, and adhering to organisational values (Charan, Drotter, &
Noel, 2011). Personal leadership also includes the understanding of personal
talents, abilities, strengths, and weaknesses, and how to activate these in the best
possible way to serve others (Blanchard & Hodges, 2008).
Three servant leadership characteristics are closely related to the concept of
managing oneself, namely integrity, authenticity, and humility. The results described
integrity as being honest, fair, and ethical, having strong moral principles, and
creating an ethical working climate. Servant leaders should therefore be honest
(Russell & Stone, 2002), do things legitimately (Sendjaya, 2015), and treat others
fairly. Servant leaders must model these behaviours, and positively influence others
117
to do so as well. Authenticity was described in the results as showing one’s true
identity, intentions, and motivations, being open to learn from criticism, and showing
consistent behaviour. Humility was defined in the results as being stable and
modest, with high self-awareness and openness to learn, while viewing personal
talents appropriately. These behaviours can be summarised into four main self-
awareness objectives, namely (1) self-knowledge, (2) self-management, (3) self-
improvement, and (4) self-revealing.
The first objective in this function is to know oneself. Self-knowledge is about
truthfully discovering one’s own strengths and weaknesses in terms of personality,
abilities, and talents. Self-awareness enables a servant leader to identify his or her
personal strengths, and to align these with job requirements, but also to mitigate
personal weaknesses through training and development, or by delegating tasks to
someone who is more talented in that area.
A second objective in this function is to manage oneself. Self-management can be
divided into three sub-categories of enhancing personal effectiveness, namely (a)
managing the mind, (b) managing emotions, and (c) managing physical health.
Managing the mind refers to managing one’s thoughts and cognitive activity to form
new habits to enhance personal effectiveness. Neuroleadership was a term coined
by David Rock to show the importance of leaders managing their thoughts (Ringleb
& Rock, 2008). It indicates how leaders can use the concepts of neuroscience to
optimize personal effectiveness (Rock, 2009). Neuroscience has shown that new
habits can be formed by focussing one’s mind purposefully to enhance personal
effectiveness (Leaf, 2013). This process is called neuroplasticity. Neuroplasticity is
the way new neuropaths are formed by repetitively focusing cognitive activity in the
conscious mind to form new habits (Leaf, Louw, & Uys, 1997; Lillard & Erisir, 2011).
118
Servant leaders should therefore embrace neuroplasticity to expand their own
thinking (Spears, 2010), to show cognitive complexity (Sun, 2013), to manage the
mental models of self and others (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006), and to practise
quantum thinking (Zohar, 1997), to ultimately produce favourable outcomes.
Managing emotions refers to the level of emotional intelligence or emotional
maturity of a servant leader. Having high self-awareness, continuously striving
towards self-improvement, being selfless, exercising self-control, and not being
easily offended are considered part of emotional maturity (Chathury, 2008). Servant
leaders are able to appraise and express emotions effectively, use emotions to
improve cognitive processes and decision-making, and successfully regulate
emotions by means of regular reflection (Winston & Hartsfield, 2004). Barbuto et al.
(2014) found significant correlations between emotional intelligence and four servant
leadership attributes, namely altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, and
organisational stewardship. Chathury (2008) agrees that emotional self-regulation
plays an important role in being an effective servant leader.
Managing physical health means to improve one’s physical state, to enhance
personal effectiveness, by sustaining high levels of human energy, ensuring work‒
life balance, and practising healthy physical habits. Servant leaders can have the
best knowledge, skill, abilities, or intentions, but without the necessary human
energy and personal health, those attributes cannot be put into practice to serve and
empower others.
The third objective of this function is to improve oneself continuously. Self-
improvement is important for any modern leader leading in today’s world of volatility,
uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (Sinar et al., 2015). Servant leaders are
humble and authentic enough to know they need to continuously learn and develop,
119
not only to stay relevant in a changing world, but also to have the capability to
develop and promote others (Chathury, 2008; Dannhauser & Boshoff, 2007a;
Greenleaf, 1998).
A fourth objective is to reveal one’s true self. Self-revealing refers to being
transparent, showing one’s own true self, and living the values that support a higher-
purpose vision. This is part of being authentic (Van Dierendonck & Heeren, 2006).
Servant leaders align their behaviour with the vision and values of the organisation
(Edwards, 2010), and model the necessary behaviour in an authentic way, to
achieve the higher-purpose vision.
None of the servant leader competencies identified from the results is relevant to
this function. The competency personal capability can therefore be added to this
function, which can be described as being highly effective by means of knowing,
managing, and improving oneself continuously. Servant leaders therefore use the
characteristics of authenticity, humility, and integrity, and the competency of personal
capability to work through the elements of self-awareness (self-knowledge, self-
management, self-improvement, and self-revealing), to become role models and
ambassadors to followers in achieving a higher-purpose vision. This is normally done
by the process of social learning theory, in which followers become servant leaders
themselves by emulating the behaviours of their leader (Bandura, 1977; Liden et al.,
2014). After having learnt to lead and manage oneself, a leader can then lead and
manage others (Charan et al., 2011). The objectives, characteristics, and
competencies related to the function of being a role model and ambassador are
summarised in Table 14, below.
120
Table 14
Area Description
Function Become a role model and ambassador
Leadership question How can I improve?
Objectives • Self-knowledge
• Self-management
• Self-improvement
• Self-revealing
• Stay within the rules
Characteristics Integrity
Authenticity
Humility
Competencies Personal Capability
Once servant leaders have set and translated a higher-purpose vision and applied
the self-awareness objectives to become a role model and ambassador (strategic
leadership), they start practising the functions of operational servant leadership.
2.5.2. Operational Servant Leadership
In the strategic servant leadership functions, a higher-purpose vision is set, and
the leader’s behaviour is aligned accordingly, so that he or she becomes a role
model and ambassador to followers. In operationalising servant leadership, the
hierarchy is turned upside-down; the servant leader serves and empowers
employees to achieve the higher-purpose vision (Blanchard & Hodges, 2008). In this
way, employees do not serve the leader at the expense of the customer, but
employees are served and empowered by the leader to render exceptional customer
service, in line with the set vision (Blanchard, 2010). This then encourages followers
121
become servant leaders themselves (Greenleaf, 1998). The process of inverting the
hierarchy is displayed in Figure 3.
Operational Servant Leadership
Customer & Community

Servant Leader
Processes, Capability &
Policies & Capacity
Employees
Systems Frameworks
Mission,
Strategy &
Goals
2 1
Mission,
Strategy &
Goals
Capability & Processes,
Capacity Employees Policies &
Frameworks Systems
Servant Leader
Customer & Community
Strategic Servant Leadership
Figure 3: Process of inverting the hierarchy (conceptualised by the author)
Operational servant leadership aims to achieve two main functions, namely to (1)
care for, grow, and protect talent and to (2) continuously monitor and improve. These
two functions are described in accordance with the study results.
2.5.2.1 Function 3: Align, Care for, and Grow Talent
Two servant leadership competencies identified from the results relate to this
function, namely building relationships and empowerment. Building relationships was
defined in the results as the method to (a) understand the needs, aspirations,
potential, and mental model of others, (b) create an environment of care, support,
122
encouragement, and acknowledgement, and (c) build trustful relationships with
individuals, customers, and the community.
Empowerment was defined by the results as the process to (a) align and activate
talent, (b) create an effective work environment, (c) develop others, (d) transform
followers, (e) transfer responsibility, (f) share information, (g) coach, mentor, and
support followers individually, (h) build self-confidence, well-being, and proactive
follower behaviour, and (i) help followers mature emotionally, intellectually, and
ethically.
One element of building trustful relationships are to understand the needs,
aspirations, potential, and mental model of others. One dimension of empowerment
is to align and activate talent. When combining these two descriptions, the first
objective of a servant leader in this function would be to understand individual talent,
passion, and purpose, and to align it with the requirements of a position. In this way,
a servant leader will release individual talent in accordance with organisational and
positional requirements (Finley, 2012). The capability and capacity frameworks
developed in the first function of strategic servant leadership can thus be used to
identify and align individual talent. This will enable servant leaders to activate
individual talent in line with the needs of the individual and in accordance with the
needs of the organisation.
Once individual talent has been identified and aligned, a servant leader should
create an effective working climate and a culture that activates individual talent, in
line with the higher-purpose vision. The competencies of building relationships and
empowerment include the skill of creating a work climate of care, support,
encouragement, and acknowledgement. The Job Demands‒Resources Model
supports this concept (Demerouti et al., 2001).
123
The Job Demands‒Resources Model suggests that a balance between job
demands and job resources will enhance work engagement, and decrease burnout,
which will, in turn, produce favourable individual and organisational outcomes
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), such as high organisational
commitment and low turnover intentions (De Beer et al., 2012; Hu et al., 2011;
Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Job resources are generally clustered into organisational
support (supervisory support, job clarity, information, communication, and
participation) and growth opportunities (Rothmann et al., 2006). This is similar to the
responsibility of a servant leader to provide employees with support (Mertel & Brill,
2015; Van Dierendonck, 2011; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), job clarity (Liden
et al., 2008), information (Liden et al., 2008; Spears, 2010), communication (Spears,
2010), participation (Sendjaya et al., 2008; Spears, 2010; Van Dierendonck, 2011),
and growth opportunities (Berger, 2014; Carter & Baghurst, 2013; Crippen, 2005; Hu
& Liden, 2011; Kincaid, 2012; Mehta & Pillay, 2011; Spears, 2010; Van Dierendonck,
2011).
The results in the literature on servant leadership revealed similar results as
proposed by the Job Demands‒Resources Model. For example, servant leadership
was positively related to organisational outcomes such as higher organisational
commitment (Bobbio et al., 2012; Chinomona et al., 2013; Jaramillo et al., 2009a)
and lower employee turnover intention (Hunter et al., 2013; Kashyap & Rangnekar,
2016). Servant leadership was also positively related to work engagement (Carter &
Baghurst, 2013; De Clercq et al., 2014; De Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2014; Sousa
& Van Dierendonck, 2015), and negatively related to burnout (Babakus et al., 2011).
Taking all the above-mentioned into consideration, the second objective in this
function is to care for and protect followers.
124
To care for and protect followers means to create an effective working climate and
culture by providing the necessary job resources and managing the job demands of
employees. A balance between job demands and job resources would enhance work
engagement and reduce burnout, which would ultimately produce favourable
individual and organisational outcomes. Lower burnout levels will also reduce
physical and psychological ill health (De Beer et al., 2012). Servant leaders therefore
care for and protect employees by creating a work environment that enhances work
engagement levels and reduces burnout levels of employees.
A third objective of this function is to grow followers. This relates well to the
empowerment competency. Empowerment and building trustful relationships are
interlinked; without a trustful relationship, it would be difficult to empower another
person. Both these competencies are necessary to ensure continuous individual
growth. Empowerment not only focusses on vocational growth, but also on
emotional, intellectual, and ethical maturity (Sendjaya & Cooper, 2011).
Empowerment also aims to release individual potential (Bambale, 2014). In other
words, a servant leader should aim to activate individual talent by means of growing
and empowering employees, to ultimately release individual talent to the benefit of
others.
In terms of servant leadership characteristics, the traits of listening and
compassion fit this function well. Compassion was described in the results as having
empathy, caring for others, being kind, forgiving others, appreciating others, and
showing unconditional love. Listening was defined in the results as a commitment to
listening actively and respectfully, asking questions to create knowledge, providing
time for reflection, and being conscious of what is unsaid. These two traits assist a
servant leader to build trustful relationships with others and to understand the needs
125
of followers, in order to empower them effectively. Servant leaders should listen first,
to fully understand individual needs, before they apply compassion to provide the
necessary support to activate individual talent. Both listening and compassion might
be helpful to identify and align talent, to care for and protect followers, and to grow
talent effectively.
In summary, servant leaders apply listening and compassion to build trustful
relationships and to empower followers. This is done by, firstly, aligning individual
talent with the requirements of a position, and, secondly, caring for and protecting
followers by creating an effective work climate that activates individual talent.
Thereafter, a servant leader continuously grows and empowers followers, to release
individual talent. The objectives, characteristics, and competencies related to this
function are summarised in Table 15, below.
Table 15
Area Description
Function Align, care for, and grow talent
Leadership question Who needs me?
Objectives • Align followers (identify and align individual talent)
• Care for and protect followers (create an effective working
climate)
• Grow followers (activate and release individual talent)
Characteristics Listening
Compassion
Competencies Building relationships
Empowerment
126
2.5.2.2 Function 4: Continuously Monitor and Improve
The remaining competency of a servant leader identified from the results is
stewardship. It was defined as the process of leaving a positive legacy by taking
accountability for the common interests of society, the organisation, and individuals,
with the perspective of being a caretaker, rather than an owner. Servant leaders
must be good stewards or managers of the finances, assets, resources, positions,
and people with which they have been entrusted (Chathury, 2008; Sendjaya, 2015).
They should act as trustees (Chathury, 2008; Sendjaya, 2015) who continuously
monitor performance (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), practise good governance
(Edwards, 2010), and track progress towards the achievement of the higher-purpose
vision, mission, and strategy of the organisation (Sendjaya, 2015). Servant leaders
should continuously implement positive change interventions (Flint & Grayce, 2013),
and modify systems and procedures to enhance customer and employee satisfaction
(Chathury, 2008). Positive legacies can be created in individuals, organisations, and
societies when good stewardship is applied.
The servant leader characteristic of accountability seems to fit this function well. It
was defined in the results as being responsible, ensuring transparent practices,
holding others accountable, and monitoring performance. This implies that it would
be difficult to apply good stewardship without being accountable. Hence, servant
leaders apply accountability to become good stewards of the finances, assets,
resources, positions, and people with which they have been entrusted, and they
continuously monitor performance and improve systems, policies, and procedures, to
leave a positive legacy in people, organisations, and societies. The objectives,
characteristics, and competencies related to this function are summarised in Table
16, below.
127
Table 16
Area Description
Function Continuously monitor and improve
Leadership question Who is the owner?
Objectives • Good stewardship (finances, assets, resources, positions,
and people)
• Monitor performance
• Improve systems, policies, and procedures
Characteristics Accountability
Competencies Stewardship
2.5.3 Four Analogies to Describe Servant Leadership Functions
Four analogies can be used to describe the four functions of a servant leader in
more practical way, namely a soldier, athlete, farmer, and steward.
The analogy of a soldier can be used to describe the role of setting, translating,
and executing a higher-purpose vision. Soldiers put their own lives on the line to fight
for a higher purpose — the interests of the community. They stand up for what is
right, and do this with courage and selflessness (altruism). In the same way, a
servant leader moves beyond his or her own interests, to achieve a higher-purpose
vision, in the best interests of the community, the organisation, and the employees,
despite adversity. They portray courage and altruism in similar ways that soldiers
do.
Professional athletes strive to improve their personal performance by building on
their strengths, mitigating their weaknesses, exercising mental, emotional, and
physical regulation techniques, training endlessly to become better, and by reflecting
128
on their performance after a competition. They also compete within the rules.
Servant leaders apply the same principles in the function of becoming a role model
and ambassador. They practise the principles of self-knowledge, self-management,
self-improvement, and self-revealing, and they operate within the rules.
The role of growing, caring, and protecting talent can be compared to the role of a
farmer. A farmer grows, cares for, and protects livestock or flora. A farmer firstly
prepares the ground, then chooses a specific type of seed that would grow the best
in the specific environment. Once a seed is planted, the farmer serves the needs of
that seed, ensuring the seed has the necessary water, fertiliser, pruning, and space
to grow optimally. When the seed starts to grow into a plant, the farmer protects the
plant from anything that could hurt or hinder its growth. The main objective of a
farmer is thus to harvest the plant, to release it for a higher purpose. The same
principles apply to a servant leader. A servant leader first identifies and aligns
individual passion, purpose, and talent with the requirements of the job, and
thereafter serves the employee by creating the right work climate and culture to
enhance work engagement, and by providing the employee opportunities, resources,
and freedom to grow. A servant leader also identifies and eliminates anything that
could negatively influence the employee, the organisation, or the community. The
fundamental task of a servant leader is to empower employees to do the work
independently and to release their individual talent, to achieve a higher purpose.
The analogy of a steward can be used to describe the function of monitoring
performance and continuously improving products, services, processes, policies, and
systems. A good steward is someone who manages the belongings of others well.
Stewards see themselves, not as owners, but rather as caretakers who are
accountable to an owner. The same principles apply to a servant leader. Servant
129
leaders use their time, talent, position, finances, and assets as a means to serve a
higher purpose. They are accountable for what they do, and diligently monitor
progress made towards achieving a higher-purpose vision. They also continuously
improve systems, policies, and procedures, to bring forth positive change that will
leave a favourable legacy to multiple stakeholders.
A summary of the four servant leadership functions is provided in Table 17,
together with the relevant objectives, characteristics, competencies, and analogies.
130
Table 17
Summary of the Functions of a Servant Leader
Analogy Soldier Athlete Farmer Steward

Function Set, translate, and execute a Become a role model and Align, care for, and grow Continuously monitor and
higher-purpose vision ambassador talent improve
Leadership What is the higher vision? How can I improve? Who needs me? Who is the owner?
question
Objectives • Set a higher-purpose • Self-knowledge • Align followers • Good stewardship
vision • Self-management • Care for and protect • Monitor performance
• Translate the vision into • Self-improvement followers • Improve systems,
a mission, strategy, and • Self-revealing • Grow followers policies, and procedures
goals • Stay within the rules
• Execute the vision by
serving others
• Stand up for what is right
Characteristics Courage Authenticity Listening Accountability
Altruism Humility Compassion
Integrity
Competencies Compelling vision Personal capability Building relationships Stewardship
Empowerment
Performance Strategic servant leadership Strategic servant leadership Operational servant Operational servant
area leadership leadership
131
2.5.4. The Talent Wheel of Servant Leadership
The test of true servant leadership is whether followers become servant leaders
themselves (Greenleaf, 1998). The four functions of a servant leader highlighted by
the results can be used as a framework to develop servant leaders. Figure 4, below,
depicts the four functions of a servant leader in the Talent Wheel of Servant
Leadership, with the relevant characteristics and competencies.
Figure 4. Talent wheel of servant leadership (conceptualised by the author)
The Talent Wheel is a conceptual process to develop servant leaders practically
within organisations. It consists of four phases of transforming followers into servant
132
leaders, namely (1) the athlete-transformation phase, (2) the farmer-transformation
phase, (3) the steward-transformation phase, and (4) the soldier-transformation
phase. The first transformation phase is depicted in Figure 5.
1
2
Employee
Figure 5. The athlete-transformation phase (conceptualised by the author)
The aim of the first development phase is to transform employees into ‘athletes.’
In other words, through the example of the servant leader, employees transform into
role models and ambassadors by being the best at what they currently do and by
living the values and behaviours of servant leadership. The first step in this phase is
133
to translate the higher-purpose vision into clear individual goals by applying the
soldier-leadership function. In this way, the employee fully understands his or her
contribution and responsibility to achieve the higher-purpose vision.
The second step is to (a) align the passion, purpose, and talent of the employee
with the requirements of a position and to (b) activate the employee’s talent in line
with the higher-purpose vision. This is done by applying the farmer-leadership
function of aligning, caring, and growing the employee. Once Phase 1 is complete,
the talent wheel rotates clockwise, and the second development phase starts (Figure
6).
1
2
Employee
Figure 6. The farmer-transformation phase (conceptualised by the author)
134
The aim of the second development phase is to transform the employee into a
‘farmer.’ In other words, the servant leaders should enable the employee to lead
others effectively. The first step in this process is to teach the employee to manage
others. A servant leader therefore transfers his or her people management skills to
the employee by applying the athlete-leadership function.
The second step in this development phase is to transfer some form of people
accountability to the employee. This will give the employee practical experience in
managing others. However, it is important at this stage that the performance of the
employee is monitored consistently, to identify performance gaps and to provide
development support when needed. Servant leaders will thus apply the stewards-
leadership function in the second step, to monitor employee performance
continuously. A graphical display of these two steps is provided in Figure 6, above.
Once employees have completed the second development phase, the Talent
Wheel is again rotated clockwise, and the third transformation phase begins (Figure
7, below). In the third development phase, the servant leader transforms the
employee into a ‘steward.’ This is done by providing continuous performance
coaching to the employee, to ensure that the employee becomes an effective
steward of the finances, assets, and resources of the company. This is done by
applying the farmer-leadership function of growing the employee. It is important that
the servant leader re-emphasise the higher purpose at this stage, as the employee
might become selfish when receiving more authority and accountability. The
employee might forget the principle of being a steward, rather than an owner, if the
focus in not on a higher-purpose vision. It is therefore imperative to re-emphasise the
135
higher purpose vision as a second step in this phase by applying the soldier-
leadership function. These two steps are displayed in Figure 7.
1
2
Employee
Figure 7. The steward-transformation phase (conceptualised by the author)
Once employees have completed the stewardship development phase, they can
start with the last transformation phase. The Talent Wheel then again rotates
clockwise, as depicted in Figure 8, below. The aim of the fourth development
phase is to transform employees into ‘soldiers.’ This is done by monitoring employee
performance consistently, by applying the stewards-leadership function, and to
136
create opportunities for continuous personal growth and development, while being a
role model and ambassador for the employee, by applying the athlete-leadership
function. The steps are displayed in Figure 8.
1
2
Employee
Figure 8. The soldier-transformation phase (conceptualised by the author)
The four phases of servant leadership development (as describe above) seem to
correlate well with the Leadership Pipeline Framework of Charan et al. (2011), which
proposes four leadership development phases, namely (1) managing self, (2)
managing others, (3) functional manager, and (4) business manager. In Phase 1, it
137
suggests that individuals should first manage themselves before they can manage
others. This is similar to the athlete-leadership function of servant leadership — to
apply self-knowledge, self-management, self-improvement, and self-revealing.
The second phase in their development model is to manage others. This is similar
to the farmer-leadership function of servant leadership — to align, care for, and grow
followers. The third phase of their model focusses on managing a function or
department. This phase relates well with the steward-leadership function of servant
leadership — to (a) be a good steward of finances, assets, resources, positions, and
people, (b) monitor performance, and (c) improve systems, policies, and procedures.
The fourth phase of managing a business or organisation relates well to the
soldier-leadership function. In this function, a servant leader sets, translates, and
executes a higher-purpose vision, mission, and strategy. A theoretical correlation
between these two models is depicted in Figure 9, below.
Figure 9. Theoretical correlation between the Talent Wheel of Servant Leadership
and Leadership Pipeline of Charan, Drotter, and Noel (2011)
The difference, however, between these two models is that a servant leader
applies all four functions simultaneously after development, whereas, in the model of
138
Charan et al. (2011), leaders only apply the function of that particular occupational
level. Servant leaders thus apply all four functions simultaneously, to serve the
needs of others, in accordance with the context, environment, or situation.
2.5.5. The Heart, Head, and Hands of a Servant Leader
Blanchard and Hodges (2008) proposed three dimensions of a servant leader,
namely the heart, head, and hands. These three dimensions support the results of
the present study’s literature review. The heart of a servant leader refers to a
person’s leadership intent, the reason why someone wants to lead. Greenleaf (1998)
described the intent to serve as being the starting point of servant leadership. The
Servant Leadership Model of Blanchard and Hodges (2008) suggests that servant
leadership starts with a heart of humility and confidence in unconditional love. In their
model, pride is seen as the opposite of humility, and fear as the opposite of
unconditional love.
Another model that supports this theory is the Heart-styles Model of Anderson and
Jahng (2014). This model proposes four leader-heart styles, namely love versus fear
and humility versus pride (Anderson & Jahng, 2014). Van Dierendonck and
Patterson (2014) support this view of love being a core virtue from which servant
leadership behaviour originates. Taking these models into consideration, it seems
that servant leadership begins with a heart of unconditional (or agape) love.
The eight servant leadership characteristics highlighted in the results of the
present study’s literature review would then possibly originate from a heart of agape
love. These characteristics are needed to apply the five servant leader
competencies identified by the results. This conceptual thinking is supported by the
139
Servant Leadership Models of Page and Wong (2000), Van Dierendonck and
Patterson (2014), and Russell and Stone (2002).
The head of a servant leader refers to the ability to provide strategic servant
leadership. Blanchard and Hodges (2008) described it as creating and implementing
a purposeful vision. Their foundational thinking on the head dimension of servant
leadership aligns well to the functions of strategic servant leadership, namely to set,
translate, and execute a higher-purpose vision, and to become a role model and
ambassador for that vision.
The hands of a servant leader refer to the process of leading and developing
others to prosper and to achieve high standards of operational performance. This
relates well to the functions of operational servant leadership, namely to align, care
for, and grow talent, and to continuously monitor and improve.
The three dimensions of servant leadership were summarised by Sendjaya (2015)
as the know-why, know-what, and know-how elements of being a servant leader.
The heart dimension refers to the know-why element of servant leadership, the
reason for or intent of a servant leader wanting to lead. The head dimension refers
to the know-what element of servant leadership. By applying strategic servant
leadership, a servant leader knows what the higher purpose is. The hands
dimension refers to the know-how element of servant leadership. By applying
operational servant leadership, a servant leader knows how to serve, and supports
employees to achieve the higher-purpose vision.
2.5.6. A Conceptual Model to Operationalise Servant Leadership
In this section, the four functions of the Talent Wheel and the dimensions of the
heart, head, and hands of a servant leader are combined into one conceptual model
140
to operationalise servant leadership. This model proposes a systematic way to apply
servant leadership. From a strategic point of view, a servant leader firstly sets a
higher purpose vision out of a heart of agape love by applying the soldier-leadership
function. Thereafter, the higher purpose vision is translated, using the head
dimension of servant leadership, to establish a mission, strategy, and goals that
support the higher-purpose vision. Capability and capacity frameworks are also
designed, and systems, policies, and procedures are developed to support the
vision, mission, and strategy.
Secondly, the servant leader aims to become a role model and ambassador, in
accordance with the set vision. This is done applying the athlete-leadership function.
After implementing strategic servant leadership, the hierarchy is inverted, and the
functions of operational leadership are activated.
The third step is to apply the farmer-leadership function, to align, care for, and
grow talent, using the capability and capacity frameworks. Thereafter, the steward-
leadership function is applied, to continuously monitor and improve. This is the fourth
step. In this step, the designed systems, policies, and procedures are used to track
progress and to implement change interventions to optimise organisational
effectiveness. The farmer- and steward-leadership functions are perceived to be
related to the hands of a servant leader.
The fifth step is to apply the talent wheel, to empower employees to become
servant leaders themselves. This five-step procedure to operationalise servant
leadership is summarised in Figure 10, below.
141
Figure 10. Conceptual model to operationalise servant leadership (conceptualised
by the author)
2.6. CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to discover the characteristics, competencies,
measures, and outcomes of servant leadership. This was done using a systematic
literature review. The results highlighted eight servant leadership characteristics,
namely authenticity, humility, integrity, listening, compassion, accountability,
courage, and altruism. The servant leadership competencies were identified as:
building relationships, empowerment, stewardship, and compelling vision. The
systematic literature review also indicated ten measures of servant leadership. The
outcomes related to servant leadership were clustered into individual outcomes,
group- or team outcomes, and organisational outcomes. On an individual level,
142
servant leadership was found to positively influence work engagement,
organisational citizenship behaviour, creativity and innovation, organisational
commitment, trust, self-efficacy, job satisfaction, person‒job fit or person‒
organisation fit, leader‒member exchange (LMX), and work‒life balance.
In addition, servant leadership was negatively related to burnout and turnover
intention. On a team- or group level, group organisational citizenship behaviour,
group identification, service culture or climate, and procedural justice climate were
positively influenced by servant leadership. Finally, on an organisational level,
servant leadership was positively related to customer service and sales
performance.
The results were summarised in a conceptual framework, to operationalise
servant leadership in an organisation. This framework was used to discuss the four
functions of a servant leader, propose the Talent Wheel to develop servant leaders,
and identify three dimensions of a servant leader, namely the heart, head, and
hands. A five-step procedure was proposed to operationalise servant leadership in
an organisation.
This study makes a theoretical and practical contribution to the body of knowledge
on servant leadership.
2.6.1. Implications for Management
The results of this study provide managers with a framework and standard
procedure to implement servant leadership within organisations. In return,
management could expect the favourable individual, team, or organisational
outcomes that servant leadership produces. Leadership development institutions and
professionals could use this framework to develop servant leaders within
143
organisations. Management consultants could also use it to assist companies to
become more effective, purposeful, and service-orientated. The general aim,
however, should be to develop servant leaders, in order to build servant
organisations.
2.6.2. Limitations
Normally, a systematic literature review is done by at least two researchers,
especially the evaluation of the quality of articles (Khan, Kunz, Kleijnen, & Antes,
2011). In this study, however, only one researcher evaluated the quality of the
articles. This was a first limitation. Another limitation was the scope of this literature
review. It excluded grey literature, books, book reviews, magazine articles,
conference presentations, and white papers. It also excluded studies done before
the year 2000 and after 2015, as well as research done in sectors other than the
primary, secondary, and tertiary sectors. Literature from these sources was used to
support the findings in the discussion section, but not used in the actual research.
2.6.3. Future Research Suggestions
Although the proposed framework was developed from current servant leadership
literature, it must still be validated by experimental and longitudinal studies. These
validation studies could show whether this leadership style is effective. The
relationship between the Job Demands‒Resources Model and the functions of a
servant leader would also be an interesting future study. This could indicate the
interrelatedness of job demands, job resources, work engagement, burnout, and
servant leadership. An additional future study that could add value would be to
design a leadership development intervention based on this conceptual framework,
144
and to test its effectiveness in enhancing servant leadership attributes. The proposed
framework may not only be applicable to develop servant leaders, but may also be
used to create serving organisations, organisations that leave behind legacies in
individuals and the community throughout their existence. Future experimental
studies or case studies could validate this possibility.
Publication Notice
The author declares that this chapter was presented and published as follows:
• The results of this chapter were presented at an international conference:
Coetzer, M. F., Bussin, M., & Geldenhuys, M. (2016, September). A conceptual
framework to operationalize servant leadership within an organization. Paper
presented at the 3rd Global Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, Bifröst,
Iceland.
• The first part of this chapter was published in an international peer-reviewed
scientific journal: Coetzer, M. F., Bussin, M., & Geldenhuys, M. (2017). The
functions of a servant leader. Administrative Sciences, 7(5), 1-32.
doi: 10.3390/admsci7010005
• The second part of this chapter was submitted for publication as a chapter in a
book: Coetzer, M. F. (In press). A conceptual framework to operationalize
servant leadership within an organization. In D. Van Dierendonck and K.
Patterson (Eds.), Practising servant leadership: Developments in
implementation. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan Publishers.
145
REFERENCES
Anderson, D., & Jahng, N. (2014). Academic overview of the heartstyles indicator.
Paddington, London: Heart Brands IP.
Babakus, E., Yavas, U., & Ashill, N. J. (2011). Service worker burnout and turnover
intentions: Roles of person‒job fit, servant leadership, and customer orientation.
Services Marketing Quarterly, 32(1), 17–31.
doi: 10.1080/15332969.2011.533091
Bakar, H. A., & McCann, R. M. (2016). The mediating effect of leader–member
dyadic communication style agreement on the relationship between servant
leadership and group-level organizational citizenship behavior. Management
Communication Quarterly, 30(1), 32-58. doi: 10.1177/0893318915601162
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands‒Resources Model: State
of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
doi: 10.1108/02683940710733115
Ball, J., Bradley, L., Dunn, W., Durando, P., Gaines, R., Home, S., Housser, E., Lou,
J. Q., Mathews, M., McCluskey, A., Michlovitz, S., Missiuna, C., Pollock, N.,
Telford, J., Thompson, L., Tickle-Degnen, L., & Watson, D. (2008). Evidence-
based rehabilitation: A guide to practice (2nd ed.). New York: SLACK
Incorporated.
Bambale, A. J. J. (2014). Relationship between servant leadership and
organizational citizenship behaviors: Review of literature and future research
directions. Journal of Marketing and Management, 5(1), 1–16.
doi: 10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice Hall.
Barbuto, J. E., Gottfredson, R. K., & Searle, T. P. (2014). An examination of
146
emotional intelligence as an antecedent of servant leadership. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(3), 315–323.
doi: 10.1177/1548051814531826
Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct
clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3),
300–326. doi: 10.1177/1059601106287091
Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of
doi: 10.1177/107179190000700302
Beck, C. D. (2014). Antecedents of servant leadership: A mixed methods study.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(3), 299–314.
doi: 10.1177/1548051814529993
Berger, T. A. (2014). Servant leadership 2.0: A call for strong theory. Sociological
Viewpoints, 30(1), 146–167. Retrieved from http://0-
search.ebscohost.com.ujlink.uj.ac.za/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=1001
36335&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Blanchard, K. (2010). Leading at a higher level: Blanchard on leadership and
creating high performing organizations. New Jersey: FT Press.
Blanchard, K., & Hodges, P. (2008). Lead like Jesus: Lessons for everyone from the
greatest leadership role model of all time. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, P., Zigarmi, D., & Halsey, V. (2013). Situational leadership II.
San Diego, CA: Ken Blanchard Companies.
Bobbio, A., Van Dierendonck, D., & Manganelli, A. M. (2012). Servant leadership in
Italy and its relation to organizational variables. Leadership, 8(3), 229–243.
doi: 10.1177/1742715012441176
147
Carter, D., & Baghurst, T. (2013). The influence of servant leadership on restaurant
employee engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(3), 453–464.
doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1882-0
Charan, R., Drotter, S., & Noel, J. (2011). The leadership pipeline: How to build the
leadership powered company (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and
Sons.
Chatbury, A., Beaty, D., & Kriek, H. S. (2011). Servant leadership, trust and
implications for the “base-of-the-pyramid” segment in South Africa. South
African Journal of Business Management, 42(4), 57–62. Retrieved from EBSCO
Host database http://0-web.a.ebscohost.com.ujlink.uj.ac.za
Chathury, A. S. (2008). Servant leadership in a large South African business
organization (Master’s thesis). University of South Africa, Pretoria. Retrieved
from https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Chen, C. Y., Chen, C. H., & Li, C. I. (2013). The influence of leaders’ spiritual values
of servant leadership on employee motivational autonomy and eudaemonic well-
being. Journal of Religion and Health, 52(2), 418–438. doi: 10.1007/s10943-
011-9479-3
Chen, Z., Zhu, J., & Zhou, M. (2015). How does a servant leader fuel the service
fire? A multilevel model of servant leadership, individual self identity, group
competition climate, and customer service performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 100(2), 511–521. doi: 10.1037/a0038036
Chinomona, R., Mashiloane, M., & Pooe, D. (2013). The influence of servant
leadership on employee trust in a leader and commitment to the organization.
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(14), 405–414.
doi: 10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n14p405
148
Choudhary, A. I., Akhta, S. A., & Zaheer, A. (2012). Impact of transformational and
servant leadership on organizational performance: A comparative analysis.
Journal of Business Ethics, 116(2), 433–440. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1470-8
Christensen, L. J., Mackey, A., & Whetten, D. (2014). Taking responsibility for
corporate social responsibility: The role of leaders in creating responsible firm
behaviors. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 164–178.
doi: 10.5465/amp.2012.0047
Chung, J. Y., Jung, C. S., Kyle, G. T., & Petrick, J. F. (2010). Servant leadership and
procedural justice in the U.S. National Park Service: The antecedents of job
satisfaction. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 28(3), 1–15. Retrieved
from http://0-
Collins, J. (2001). Level 5 leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce resolve.
Harvard Business Review, 79(1), 66–76, 175. Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/2005/07/level-5-leadership-the-triumph-of-humility-and-fierce-
resolve
Crippen, C. (2005). Servant-leadership as an effective model for educational
leadership and management: First to serve, then to lead. Management in
Education, 18(5), 11–16. doi: 10.1177/089202060501800503
Dannhauser, Z., & Boshoff, A. B. (2007a). Structural equivalence of the Barbuto and
Wheeler (2006) Servant Leadership Questionnaire on North American and
South African samples. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(2), 148–
168. Retrieved from
https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/ijls/new/vol2iss2/dannhauserbo
149
shoff/DannhauserBoshoffV2Is2.pdf
Dannhauser, Z., & Boshoff, A. B. (2007b). The relationship between servant
leadership, follower trust, team commitment, and unit effectiveness (Doctoral
thesis). University of Stellenbosch, Cape Town. Retrieved from
https://scholar.sun.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10019.1/1365/dannhauser_relationshi
p_2007.pdf?sequence=3
De Beer, L. T., Rothmann, S., & Pienaar, J. (2012). A confirmatory investigation of a
job demands‒resources model using a categorical estimator. Psychological
Reports: Human Resources and Marketing, 111(2), 528–544.
doi: 10.2466/01.03.10.PR0.111.5.528-544
De Clercq, D., Bouckenooghe, D., Raja, U., & Matsyborska, G. (2014). Servant
leadership and work engagement: The contingency effects of leader‒follower
social capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 183–212.
doi: 10.1002/hrdq.21185
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The Job
Demands‒Resources Model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3),
499–512. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11419809
Dennis, R. S., & Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of the servant leadership
assessment instrument. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(8),
600–615. doi: 10.1108/01437730510633692
De Sousa, M. J. C., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2014). Servant leadership and
engagement in a merge process under high uncertainty. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 27(6), 877–899. doi: 10.1108/JOCM-07-
2013-0133
De Waal, A. (2007). The characteristics of a high performance organisation.
150
Business Strategy Series, 8(3), 179–185. doi: 10.1108/17515630710684178
De Waal, A. (2012). Characteristics of high performance organisations. Journal of
Management Research, 4(4), 39–71. doi: 10.5296/jmr.v4i4.2062
De Waal, A., Sivro, M., & Mirna, S. (2012). The relation between servant leadership,
organizational performance, and the high-performance organization framework.
doi: 10.1177/1548051812439892
Duff, A. J. (2013). Performance management coaching: Servant leadership and
gender implications. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34(3),
204–221. doi: 10.1108/01437731311326657
Edwards, T. (2010). A content and contextual comparison of contemporary
leadership approaches with specific reference to ethical and servant leadership:
An imperative for service delivery and good governance. Journal for Christian
Scholarship, 46(1), 93–109. Retrieved from
http://journals.co.za/content/tcwet/46/1_2/EJC110820
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of
unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 61–
94. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02484.x
Eicher-Catt, D. (2005). The myth of servant-leadership: A feminist perspective.
Women and Language, 28(1), 17‒25. Retrieved from EBSCO Host database
http://0-web.a.ebscohost.com.ujlink.uj.ac.za
Epstein, R. M., & Hundert, E. M. (2002). Defining and assessing professional
competence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(2), 226–235.
doi: 10.1504/IJHTM.2002.001137
Finley, S. (2012). Servant leadership: A literature review. Review of Management
151
Innovation and Creativity, 5(14), 135–144. Retrieved from EBSCO Host
database http://0-web.a.ebscohost.com.ujlink.uj.ac.za
Flint, B., & Grayce, M. (2013). Servant leadership: History, a conceptual model,
multicultural fit, and the servant leadership solution for continuous improvement.
Collective Efficacy: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Leadership,
20, 59–72. Retrieved from http://emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/S1479-
3660(2013)0000020004
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,
14(6), 693–727. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.001
Garber, J. S., Madigan, E. A., Click, E. R., & Fitzpatrick, J. J. (2009). Attitudes
towards collaboration and servant leadership among nurses, physicians and
residents. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 23(4), 331–340. doi:
10.1080/13561820902886253
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:
Development of leader‒member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25
years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership
Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=manag
ementfacpub
Greenleaf, R. K. (1998). The power of servant-leadership. San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Gupta, S. (2013). Serving the bottom of the pyramid: A servant leadership
perspective. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 10(3), 98–107.
Hale, J. R., & Fields, D. L. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A
study of followers in Ghana and the USA. Leadership, 3(4), 397–417.
152
doi: 10.1177/1742715007082964
Hanse, J. J., Harlin, U., Jarebrant, C., Ulin, K., & Winkel, J. (2016). The impact of
servant leadership dimensions on leader‒member exchange among health care
professionals. Journal of Nursing Management, 24(2), 228–234.
doi: 10.1111/jonm.12304
Hsiao, C., Lee, Y., & Chen, W. (2015). The effect of servant leadership on customer
value co-creation: A cross-level analysis of key mediating roles. Tourism
Management, 49, 45–57. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2015.02.012
Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness:
An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96(4), 851–862. doi: 10.1037/a0022465
Hu, Q., Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2011). The Job Demands–Resources
Model: An analysis of additive and joint effects of demands and resources.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 181–190. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2010.12.009
Humphreys, H. J. (2005). Contextual implications for transformational and servant
leadership: A historical investigation. Management Decision, 43(10), 1410–
1431. doi: 10.1108/00251740510634949
Hunter, E. M., Neubert, M. J., Perry, S. J., Witt, L. A., Penney, L. M., & Weinberger,
E. (2013). Servant leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes
for employees and the organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 316–331.
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.12.001
Hwang, H. J., Kang, M., & Youn, M. (2014). The influence of a leader’s servant
leadership on employees’ perception of customers’ satisfaction with the service
and employees’ perception of customers’ trust in the service firm: The
moderating role of employees’ trust in the leader. Journal of Global Scholars of
153
Marketing Science, 24(1), 65–76. doi: 10.1080/21639159.2013.852908
Institute for Public Health Sciences. (2002). 11 questions to help you make sense of
descriptive/cross-sectional studies [Online]. Retrieved from
https://reache.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/cross-sectional-appraisal-tool.pdf.
Jaramillo, F., Bande, B., & Varela, J. (2015). Servant leadership and ethics: A dyadic
examination of supervisor behaviors and salesperson perceptions. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 35(2), 108–124.
doi: 10.1080/08853134.2015.1010539
Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2009a). Examining the
impact of servant leadership on sales force performance. Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management, 29(3), 257–275. doi: 10.2753/PSS0885-
3134290404
Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2009b). Examining the
impact of servant leadership on salespersons’ turnover intention. Journal of
Personal Selling and Sales Management, 29(4), 351–366.
doi: 10.2753/PSS0885-3134290404
Jones, D. (2012). Does servant leadership lead to greater customer focus and
employee satisfaction? Business Studies Journal, 4(2), 21–36. Retrieved from
EBSCO Host database http://0-web.a.ebscohost.com.ujlink.uj.ac.za
Kaplan, R. S. (2005). How the balanced scorecard complements the McKinsey 7-S
Model. Strategy and Leadership, 33(3), 41–46.
doi: 10.1108/10878570510594442
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive
performance. Harvard Business Review, 72(1), 71–79. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dcca/93c621f618e511a94e15384e52ff893be3c
154
7.pdf
Karanja, D. N. (2013). Inspirational servant leadership: Nurturing youth leadership for
sustainable peace in Africa. Collective Efficacy: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on
International Leadership, 20, 89–104. Retrieved from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/S1479-
3660%282013%290000020006
Kashyap, V., & Rangnekar, S. (2016). Servant leadership, employer brand
perception, trust in leaders and turnover intentions: A sequential mediation
model. Review of Managerial Science, 10(3), 437–461. doi: 10.1007/s11846-
014-0152-6
Kazdin, A. E. (Ed.). (2000). Encyclopedia of Psychology. Washington, DC: Oxford
University Press.
Khan, K. E., Khan, S. E., & Chaudhry, A. G. (2015). Impact of servant leadership on
workplace spirituality: Moderating role of involvement culture. Pakistan Journal
of Science, 67(1), 109–113. Retrieved from EBSCO Host database http://0-
web.a.ebscohost.com.ujlink.uj.ac.za
Khan, K., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., & Antes, G. (2011). Systematic reviews to support
evidence-based medicine (2nd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
Khan, K. S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., & Antes, G. (2003). Five steps to conducting a
systematic review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 96(3), 118–121.
doi: 10.1258/jrsm.96.3.118
Kincaid, M. (2012). Building corporate social responsibility through servant-
leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(2), 151–171.
Retrieved from
https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/ijls/new/vol7iss2/IJLS_Vol7Iss2
155
_Kincaid_pp151-171.pdf
Konczak, L. J., Stelly, D. J., & Trusty, M. L. (2000). Defining and measuring
empowering leader behaviors: Development of an upward feedback instrument.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(2), 301–313.
doi: 10.1177/00131640021970420
Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the
organizational leadership assessment (OLA) instrument (Doctoral thesis).
Florida Atlantic University, Fort Lauderdale, FL. Retrieved from
http://www.olagroup.com/images/mmdocument/laub dissertation brief.pdf
Leaf, C. (2013). Switch on your brain: The key to peak happiness, thinking, and
health. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group.
Leaf, C. M., Louw, B., & Uys, I. (1997). The development of a model for geodesic
learning: The geodesic information processing model. The South African Journal
of Communication Disorders, 44, 53–70. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9819969
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. doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.0034
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. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006
Lillard, A. S., & Erisir, A. (2011). Old dogs learning new tricks: Neuroplasticity
beyond the juvenile period. Development Review, 31(4), 207–239.
doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2011.07.008
Liu, B., Hu, W., & Cheng, Y. (2015). From the west to the east: Validating servant
156
leadership in the Chinese public sector. Public Personnel Management, 44(1),
25–45. doi: 10.1177/0091026014555995
Mackey, J., & Sisodia, R. (2014). Conscious capitalism: Liberating the heroic spirit of
business. New York, USA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.
Mahembe, B., & Engelbrecht, A. S. (2013). A confirmatory factor analytical study of a
servant leadership measure in South Africa. SA Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 39(2), 1–8. doi: 10.4102/sajip.v39i2.1127
Mehta, S., & Pillay, R. (2011). Revisiting servant leadership: An empirical study in
Indian context. The Journal of Contemporary Management Research, 5(2), 24–
41. Retrieved from EBSCO Host database http://0-
Melchar, D. E., & Bosco, S. M. (2010). Achieving high organization performance
through servant leadership. The Journal of Business Inquiry, 9(1), 74–88.
Retrieved from
/citations?view_op=view_citation&continue=/scholar?hl=en&start=20&as_sdt=0,
18&scilib=1&citilm=1&citation_for_view=r_Sqnh8AAAAJ:8AbLer7MMksC&hl=en
&oi=p
Mertel, T., & Brill, C. (2015). What every leader ought to know about becoming a
servant leader. Industrial and Commercial Training, 47(5), 228–235.
doi: 10.1108/ICT-02-2015-0013
Miao, Q., Newman, A., Schwarz, G., & Xu, L. (2014). Servant leadership, trust, and
the organizational commitment of public sector employees in China. Public
Administration, 92(3), 727–743. doi: 10.1111/padm.12091
Mittal, R., & Dorfman, P. W. (2012). Servant leadership across cultures. Journal of
World Business, 47(4), 555–570. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.009
157
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008).
Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and
servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6),
1220–1233. doi: 10.1037/a0012695
Newman, A., Schwarz, G., Cooper, B., & Sendjaya, S. (2015). How servant
leadership influences organizational citizenship behavior: The roles of LMX,
empowerment, and proactive personality. Journal of Business Ethics.
doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2827-6
Owen, K., Mundy, R., Guild, W., & Guild, R. (2001). Creating and sustaining the high
performance organization. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal,
11(1), 10–21. doi: 10.1108/09604520110362443
Ozyilmaz, A., & Cicek, S. S. (2015). How does servant leadership affect employee
attitudes, behaviors, and psychological climates in a for-profit organizational
context? Journal of Management & Organization, 21(3), 263–290.
doi: 10.1017/jmo.2014.80
Page, D., & Wong, T. P. T. (2000). A conceptual framework for measuring servant
leadership. In S. Adjibol (Ed.), The human factor in shaping the course of history
and development, 69–110. Washington, DC: American University Press.
Panaccio, A., Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Cao, X. (2015).
Toward an understanding of when and why servant leadership accounts for
employee extra-role behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(4), 657-
675. doi: 10.1007/s10869-014-9388-z
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. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6
158
Patterson, K. A. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model (Doctoral
dissertation). Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA. Retrieved from
http://www.mendeley.com/research/servant-leadership-theoretical-model/
Pekerti, A. A., & Sendjaya, S. (2010). Exploring servant leadership across cultures:
Comparative study in Australia and Indonesia. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 21(5), 754–780.
doi: 10.1080/09585191003658920
Peters, T., & Waterman, R. H. (2004). In search of excellence: Lessons from
America’s best run companies (2nd ed.). London: Profile Books.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A
handbook and classification. New York: Oxford University Press.
Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B. M., & Lange, D. (2012). CEO servant leadership:
Exploring executive characteristics and firm performance. Personnel
Psychology, 65(3), 565–596. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01253.x
Polleys, M. S. (2002). One university’s response to the anti-leadership vaccine:
Developing servant leaders. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(3), 117–130.
doi: 10.1177/107179190200800310
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). The big idea: Creating shared value. Harvard
Business Review, 89(2), 62–77. Retrieved from EBSCO Host database http://0-
Pyrczak, F. (1999). Evaluating research in academic journals. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak
Publishing.
Rai, R., & Prakash, A. (2012). A relationship perspective to knowledge creation: Role
of servant leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(2), 61–85.
doi: 10.1002/jls.21238
159
Reed, L. L., Vidaver-Cohen, D., & Colwell, S. R. (2011). A new scale to measure
executive servant leadership: Development, analysis, and implications for
research. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(3), 415–434. doi: 10.1007/s10551-
010-0729-1
Ringleb, A. H., & Rock, D. (2008). The emerging field of neuroleadership.
Neuroleadership Journal, (1), 1–17. Retrieved from
https://neuroleadership.com/wp-content/uploads/groups-file-access/The-
emerging-field-of-NL.pdf
Rock, D. (2009). Your brain at work: Strategies for overcoming distraction, regaining
focus, and working smarter all day long. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Rodríguez-Carvajal, R., De Rivas, S., Herrero, M., Moreno-Jiménez, B., & Van
Dierendonck, D. (2014). Leading people positively: Cross-cultural validation of
the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS). The Spanish Journal of Psychology,
17(63), 1–13. doi: 10.1017/sjp.2014.73
Rodriguez-Rubio, A., & Kiser, A. I. T. (2013). An examination of servant leadership
in the United States and Mexico: Do age and gender make a difference? The
Global Studies Journal, 5(2), 127–149. Retrieved from EBSCO Host database
Rothmann, S., Mostert, K., & Strydom, M. (2006). A psychometric evaluation of the
Job Demands‒Resources Scale in South Africa. South African Journal of
Industrial Psychology, 32(4), 76–86. Retrieved from
http://www.ianrothmann.com/pub/psyc_v32_n4_a11.pdf
Rubio-Sanchez, A., Bosco, S. M., & Melchar, D. E. (2013). Servant leadership and
world values. The Global Studies Journal, 5(3), 19–33. Retrieved from EBSCO
160
Ruíz, P., Martínez, R., & Rodrigo, J. (2010). Intra-organizational social capital in
business organizations: A theoretical model with a focus on servant leadership
as antecedent. Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics, 1, 43–59. Retrieved from
Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes:
Developing a practical model. Leadership and Organizational Development
Journal, 23(3), 145–157. doi: 10.1108/01437730210424084
Russell, R. F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 22(2), 76–84.
doi: 10.1108/01437730110382631
Savage-Austin, A. R., & Honeycutt, A. (2011). Servant leadership: A
phenomenological study of practices, experiences, organisational effectiveness,
and barriers. Journal of Business and Economics Research, 9(1), 49–54.
Retrieved from https://vpn.utm.my/docview/848788676?accountid=41678
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their
relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293–315. doi: 10.1002/job.248
Schuitema, E. (2004). Leadership: The Care and Growth Model (2nd ed.). Cape
Town: Ampersand Press.
Schwepker, C. H., & Schultz, R. J. (2015). Influence of the ethical servant leader and
ethical climate on customer value enhancing sales performance. Journal of
doi: 10.1080/08853134.2015.1010537
Searle, T. P., & Barbuto, J. E. (2011). Servant leadership, hope, and organizational
virtuousness: A framework exploring positive micro and macro behaviors and
161
performance impact. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1),
107–117. doi: 10.1177/1548051810383863
Sendjaya, S. (2015). Personal and organizational excellence through servant
leadership: Learning to serve, serving to lead, leading to transform. Switzerland:
Springer International Publishing.
Sendjaya, S., & Cooper, B. (2011). Servant Leadership Behaviour Scale: A
hierarchical model and test of construct validity. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 20(3), 416–436. doi: 10.1080/13594321003590549
Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development,
and application in organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 9(2), 57–64. doi: 10.1177/107179190200900205
Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant
leadership behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2),
402–424. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00761.x
Shippmann, J. S., Ash, R. A., Battista, M., Carr, L., Eyde, L. D., Hesketh, B., Kehoe,
J., Pearlman, K., Prien, E. P., & Sanchez, J. I. (2000). The practice of
competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 53, 703–740. Retrieved from
http://knjiznica.ffzg.unizg.hr/uploads/c9t4znOYcRKMayBUb2mtAQ/Shippmann2
000.pdf
Sinar, E., Wellins, R. S., Ray, R., Abel, A. L., & Neal, S. (2015). Ready-now leaders:
25 findings to meet tomorrow’s business challenges [Online]. Retrieved from
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/za/Documents/human-
capital/ZA_global_leadership_forecast.pdf
Singh, A. (2013). A study of role of McKinsey’s 7S framework in achieving
organizational excellence. Organizational Development Journal, 31(3), 39–50.
162
Retrieved from EBSCO Host database http://0-
Sousa, M., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2015). Servant leadership and the effect of the
interaction between humility, action, and hierarchical power on follower
engagement. Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2725-y
Spears, L. C. (2010). Character and servant leadership: Ten characteristics of
effective, caring leaders. The Journal of Virtues & Leadership, 1(1), 25–30.
Retrieved from
https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/jvl/vol1_iss1/Spears_Final.pdf
Stone, G. A., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant
leadership: A difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 25(4), 349–361. doi: 10.1108/01437730410538671
Sturm, B. A. (2009). Principles of servant-leadership in community health nursing:
Management issues and behaviours discovered in ethnographic research.
Home Health Care Management and Practice, 21(2), 82–89. Retrieved from
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1084822308318187
Sun, J., & Wang, B. (2009). Servant leadership in China: Conceptualization and
measurement. Advances in Global Leadership, 5, 321–344.
doi: 10.1108/S1535-1203(2009)0000005017
Sun, P. Y. T. (2013). The servant identity: Influences on the cognition and behavior
of servant leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(4), 544–557.
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.03.008
Tang, G., Kwan, H. K., Zhang, D., & Zhu, Z. (2015). Work–family effects of servant
leadership: The roles of emotional exhaustion and personal learning. Journal of
Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2559-7
163
Thompson, K. N. N., Gottwald, W. D., Barrow, L., & Pomfret, T. (2010). Servant-
leadership: An effective model for project management (Doctoral dissertation).
Capella University, Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of
Management, 37(4), 1228–1261. doi: 10.1177/0149206310380462
Van Dierendonck, D., & Heeren, I. (2006). Toward a research model of servant
leadership. International Journal of Servant Leadership, 2(1), 147–164.
Retrieved from
http://www.spearscenter.org/docs2010/InternationalJournalofServantLeadership
2006.pdf
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. doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9194-1
Van Dierendonck, D., & Patterson, K. (2014). Compassionate love as a cornerstone
of servant leadership: An integration of previous theorizing and research.
Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 119–131. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2085-z
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural
justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational
citizenship behavior: A cross-level investigation. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95(3), 517–529. doi: 10.1037/a0018867
Washington, R. R., Sutton, C. D., & Feild, H. S. (2006). Individual differences in
servant leadership: The roles of values and personality. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 27(8), 700–716. doi:
10.1108/01437730610709309
164
Waterman, H. (2011). Principles of servant leadership and how they can enhance
practice. Nursing Management, 17(9), 24–26. doi:
10.7748/nm2011.02.17.9.24.c8299
Weinstein, R. B. (2013). Servant leadership and public administration: Solving the
public sector financial problems through service. Journal of Management Policy
& Practice, 14(3), 84–92. Retrieved from EBSCO Host database http://0-
Winston, B., & Fields, D. (2015). Seeking and measuring the essential behaviours of
servant leadership. Leadership & Organizational Development, 36(4), 413–434.
doi: 10.1108/LODJ-10-2013-0135
Winston, B. E., & Hartsfield, M. (2004). Similarities between emotional intelligence
and servant leadership. Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research
Roundtable. Retrieved from
https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2004/winston_e
motional_intelligence.pdf.
Wong, P. T. P., & Davey, D. (2007). Best practices in servant leadership.
Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved from
http://www.leadershiplearningforlife.com/acad/global/publications/sl_proceeding
s/2007/wong-davey.pdf
Wu, L., Tse, E. C., Fu, P., Kwan, H. K., & Liu, J. (2013). The impact of servant
leadership on hotel employees’ “servant behavior.” Cornell Hospitality Quarterly,
54(4), 383–395. doi: 10.1177/1938965513482519
Zhang, H., Kwan, H. K., Everett, A. M., & Jian, Z. (2012). Servant leadership,
organizational identification, and work-to-family enrichment: The moderating role
of work climate for sharing concerns. Human Resource Management, 51(5),
165
747–768. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21498
Zhou, Y., & Miao, Q. (2014). Servant leadership and affective commitment in the
Chinese public sector: The mediating role of perceived organizational support.
Psychological Reports, 115(2), 381–395. doi: 10.2466/01.21.PR0.115c23z4
Zohar, D. (1997). Rewiring the corporate brain: Using the new science to rethink how
we structure and lead organizations. San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler
Publishers.
166
CHAPTER 3: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SERVANT LEADERSHIP, WORK
ENGAGEMENT, AND BURNOUT (MANUSCRIPT 2)
ABSTRACT
Background: High levels of work-related well-being are imperative to ensure
financial stability, competitiveness, and sustainability in the construction industry.
Leadership plays a fundamental role to enhance work engagement and to decrease
burnout. The relationships between servant leadership, job demands, job resources,
work engagement, and burnout are still unknown, especially within the construction
industry.
Research Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore the relationships
between servant leadership, job demands, job resources, work engagement, and
burnout in a construction company.
Research Method: A quantitative research design was applied and four
quantitative surveys were used to collect data. Employees in a South African
construction company completed 224 sets of questionnaires. .
Main Findings: The results indicated that job resources mediated a positive
relationship between servant leadership and work engagement and a negative
relationship between servant leadership and burnout. Servant leadership had a large
positive significant relationship with job resources and predicted job resources
significantly. Job resources, in turn, predicted higher work engagement levels and
lower burnout levels. An insignificant relationship was found between job demands
and servant leadership.
167
Managerial Implications: The findings showed that servant leadership could be
used as an effective leadership approach to enhance work engagement and to
decrease burnout in the construction industry.
Contribution: This study makes a theoretical contribution to the body of
knowledge on servant leadership and work-related well-being by providing empirical
evidence on the relationships between servant leadership, job demands, job
resources, work engagement, and burnout.
Keywords: Servant leadership, work engagement, burnout, job demands, job
resources
168
3.1 INTRODUCTION
In the construction industry, work-related well-being is instrumental in ensuring
operational performance. This industry is characterised by high job demands, long
working hours, dangerous work environments, low flexibility, isolated work locations,
and stringent safety, health, and environmental regulations (Lingard & Sublet, 2002;
Lingard, 2003). Additional challenges in this industry include labour unrest, skills
shortages (SAFCEC, 2014), talent retention, and project execution (Naidoo et al.,
2015). These working conditions and challenges could exacerbate the risk of
burnout, disengagement, and ill health, as they place more demands on employees.
High productivity is also vital in this industry, to ensure financial sustainability
(Construction Industry Development Board, 2015b).
The two work-related well-being constructs, namely work engagement and
burnout, have been shown to influence productivity, either positively — in the case of
work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002;
Hayward, 2010; Shuck, 2011; Simpson, 2009; Solomon & Sridevi, 2010), or
negatively — resulting in burnout (Schaufeli, 2003). It is therefore imperative for
construction companies to maintain high levels of work-related well-being, in order to
ensure financial stability, competitiveness, and sustainability.
Work-related well-being focusses primarily on the employee’s well-being state
while working. The job demands‒resources theory describes two work-related well-
being processes, namely a health diminishing process and an inspirational process
(Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014). The health diminishing process is
activated by high job demands, combined with inadequate job resources, which
ultimately result in a negative employee state, called burnout (Bakker & Demerouti,
2007).
169
Burnout is defined as an individual state of low energy (exhaustion), poor
motivation (cynicism), and a lack of perceived competence (professional efficacy)
(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Burnout is associated with several non-communicable
diseases, such depression, diabetes, hypertension, and irritable bowel syndrome
(De Beer, Pienaar, & Rothmann, 2016).
In the inspirational process, adequate job resources buffer the negative effects of
challenging job demands, causing a positive employee state, namely work
engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Work engagement is an individual state
defined by high vigour (energy or resilience), dedication (devotion or enthusiasm),
and absorption (focus or concentration) (Bakker, 2011, 265). Work engagement has
been shown to produce positive employee and organisational outcomes, such as
high employee commitment (Albrecht & Andreetta, 2011; Field & Buitendach, 2012;
Hayward, 2010; Kanste, 2011; Saks, 2006), corporate citizenship behaviour (Bakker
& Demerouti, 2008; Saks, 2006; Sulea, Virga, Maricutoiu, Schaufeli, Dumitru, &
Sava, 2012), productivity (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Harter et al., 2002; Hayward,
2010; Shuck, 2011; Simpson, 2009; Solomon & Sridevi, 2010), high performance
(Bakker, 2011; Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011; Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Baron,
2013; Demerouti, Bakker, & Gevers, 2015; Hayward, 2010; Kovjanic, Schuh, &
Jonas, 2013; Lorente, Salanova, Martínez, & Vera, 2014; Seppälä, Mauno,
Kinnunen, Feldt, Juuti, Tolvanen, & Rusko, 2012; Shuck, 2011; Simpson, 2009;
Yalabik, Popaitoon, Chowne, & Rayton, 2013), profitability (Harter et al., 2002;
Shuck, 2011; Simpson, 2009; Solomon & Sridevi, 2010), safety behaviour (Harter et
al., 2002; Shuck, 2011; Solomon & Sridevi, 2010), and customer satisfaction (Bakker
et al., 2011; Baron, 2013; Harter et al., 2002; Hayward, 2010; Simpson, 2009;
Solomon & Sridevi, 2010). Therefore, work-related well-being is not just the absence
170
of the negative — in this case, symptoms of ill health, but also evidence of the
positive, namely positive employee- and organisational outcomes. In other words,
optimum work-related well-being is evident when an employee experiences high
levels work engagement, without experiencing any burnout- or ill-health symptoms.
Low work engagement and ill health (due to stress and burnout) seem to be a
global phenomenon. Research has shown that only 13% of employees globally are
highly engaged in their work, and that 26% are actively disengaged (Gallup, 2013).
In terms of ill health, non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular disease,
cancer, chronic respiratory diseases, and diabetes are responsible for approximately
70% of deaths globally, and are highlighted as the leading causes of deaths
worldwide (World Health Organization, 2015). These diseases not only affect
individual lives, but also have a negative economic impact on society and
organisational performance. The World Health Organization (2014) estimated that
non-communicable diseases would cost low- and middle-income countries
approximately US$7 trillion over the next ten to 14 years. Another report indicated
that productivity losses due to employee ill health cost companies 400% more than
the actual cost of treatment (Rothman & Boschmans, 2015). Employee well-being
has become imperative to sustain operational and financial performance in
organisations.
Leadership plays a fundamental role in sustaining optimum work-related well-
being, because leaders in an organisation have full control over the job demands
and job resources of employees. For example, transformational leadership has
shown to increase work engagement (Ghadi, Fernando, & Caputi, 2013), whereas
authoritarian (Shu, 2015), transactional, autocratic, or passive leadership styles have
shown to decrease work engagement (Blomme, Kodden, & Beasley-Suffolk, 2015).
171
Other leadership styles that increase work engagement levels are: authentic
leadership (Penger & Cerne, 2014), leader‒member exchange (LMX) (Breevaart,
Bakker, Demerouti, & Van Den Heuvel, 2015), ethical leadership (Den Hartog &
Belschak, 2012), charismatic leadership (Babcock-Roberson & Strickland, 2010),
empowering leadership (Mendes & Stander, 2011), and engaging leadership
(Schaufeli, 2015).
In terms of burnout, transformational, authentic, and engaging leadership styles
have been found to correlate negatively with burnout (Hetland, Sandal, & Johnsen,
2007; Laschinger, Wong, & Grau, 2012; Schaufeli, 2015), while other studies
indicated that autocratic leadership (Altahayneh, 2013), passive-avoidance
leadership (Hetland et al., 2007), and laissez-faire leadership (Kanste, 2008)
increased burnout levels.
Servant leadership is another leadership style that could enhance work
engagement (De Clercq et al., 2014) and decrease burnout levels (Babakus et al.,
2011). Servant leadership is a unique and comprehensive leadership theory, in
which the leader serves, empowers, and supports employees to achieve meaningful
outcomes, to the benefit of the individual, the organisation, and the community (Van
Dierendonck, 2011). Servant leadership shares similarities with transformational,
authentic, charismatic, empowering, and engaging leadership styles, but is more
comprehensive, and includes additional leadership dimensions that are absent from
the former leadership theories, such as putting people first and serving the needs of
employees (Liden et al., 2014; Mehta & Pillay, 2011).
There seems to be good theoretical alignment between servant leadership and
several of the job resources as per the job demands‒resources theory. Servant
leadership is characterised by authenticity (Laub, 1999), humility, integrity (Page &
172
Wong, 2000), compassion, a compelling vision (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005),
accountability, empowerment (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), listening (Spears,
2010), stewardship, altruism (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006), and building relationships
(Ehrhart, 2004). This aligns well with job resources such as supervisory support,
growth opportunities, role clarity, autonomy, person‒job fit, participation in decision-
making, communication, trust in leadership, organisational justice, and performance
feedback.
The primary focus of servant leaders is to serve, empower, and support
employees (Greenleaf, 1998). This could make servant leaders more attentive in
providing the necessary job resources to employees, in order to neutralise the
negative influences of high job demands. Hence, servant leaders may be more
effective in enhancing work engagement and reducing burnout levels of employees,
which, in turn, could produce better work-related well-being and superior
organisational outcomes.
Limited research is, however, available on the relationship between servant
leadership and the constructs of the job demands‒resources theory, namely job
demands, job resources, work engagement, and burnout. Studies have shown a
positive relationship between servant leadership and work engagement (Carter &
Baghurst, 2013; De Clercq et al., 2014; De Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2014; Sousa
& Van Dierendonck, 2015), and a negative relationship between servant leadership
and burnout (Babakus et al., 2011). However, these studies did not include all the
dimensions of the job demands‒resources theory. The relationship between servant
leadership, job demands, job resources, work engagement, and burnout are still
unknown. This is highlighted by Bakker and Demerouti (2016) as a future research
need. Related research is also scarce in the construction industry.
173
The purpose of this study was therefore to address the above-mentioned research
needs by investigating the relationships between servant leadership, job demands,
job resources, work engagement, and burnout in the construction industry.
3.1.1 Research Objectives
The aim of this study was to explore the relationships between servant leadership,
work engagement, and burnout in the construction industry.
The specific objectives of this study were to:
• investigate the relationship between servant leadership and work engagement in
the construction industry;
• investigate the relationship between servant leadership and burnout in the
construction industry;
• investigate the relationship between servant leadership and job demands
(overload) in the construction industry;
• investigate the relationship between servant leadership and job resources in the
construction industry; and
• investigate the relationships between servant leadership, job demands, job
resources, work engagement, and burnout in the construction industry.
3.2 LITERATURE REVIEW
3.2.1 Work-related Well-being
In general, well-being refers to being well physically, psychologically, socially
(Dodge, Daly, Huyton, & Sanders, 2012), and spiritually (Chirico, 2016). Being well
physically or psychologically might also mean the absence of physical and
psychological ill health and evidence of good physical and psychological health
174
(World Health Organization, 2006). Two well-being perspectives are distinguished in
this literature review, namely hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being.
Hedonic well-being focusses on pleasant and unpleasant affects and life
satisfaction from an individual’s perspective (Ryan & Deci, 2001). This perspective
includes theories such as affective well-being and subjective well-being. Affective
well-being is measured by high positive affect and low negative affect (Gonçalves &
Neves, 2011). Affect is considered positive when emotions, feelings, and
experiences are pleasant, and is negative when emotions, feelings, and experiences
are unpleasant.
Warr (1990) introduced three types of affect in the workplace, namely pleased‒
displeased, anxious‒contented, and enthusiastic‒depressed. Subjective well-being
refers to an individual’s evaluation of life satisfaction in terms of work, family, leisure,
health, finances, and self, as well as an individual’s evaluation of pleasant or
unpleasant affect (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999). Both affective and subjective
well-being thus include evidence of positive affect (pleasant emotions, feelings, and
experiences) and the absence of negative affect (unpleasant emotions, feelings, and
experiences). However, subjective well-being includes a life satisfaction dimension,
based on personal evaluation (Danna & Griffen, 1999).
Eudaimonic well-being relates to self-development (activating one’s true
potential) and contribution (achieving a higher purpose), and not simply the
experience of pleasure or the avoidance of negative experience, as in the case of
hedonic well-being (McMahan & Estes, 2011). From the eudaimonic perspective,
well-being is evaluated according to self-regard, personal development, meaning in
life, positive relationships, environmental control, and self-sufficiency (Ryff & Keyes,
1995; Ryff & Singer, 2008).
175
A core principle of the eudaimonic perspective is that the gratification of personal
desires might not always produce well-being, because personal desires are not
always good, just, or virtuous (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Eudaimonic well-being therefore
suggests that well-being is not based on subjective feelings, emotions, or happiness,
but rather on objective self-actualisation — the activation of personal potential
towards serving a greater good. The eudaimonic perspective argues that hedonism
brings only temporary well-being, whereas eudaimonism produces long-term and
sustainable well-being. For example, an alcoholic will experience pleasure (in the
short term) when consuming alcohol, but might experience ill-health symptoms (in
the long term), due to excessive alcohol consumption. McMahan and Estes (2011)
found that eudaimonic factors predicted well-being more accurately than hedonic
factors did.
Seligman (2011) introduced a multi-dimensional well-being theory, in which well-
being is defined by positive emotion, engagement, meaning, positive relationships,
and accomplishments. In this theory, hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives are
combined into one, comprehensive theory. The positive-emotion dimension supports
the hedonic perspective of well-being, while engagement, meaning, positive
relationships, and accomplishments support the eudaimonic-well-being perspective.
To achieve well-being outcomes such as positive emotion, engagement, and
accomplishment, a person needs the necessary resources to deal with life’s
challenges. Dodge et al. (2012) suggested the following “input-driven” definition of
well-being: “…In essence, stable well-being is when individuals have the
psychological, social and physical resources they need to meet a particular
psychological, social and/or physical challenge” (p 230). When resources are in
176
place, individuals are able to cope with difficult life challenges, and may, in turn,
experience higher positive emotion, engagement, and accomplishment in life.
Work-related well-being refers to a person’s well-being at work. From the hedonic
perspective, this means an employee experiences high positive affect (positive
emotions, feelings, and experiences at work) and low negative affect (negative
emotions, feelings, and experiences at work), as well as high job satisfaction. From
the eudaimonic perspective, work-related well-being could be interpreted as
experiencing high self-regard, personal development, meaningful work, positive
relationships with others, manageable work-environment, and autonomy at work.
From a combined perspective, work-related well-being would mean an employee
experiences high positive emotion, engagement, positive relationships, and
accomplishment at work, and receives the necessary resources to cope with work-
related challenges. Work-related well-being may also include the absence of ill
health and evidence of good health (Schulte & Vainio, 2010).
The job demands‒resources theory combines the aforementioned well-being
perspectives and principles into one work-related well-being model. It proposes a
health diminishing process and an inspirational process. The health diminishing
process is triggered by high job demands and inadequate job resources, which
cause a negative employee state named burnout, which consequently produces ill
health (Hakanen, Schaufeli, & Ahola, 2008). The inspirational process is activated by
challenging job demands and adequate job resources, which produce a positive
employee state called work engagement, which is linked to positive individual and
organisational outcomes (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). These constructs and theory are
described in more detail below.
177
3.2.2 Work Engagement
Engagement is conceptualised in various ways in the literature. Kahn (1990)
defined engagement as primarily a state in which individuals express their true self in
a working role, and when they engage physically, emotionally, and cognitively with
work-related tasks. Initially, this state was named personal engagement. According
to Kahn (1990), personal engagement is characterised by psychological
meaningfulness, psychological safety, and psychological availability. Psychological
meaningfulness refers to feelings that one’s efforts provide meaningful return,
whereas psychological safety is described as expressing one’s true identity in a
working role, without fearing negative consequences (Simpson, 2009). Psychological
availability refers to having the required resources available to complete a work-
related task (Zhu, Avolio, & Walumba, 2009).
Maslach and Leiter (1997) later defined engagement as the positive antipode of
burnout, and posited the three dimensions of burnout (exhaustion, cynicism, and lack
of professional efficacy) as the direct opposites of the three dimensions of work
engagement, namely energy, involvement, and efficacy. They preferred to use the
term work engagement instead of personal engagement. Schaufeli et al. (2002)
expanded on this theory, and identified work engagement as a distinct construct that
is measured independently from burnout. Work engagement is defined by Schaufeli
and Bakker (2004) as a “…positive, fulfilling, work-related state characterised by
vigour, dedication, and absorption” (p 295). Vigour refers to the energy part of work
engagement, and can be described as having the energetic capacity to invest in
one’s work (Bakker, 2011). Dedication refers to the motivational part of work
engagement — identification with the work, and is defined as having a strong
attachment towards work, while experiencing high levels of meaningfulness, passion,
178
and challenge (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Absorption refers to being fully
engrossed or focussed while working, with time passing swiftly (Schaufeli & Bakker,
2004).
Although work engagement is considered an independent construct, it is still
perceived as the antithesis of burnout. This theory of work-related well-being
suggests, firstly, an energy continuum ranging from vigour to exhaustion, and,
secondly, an identification continuum ranging from dedication to cynicism (Bakker et
al., 2008). Hence, work engagement consists of high energy (vigour) and high
identification with work (dedication), while burnout is characterised by low energy
(exhaustion) and low identification with work (cynicism) (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
Work engagement seems to have a crossover effect. Research has indicated that
engaged employees transfer positive attitudes and behaviour to other team
members, which eventually increase team performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008).
Work engagement also seems to fluctuate weekly or daily, depending on the job
resources available at a particular time or in a situation (Breevaart et al., 2014;
Sonnentag, 2011).
Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes (2002) provided another definition of engagement:
experiencing high satisfaction with, involvement in, and enthusiasm for one’s work.
Yet another term was introduced, namely employee engagement. In the view of
Saks (2006), employee engagement is characterised by cognitive, emotional, and
behavioural components that can be described as being focussed, motivated, and
showing in-role performance.
Macey and Schneider (2008) categorised engagement into three types, namely
trait engagement, state engagement, and behaviour engagement. Trait engagement
refers to the personal attributes that function as antecedents of state engagement,
179
and interact with job- or other organisational resources to strengthen state
engagement (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Other researchers prefer to use the term
personal resources instead of trait engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007;
Boudrias et al., 2011). The second type, state engagement, refers to an individual
state of high energy and motivation, which fluctuates while working (Breevaart,
Bakker, Demerouti, & Hetland, 2012). Thirdly, behavioural engagement refers to
extra-role behaviours resulting from state engagement, such as organisational
citizenship behaviour (Macey & Schneider, 2008).
Zigarmi, Nimon, Houson, Witt, and Diehl (2009) introduced the term employee
work passion after reviewing the literature on engagement. However, their concept of
employee work passion seems to deviate from the original foundations of
engagement.
In the present study, the work engagement definition of Schaufeli and Bakker
(2004) was adopted, because it seemed the most reliable and frequently used
definition in the literature.
3.2.3 Burnout
Originally, Maslach and Jackson (1981) conceptualised burnout as a human
condition characterised by emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation, and lack of
personal accomplishment. After expanding the burnout theory to positions other than
service professions, the definition changed to include three dimensions, namely
exhaustion, cynicism, and lack of professional efficacy (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
Exhaustion refers to a depletion of physical or emotional energy, whereas cynicism
means having a pessimistic attitude towards work (Rothmann & Joubert, 2007). A
180
lack of professional efficacy can be described as a negative self-view in terms of
occupational competence and effectiveness (Bakker, Emmerik, & Euwema, 2006).
Research has shown that burnout has a direct negative impact on individual and
organisational outcomes. Several studies have shown that burnout is positively
linked to physical and psychological ill-health symptoms (Rothmann & Essenko,
2007; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), such as depression, anxiety (Bakker et al., 2014;
Huynh, Xanthopoulou, & Winefield, 2014; Simpson, 2009), diabetes, hypertension,
irritable bowel syndrome (De Beer et al., 2016), and cardiovascular, musculoskeletal,
and gastrointestinal illnesses (Korunka, Kubicek, Schaufeli, & Hoonakker, 2009).
Burnout is also associated with higher employee turnover (Laschinger & Fida, 2014;
Laschinger et al., 2012; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), absenteeism (Bakker,
Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2003), and safety risks (Li, Jiang, Yao, & Li, 2013). Other
negative outcomes linked to burnout are common infections, distress, job
dissatisfaction, and poor performance (Schaufeli, 2003).
Initially, job demands such as workload, mental load, and emotional load were
considered causes of burnout (Schaufeli, 2003). However, later research indicated
that high job demands in the absence of job resources caused employees to
experience burnout. Some studies suggested that challenging job demands are
necessary to experience work engagement (Hakanen, Bakker, & Demerouti, 2005).
However, job resources are essential to buffer the negative effects of high job
demands (Bakker et al., 2008). The higher the job demands are, the more job
resources are required.
181
3.2.4 The Job Demands‒Resources Theory
Demerouti et al. (2001) combined the dimensions of burnout, work engagement,
job demands, and job resources into one prediction model, named the Job
Demands‒Resources Model. This model proposes two fundamental processes,
namely an inspirational process and a health diminishing process (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2008). The inspirational process proposes that challenging job demands
and ample job resources lead to high work engagement, resulting in favourable
organisational outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). The health diminishing
process, on the other hand, predicts that high job demands in the absence of the
required job resources will cause burnout, and ultimately cause physical or
psychological ill health (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). Hence, the Job Demands‒
Resources Model predicts that the interaction between job demands and job
resources causes either an increase or decrease in work engagement or burnout,
depending on the balance, or imbalance, between job demands and job resources.
Job demands are those work-related parts of a job that drain physical or mental
energy, such as a high workload, emotional load, or mental load (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2007). Workload refers to the quantifiable parts of the job, such as the
amount of work and time pressure, whereas emotional load refers the qualitative
aspects of the job, such as difficult interactions with people (colleagues, superiors, or
clients), role ambiguity, role conflict, or an unsafe work environment (De Braine &
Roodt, 2011). Mental load refers to cognitive weariness (Rothmann et al., 2014).
Job resources are those physical, social, or organisational means that (a)
counteract the negative effects of high job demands, (b) assist to reach work-related
goals, and (c) empower individuals to activate their talent (Schaufeli & Bakker,
2004). Schaufeli (2015) clustered job resources into four groups, namely:
182
• social resources: colleague support, supervisory support, team atmosphere, team
effectiveness, role clarity, fulfilment of expectations, and recognition;
• positional resources: job control, person‒job fit, task variety, participation in
decision-making, talent activation, and availability of physical resources;
• organisational resources: communication, strategy alignment, leadership trust,
organisational justice, fair remuneration, and value congruence; and
• development resources: performance feedback, development opportunities, and
career path.
Job resources can inspire an employee either intrinsically or extrinsically.
Employees are intrinsically motivated when the organisation provides them with
autonomy, growth opportunities, and support to activate individual talent (Bakker,
2011). For example, when an individual’s passion, purpose, skill, and talent align
effectively with the requirements of a position (good person‒job fit), the employee
finds meaning in the work, and is motivated intrinsically. Job resources also foster
extrinsic motivation, as they provide employees with the physical, emotional, or
psychological support to cope with the job demands, which will enhance the
likelihood of employees achieving work-related goals (Bakker et al., 2011).
Therefore, when employees work in a supportive environment, goal attainment is
easier. A supportive environment motivates employees extrinsically to apply
individual energy more effectively, in order to perform better.
Recently, personal and spiritual resources were added to the Job Demands‒
Resources Model. Personal resources can be described as those personal attributes
or competencies, such as optimism, self-resilience, self-esteem, and self-efficacy,
that strengthen the relationship between job resources and work engagement
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Blomme et al., 2015). Personal resources help
183
employees to achieve goals, lower the impact of high demands, and promote
personal growth or development (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli,
2012). A study done by Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, and Schaufeli (2007)
revealed that personal resources such as self-efficacy, organisation-based self-
esteem, and optimism mediated the relationship between job resources and work
engagement. Another study showed that spiritual resources influenced work
engagement positively and exhaustion negatively (Bickerton, Miner, Dowson, &
Griffin, 2014). Spiritual resources can be described as having a positive relationship
with God, applying spiritual coping strategies, and having a higher calling to a job
(Bickerton et al., 2014).
Research confirmed that employees with high levels of work engagement will
source the required job resources to counteract the negative influences of high job
demands, and redesign their work environment accordingly (Bakker, 2015). In this
case, employees are proactive and take ownership of their own work-related well-
being by sourcing the resources they need and designing their work roles to fit their
strengths (Bakker, 2011). This activates a positive cycle, in which job resources
increase the work engagement levels of employees, and, when employees
experience higher work engagement, they source more job resources to become
even more engaged in their work (Bakker, 2015).
3.2.5 The Relationship between Leadership, Job Demands, and Job
Resources
Research on the relationships of leadership with job demands and job resources
is scarce. Previous research investigated leadership either as a job resource in itself,
such as supervisory support (Korunka et al., 2009), or included only certain aspects
184
of leadership, for example, providing autonomy and social support (Breevaart et al.,
2014). However, leadership is much broader than just providing support or
autonomy. A leader can directly manage the job demands of employees and
increase the job resources employees need to stay engaged in their work.
In the view of Schaufeli (2015), leadership is a latent variable in its own right,
which influences work engagement via job demands and job resources. For
instance, a leader can enhance the social support of followers by encouraging
teamwork, providing supervisory support through coaching or mentoring, setting
clear goals and objectives, and providing the necessary recognition. Leaders can
also provide positional resources by (a) ensuring good person‒job fit for new
appointments, (b) creating task variety when profiling a position, (c) involving
followers in decision-making, and (d) providing the physical resources employees
need to complete a job successfully.
The leaders of an organisation are also responsible for offering employees
organisational resources such as good communication structures, strategic
alignment, leadership trust, organisational justice, and fair remuneration. It is also in
the direct control of leaders to give their followers developmental resources such as
regular performance feedback, training and development opportunities, and
establishing career paths for employees. Taking these perceptions into
consideration, leadership should therefore not be perceived as a job resource, but
rather as an independent variable that influences job demands and job resources.
A study done by Schaufeli (2015) indicated that engaging leadership was indeed
an independent variable that influenced work engagement and burnout indirectly, via
job demands and job resources. In other words, engaging leaders provide more
resources to their followers and help them manage the job demands, to either
185
increase work engagement or decrease burnout. Another study showed that
cognitive demands and resources mediate the relationship between empowering
leadership and work engagement (Tuckey, Bakker, & Dollard, 2012). This study
further indicated that empowering leadership influences work engagement indirectly,
by means of improving the working climate in terms of cognitive demands and
cognitive resources.
When leadership is considered an independent variable that influences job
demands and job resources directly, different leadership approaches might have
different relationships with job demands and with job resources. Transactional
leaders, for example, might increase job demands to achieve results, and focus
more on financial rewards as a job resource, whereas transformational leaders might
consider autonomy, training and development, communication, strategy alignment,
and leadership trust as important job resources (Bass, 2000). Authentic leadership
could place more emphasis on open communication (Alok & Israel, 2012), while
enterprise leadership might focus more on job resources such as colleague support,
team atmosphere, and team effectiveness (CEB, 2015). Situational leadership
seems to place more emphasis on job resources such as performance feedback,
employee development, person‒job fit, and supervisory support (Blanchard et al.,
2013). Leader‒member exchange (LMX) appears to encourage job resources such
as communication, participation in decision-making, and leadership trust (Graen &
Uhl-Bien, 1995).
The leadership approach that offers the most comprehensive set of job resources
seems to be servant leadership. Servant leaders focus on serving the needs of
employees at all times. Firstly, servant leaders set a compelling vision (Dennis &
Bocarnea, 2005) and align individual talent with the requirements of the position
186
(Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). This could enhance person‒job fit and strategic
alignment. Thereafter, servant leaders continuously develop and empower
employees, to activate individual talent (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005; Ehrhart, 2004;
Laub, 1999; Liden et al., 2008; Mittal & Dorfman, 2012; Page & Wong, 2000;
Sendjaya et al., 2008; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011; Wong & Davey, 2007). This
will provide the employee with the job resources of development, talent activation,
and career opportunities.
Servant leaders, furthermore, focus on meeting the physical, psychological,
emotional, and spiritual needs of employees (Sendjaya, 2015). This could provide
employees with (a) the physical resources required to complete a task, (b) the social
resources to feel safe, a sense of belonging, and valued, and (c) the spiritual
resources to find meaning and fulfilment in work. Servant leaders, in addition, strive
to build trustful relationships with their followers (Ehrhart, 2004), and empower
employees to become autonomous (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). This might
enhance leadership trust and supervisory support, and provide autonomy to
individuals to control their jobs. High levels of integrity and ethical conduct are also
part of servant leadership (Liden et al., 2008; Page & Wong, 2000), which can
enhance organisational resources such as organisational justice and fair
remuneration. Lastly, servant leaders apply good listening and reflection skills
(Spears, 2010), which could enhance communication as a job resource for followers.
Table 18 provides a theoretical correlation of servant leadership attributes and job
resources as clustered by Schaufeli (2015).
187
Table 18
Theoretical Correlation between Servant Leadership Attributes and Job Resources
Servant Leadership Attribute Social Resources Work Resources Organisational Development

Resources Resources
Authentic Leadership trust
(Laub, 1999)
Humility Recognition Participation in decision-
(Page & Wong, 2000) making
Compassion Supervisor support Physical resources
(Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005)
Accountability Role clarity Performance feedback
(Van Dierendonck & Nuijten,
2011)
Altruism Supervisor support
(Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006)
Integrity Organisational justice,
(Page & Wong, 2000) Fair remuneration
Listening Communication
(Spears, 2010)
Empowerment Job control, Talent activation, Development
(Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, Task variety, Person‒job fit opportunities, Career
2011) path
188
Stewardship Team effectiveness
(Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006)
Building relationships Supervisor support, Leadership trust
(Ehrhart, 2004) Colleague support
Compelling vision Strategy alignment
(Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005)
189
Although servant leadership seems to correlate well with job resources
theoretically, empirical evidence is lacking (De Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2014).
The direct influence of servant leadership on job demands has also not yet been
explored empirically. The present study aimed to address these research needs.
Two job resources were included in this study, namely organisational support and
growth opportunities. Organisational support includes job resources such as
colleague support, supervisory support, job clarity, information, communication, and
participation in decision-making, while growth opportunities include task variety,
autonomy, and development opportunities (Rothmann et al., 2006).
The following two hypotheses were formulated from the literature review:
Hypothesis 1:
A positive significant relationship exists between servant leadership and job
resources.
Hypothesis 2:
A negative significant relationship exists between servant leadership and job
demands (overload).
3.2.6 The Relationship between Servant Leadership and Work Engagement
Limited research is available on the relationship between servant leadership and
work engagement. Available studies indicate a positive relationship between servant
leadership and work engagement (Carter & Baghurst, 2013; De Clercq et al., 2014;
De Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2014; Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2015), and a
negative relationship between servant leadership and disengagement (Hunter et al.,
190
2013). In one study, goal congruence mediated the relationship between servant
leadership and work engagement (De Clercq et al., 2014), and another study found
that this relationship was mediated by organisational identification and psychological
empowerment (De Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2014). Although limited research is
available on the relationship between servant leadership and work engagement,
several studies found significant relationships between work engagement and
leadership styles similar to servant leadership, such as transformational leadership,
authentic leadership, leader‒member exchange (LMX), ethical leadership,
charismatic leadership, empowering leadership, and engaging leadership.
Numerous studies have found a positive relationship between transformational
leadership and work engagement (Bakker et al., 2011; Bezuidenhout & Schultz,
2013; Breevaart et al., 2014; Ghadi et al., 2013; Kopperud, Martinsen, &
Humborstad, 2014; Vincent-Höper, Muser, & Janneck, 2012; Zhu et al., 2009). This
relationship was mediated by competence and relatedness satisfaction (Kovjanic et
al., 2013), and partially mediated by optimism (Bakker et al., 2011) and perceptions
of meaning in work (Ghadi et al., 2013). Follower characteristics also moderated the
relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement (Zhu et al.,
2009). In addition, work engagement mediated the relationship between
transformational leadership and service climate (Kopperud et al., 2014), and partially
mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and subjective
occupational success (Vincent-Höper et al., 2012).
Transformational leadership shares characteristics with servant leadership, such
as focussing on people and results (Dannhauser & Boshoff, 2007b), inspiring
followers with a purposeful vision (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006), and continuously
developing and influencing followers (Choudhary et al., 2012). However, servant
191
leadership is different from transformational leadership in the sense that it (a)
focuses firstly on people, then on results (Chathury, 2008; Sendjaya, 2015), (b) uses
servanthood to enhance performance (Blanchard & Hodges, 2008), (c) focuses on
empowering followers (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), and (d) aims to benefit a
variety of stakeholders, such as employees, organisations, shareholders, and society
(Peterson et al., 2012).
A significant relationship was also found between authentic leadership and work
engagement (Alok & Israel, 2012; Hsieh & Wang, 2015; Penger & Cerne, 2014; Shu,
2015). Employee trust (Hsieh & Wang, 2015) and organisation-based promotive
psychological ownership (Alok & Israel, 2012) seem to mediate the relationship
between authentic leadership and work engagement. Perceived supervisor support
also partially mediates this relationship (Penger & Cerne, 2014). Authentic
leadership is similar to servant leadership in terms of authenticity, role modelling,
compassion, integrity, self-awareness, self-regulation (Chen et al., 2013; Reed et al.,
2011), and humility (Van Dierendonck, 2011). However, servant leadership includes
other important characteristics, such as servanthood, stewardship, empowerment,
and creating value for society (Mittal & Dorfman, 2012; Van Dierendonck, 2011),
which are not included in authentic leadership theory. These characteristics might
help followers to become even more engaged in their work.
Work engagement has also been related positively to leader‒member exchange
(LMX) (Agarwal, Datta, Blake‐Beard, & Bhargava, 2012; Breevaart et al., 2015; De
Villiers & Stander, 2011). Job resources seem to mediate this relationship (Breevaart
et al., 2015). Another study indicated that role clarity mediated the relationship
between leader‒member exchange (LMX) and psychological empowerment, and
that psychological empowerment enhanced work engagement (De Villiers & Stander,
192
2011). Work engagement, in turn, mediated the relationship between leader‒
member exchange (LMX) and innovative behaviour (Agarwal et al., 2012) and job
performance (Breevaart et al., 2015), and partially moderated turnover intention
(Agarwal et al., 2012). Although leader‒member exchange (LMX) theory shows
similarities with servant leadership, such as developing trustful relationships with
followers, servant leadership theory is much more comprehensive. Servant leaders
build trustful relationships, not only with followers, but also with other stakeholders
(Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). In addition, servant leadership includes characteristics
such as ethical behaviour, moral standards (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006), personal
healing (Chinomona et al., 2013), humility (Mittal & Dorfman, 2012), accountability,
and forgiveness (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), which are absent from leader‒
member exchange (LMX) theory. These characteristics might further contribute to
work engagement.
Other leadership theories that correlate positively with work engagement are
charismatic leadership and ethical leadership. A study by Babcock-Roberson and
Strickland (2010) showed a significant positive relationship between charismatic
leadership and work engagement, and that work engagement mediated the
relationship between charismatic leadership and organisational citizenship
behaviour. Charismatic leadership is similar to servant leadership in the sense that
both promote a meaningful vision, role modelling, compassion, self-awareness
(Chen et al., 2013), and a focus on relationships (Dannhauser & Boshoff, 2007b).
However, charismatic leadership does not include ethical and moral characteristics
(Sendjaya, 2015), the motive of serving followers (Chathury, 2008), and a primary
focus on the follower, as in the case of servant leadership. In terms of ethical
leadership, Den Hartog and Belschak (2012) found a positive relationship between
193
ethical leadership and work engagement. Ethical leadership shares ethical and moral
characteristics with servant leadership (Ehrhart, 2004; Mittal & Dorfman, 2012), but
lacks all the other dimensions of servant leadership. The dimensions of servant
leadership not included in charismatic or ethical leadership could be useful to
enhance work engagement levels.
Another leadership theory that shows a positive relationship with work
engagement is empowering leadership. Empowering leadership can be defined as
the process of coaching, mentoring, and developing employees to become more
autonomous and in control of their jobs, to make decisions independently, and to
practise good judgement (Bakker et al., 2011). This is similar to the empowering
dimension of servant leadership (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Several studies indicated
a positive relationship between empowering leadership and work engagement
(Albrecht & Andreetta, 2011; Mendes & Stander, 2011; Tuckey et al., 2012). Factors
that mediated this relationship were empowerment (in terms of meaning, impact, and
autonomy) (Albrecht & Andreetta, 2011) and cognitive demands and resources
(Tuckey et al., 2012).
Another study showed that role clarity moderated the relationship between
empowering behaviour and work engagement (Mendes & Stander, 2011). Servant
leadership goes beyond empowering leadership practices by also applying
stewardship (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006), vision (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005),
authenticity (Wong & Davey, 2007), integrity (Page & Wong, 2000), humility (Hale &
Fields, 2007), compassionate love (Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014),
accountability, courage (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), and altruism (Sendjaya
et al., 2008). These leadership attributes may improve work engagement even
further.
194
Finally, engaging leadership has also been shown to influence work engagement
positively. Schaufeli (2015) found that job demands and job resources mediated the
relationship between engaging leadership and work engagement. Engaging
leadership can be described as the process of (a) inspiring followers with a
meaningful vision, (b) enabling followers to become autonomous, and (c) connecting
followers to work together (Schaufeli, 2015). Servant leaders also set a compelling
vision (Blanchard et al., 2010), empower followers to become autonomous (Liden et
al., 2008), and encourage collaboration (Laub, 1999). Although servant leadership
includes these dimensions, it is more comprehensive, and could thus influence work
engagement more effectively.
In summary, it is evident that leadership influences work engagement, either
directly or indirectly. However, limited research is available on how servant
leadership influences work engagement. Other, similar leadership theories have
been shown to have a direct or indirect positive relationship with work engagement.
Two hypotheses were therefore formulated from the literature review.
Hypothesis 3:
A positive significant relationship exists between servant leadership and work
engagement.
Hypothesis 4:
Job resources mediate the relationship between servant leadership and work
engagement.
195
3.2.7 The Relationship between Servant Leadership and Burnout
Limited research is available on the relationship between servant leadership and
burnout. A few studies indicated a negative correlation. For instance, Babakus et al.
(2011) showed that servant leadership influences burnout negatively, and that
person‒job fit mediates this relationship. Other studies reported a negative
relationship between servant leadership and two of the dimensions of burnout,
namely cynicism (Bobbio et al., 2012) and emotional exhaustion (Tang et al., 2015).
Other leadership styles that share characteristics with servant leadership have
also been shown to correlate negatively with burnout. For example, Hetland et al.
(2007) reported that transformational leadership correlated negatively with cynicism
and exhaustion, and positively with professional efficacy. Other studies showed
similar results (Kanste, 2008; Salem, 2015; Zopiatis & Constanti, 2010). Authentic
leadership was negatively related to both emotional exhaustion and cynicism
(Laschinger et al., 2012; Laschinger & Fida, 2014). In one study, empowerment
mediated the relationship between authentic leadership and burnout (Laschinger et
al., 2012). In another study, authentic leadership improved work‒life balance, which
enhanced occupational coping and self-efficacy, which ultimately decreased burnout
(Laschinger, Borgogni, Consiglio, & Read, 2015). Schaufeli (2015) also reported a
negative relationship between engaging leadership and burnout, which was
mediated by job demands and job resources.
Although servant leadership shares characteristics with transformational
leadership, authentic leadership, and engaging leadership, it is more comprehensive.
Hence, servant leadership could be viable in reducing burnout, either directly or
indirectly. Three additional hypotheses were formulated based on the literature
review.
196
Hypothesis 5:
A negative significant relationship exists between servant leadership and burnout.
Hypothesis 6:
Job demands (overload) mediates the negative relationship between servant
leadership and burnout.
Hypothesis 7:
Job resources mediates the negative relationship between servant leadership and
burnout.
3.2.8 Theoretical model
The theoretical model that was tested in this research study is depicted in Figure
11, below.
197
H5
Overload
Standing back
Exhaustion
Forgiveness
Job
Burnout Depersonalisation
demands H6
Courage
Personal
H2 accomplishment
Empowerment H6
Servant
Accountability Leadership H4 & H7
H7
H1 Vigour
Authenticity
Job H4 Work
Dedication
resources engagement
Humility
Absorption
Stewardship
Organisational Growth
support opportunities
H3
Figure 11. Theoretical model
198
3.3 METHOD
3.3.1 Research Approach
This study was conducted within the positivistic research paradigm. Positivism
assumes that social phenomena are singular, objective, and can be measured
quantitatively (Collis & Hussey, 2009). A quantitative research design was therefore
used to test the seven hypotheses. Four surveys were used to collect quantitative
data. Descriptive and inferential statistical methods were used to analyse the data.
3.3.2 Sample Framework
The target population for this study was employees working in a construction
company in South Africa. This population was chosen due to the industry’s
demanding, dangerous, and complex work environment, which might make it more
challenging for leaders to engage employees. Two non-probability samples were
drawn from a construction company in South Africa. Sample 1 consisted of 44
managers who had been nominated by the company as high-performing managers;
Sample 2 consisted of 186 of their direct reports and other employees. In the present
study, only Sample 2 (direct reports and other employees) was utilised. The services
rendered by this company included road construction, building construction, civil
engineering, plant hiring, and opencast mining. The combined number of employees
in this company at the time of the research was approximately 5 526. The company
had operations in six different countries.
The respondents of Sample 2 (direct reports and other employees) completed a
set of four surveys, both before and after their managers attended a leadership
development programme. In total, 224 pre- and post-test surveys were completed by
Sample 2 (direct reports and other employees). The pre- and post-test data of
199
Sample 2 (direct reports and other employees) were combined into one data set.
The pre- and post-test data of the managers (Sample 1) were not used in the
present study. Table 19 provides a breakdown of the number of direct reports and
other employees who completed the surveys. The response rate at Time 1 (pre-test
survey) was 64% and at Time 2 (post-test survey), it was 52%.
Table 19
Breakdown of Sample 2: Direct Reports and Other Employees
Number of Employees Pre-test Surveys Post-test Surveys Total Surveys

86 86 0 86
4 8 0 8
67 0 67 67
25 25 25 50
2 2 4 6
1 2 1 3
1 2 2 4
186 125 99 224
The demographic information of the sample is presented in Table 20, below.
Table 20
Demographic Characteristics of Sample 2: Direct Reports and Other Employees
Item Category Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 149 81.0
Female 35 19.0
Home language Afrikaans 65 35.3
English 50 27.2
Tswana 13 7.1
North-Sotho 15 8.2
South-Sotho 6 3.3
200
Swati 2 1.1
Ndebele 1 0.5
Tsonga 1 0.5
Venda 5 2.7
Xhosa 5 2.7
Zulu 7 3.8
Other 14 7.6
Race White 97 52.7
Black African 69 37.5
Indian 7 3.8
Coloured 9 4.9
Other 2 1.1
Age ≤ 25 years 18 9.8
26‒35 years 69 37.5
36‒45 years 50 27.2
46‒55 years 24 13.0
56‒59 years 12 6.5
60‒65 years 6 3.3
66+ 5 2.7
Highest qualification Grade 11/Standard 9 18 9.8
Grade 12/Standard 10 59 32.1
1-year diploma 16 8.7
Bachelor’s degree 28 15.2
Honours degree 12 6.5
Master’s degree 3 1.6
Doctorate 0 0.0
Years of service Less than 1 year 8 4.3
1‒2 years 34 18.5
3‒5 years 72 39.1
6‒10 years 57 31.0
11 or more years 13 7.1
Job level Executive management 0 0.0
Senior management 10 5.4
Middle management 47 25.5
201
Junior management 34 18.5
Senior supervisory 36 19.6
Junior supervisory 30 16.3
Other 27 14.7
The majority of Sample 2 consisted of men (81%) with Afrikaans (35%) or English
(27%) as their home language, between the ages of 26 and 35 years (38%). The
sample consisted of 53% white employees, 38% black African employees, 4% Indian
employees, and 5% Coloured employees; 1% of the sample consisted of other race
groups. Most of the respondents had a Grade 12 qualification (32%), had worked for
the company for three to five years (39%), and were in middle-management
positions (25%).
3.3.3 Data Collection Method
Data were collected using four surveys, namely the Servant Leadership Survey
(SLS), the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), the Maslach Burnout Inventory
(MBI), and the Job Demands‒Resources Scale (JDRS).
The Servant Leadership Survey (SLS) measures eight characteristics related to
servant leadership, namely (1) standing back, (2) forgiveness, (3) courage, (4)
empowerment, (5) accountability, (6) authenticity, (7) humility, and (8) stewardship
(Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). The questionnaire uses a six-point Likert-type
response scale, and consists of 30 items. Sample items are: “My manager offers me
abundant opportunities to learn new skills” (empowerment), “My manager keeps
himself in the background and gives credit to others” (standing back), “My manager
holds me responsible for the work I carry out” (accountability), “My manager
maintains a hard attitude towards people who have offended him at work”
(forgiveness), “My manager takes risks even when he/she is not certain of the
202
support from his own manager” (courage), “My manager is open about his/her
limitations and weaknesses” (authenticity), “My manager admits his/her mistakes to
his/her superior” (humility), and “My manager emphasizes the societal responsibility
of our work” (stewardship). A validation study by Van Dierendonck and Nuijten
(2011) found good reliability scores for the sub-scales in terms of internal
consistency, namely Standing back: α = .76, Forgiveness: α = .72, Courage: α = .69,
Empowerment: α = .89, Accountability: α = .81, Authenticity: α = .82, Humility: α =
.91, and Stewardship: α = .74. Another study showed Cronbach alpha coefficients of
.92 for Empowerment, .74 for Accountability, .79 for Stewardship, .94 for Humility,
.71 for Standing back, .71 for Forgiveness, .75 for Courage, and .79 for Authenticity
(De Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2014).
The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) measures levels of work
engagement, and consists of 17 items (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003). Responses are
indicated on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from “Never” (0) to “Always” (6).
Example items are: “At my work I feel bursting with energy” (vigour), “I am
enthusiastic about my work” (dedication), and “I am immersed in my work”
(absorption). Schaufeli et al. (2002) found the following internal consistency scores
for the three sub-scales of work engagement — Vigour: α = .80, Dedication: α = .91,
and Absorption: α = .75. A more recent study found Cronbach alpha coefficients of
.85 for Vigour, .91 for Dedication, and .85 for Absorption (De Braine & Roodt, 2011).
The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) of Maslach and Jackson (1981) measures
burnout experiences. It consists of 22 items, and uses a six-point Likert-type
response scale ranging from “A few times per year” (1) to “Every day” (6). Example
items include: “I feel emotionally drained from my work” (emotional exhaustion), “I
have accomplished many worthwhile things in my job” (personal accomplishment),
203
and “I have become more callous toward people since I took this job”
(depersonalisation). Schaufeli et al. (2002) found good reliability scores (Cronbach
alpha coefficients) for the sub-scales — Exhaustion: α = .85, Personal
accomplishment: α = .84, and Depersonalization: α = .73.
The Job Demands‒Resources Scale (JDRS) was developed by Jackson and
Rothmann (2005), and measures job demands and job resources. It consists of 43
items, and measures seven latent variables, namely (1) Organisational support, (2)
Growth opportunities, (3) Overload, (4) Job insecurity, (5) Relationship with
colleagues, (6) Control, and (7) Rewards. The instrument uses a four-point Likert-
type scale (1 = “Never”, 2 = “Rarely”, 3 = “Sometimes”, 4 = “Always”) for responses
to the items.
Jackson and Rothmann (2005) reported good reliability in terms of internal
consistency (Cronbach alpha coefficients): .88 for Organisational support, .80 for
Growth opportunities, .75 for Overload, .90 for Job insecurity, .76 for Relationship
with colleagues, .71 for Control, and .78 for Rewards. Rothmann et al. (2006)
reported reliability scores of .92 for Organisational support, .86 for Growth
opportunities, .76 for Overload, and .89 for Job insecurity.
In the present study, five variables were used, namely Organisational support,
Growth opportunities, Overload, Relationship with colleagues, and Control; 33 items
were used in total. Example items are: “Can you count on your supervisor when you
come across difficulties in your work?” (organisational support), “Does your job offer
you opportunities for personal growth and development?” (growth opportunities), “Do
you have too much work to do?” (overload), “If necessary, can you count on your
colleagues?” (relationship with colleagues), and “Do you have a direct influence on
your organisation’s decisions?” (control).
204
Only four types of job resources were included, firstly, because, according to the
literature review, organisational support, growth opportunities, colleague support,
and control seemed to correlate well with servant leadership theoretically. Secondly,
the present researcher considered measuring fatigue of the respondents due to the
number of surveys used.
3.3.4 Data Analysis
A variety of statistical methods were used to analyse the data. These methods
are divided into descriptive and inferential statistical methods.
3.3.4.1 Descriptive Statistical Methods
Descriptive statistical methods such mean, median, standard deviation (SD),
skewness, and kurtosis were used to evaluate the central tendency, dispersion, and
distribution of the data (Collis & Hussey, 2009). In addition, the Shapiro-Wilk and
Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality tests were used to determine whether the data were
normally distributed (Pallant, 2010). The SPSS statistical software program was
utilised to conduct the descriptive analysis.
3.3.4.2 Inferential Statistical Methods
Various inferential statistical methods were applied to analyse the data and to test
the hypotheses. Spearman’s correlation was used to evaluate the linear association
between variables (Collis & Hussey, 2009). The reason for using Spearman’s
correlation was that the descriptive statistical results indicated a non-normal
distribution. Practical significance of correlations were accepted as a medium effect
205
when r was between .30 and .49, or as a large effect when r was above .49 (Collis &
Hussey, 2009).
Principal component analysis was conducted to determine the number of factors
in each measuring instrument. This was done individually for the Servant Leadership
Survey (SLS), the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), the Maslach Burnout
Inventory (MBI), and the Job Demands‒Resources Scale (JDRS). A promax rotation
method was used, and items were retained if the primary loading was higher than
.50, and also when a secondary loading was smaller than .20, in case an item cross-
loaded on more than one factor (Matsunaga, 2010).
Confirmatory factor analysis was applied to determine the factor loadings of the
four questionnaires, and to evaluate several measurement models (Hox & Bechger,
1998). Structural equation modelling was used to examine how various structural
models fit the data, and to test the research model. Absolute and incremental fit
indices were used to determine model fit, such as chi-square (x²), root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA), standardised root mean square residual (SRMR),
comparative fit index (CFI), and the non-normed fit index (NNFI), also known as the
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI).
The literature suggests three combinations of acceptable model fit indexes,
namely (1) a TLI of .96 or higher and an SRMR of .09 or lower, (2) an RMSEA of .06
or lower and an SRMR of .09 or lower, and (3) a CFI of .96 or higher and an SRMR
of .09 or lower (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Other
sources suggest an RMSEA cut-off value of less than .08 (Hooper et al., 2008) and a
CFI or TLI value of .95 or higher (Matsunaga, 2010). A maximum likelihood estimator
that estimates with standard errors and a mean-adjusted chi-square test statistic
(MLM), also known as the Satorra-Bentler chi-square, was chosen, because the data
206
were not normally distributed. This estimator is robust enough to use with non-
normal data (Muthén & Muthén, 2010), and is seen as an effective method to
accommodate non-normality (Hox & Bechger, 1998).
The following combinations of fit criteria were used during the confirmatory factor
analysis and structural equation modelling analysis phases, to determine acceptable
model fit:
• insignificant chi-square (p > .05);
• CFI ≥ .95 and SRMR ≤ .09 (and/or WLSMV < 1);
• TLI ≥ .95 and SRMR ≤ .09 (and/or WLSMV < 1); and
• RMSEA < .08 and SRMR ≤ .09 (and/or WLSMV < 1).
The measurement or structural model was accepted when one or more of the
above-mentioned combinations were evident.
Reliability was evaluated by means of computing omega coefficients. Various
researchers suggest that the McDonald’s omega coefficient is a better method to
evaluate reliability, especially when using confirmatory factor analysis or structural
equation modelling (Revelle & Zinbarg, 2009; Sijtsma, 2009; Zinbarg, Yovel, Revelle,
& McDonald, 2006).
Three statistical software programs were used to conduct inferential statistical
methods, namely SPSS (Pallant, 2010), the lavaan package of RStudio (Rosseel,
2012), and Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2015). SPSS was used to compute correlation
and the principal component analysis. R Studio was used to calculate reliability, and
Mplus to conduct the confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling.
207
3.3.5 Research Procedure
Permission was firstly obtained from the General Manager of Human Resources
to conduct the research study within the company. The purpose of the study was
explained, and it was confirmed that the name of the company would be protected
and kept confidential in reporting the results. Thereafter, information and reporting
lines were retrieved from the Human Resources Department, and invitations to
participate in the research study were extended.
Respondents of Sample 2 were asked to complete the set of four surveys, both
before and after their managers completed a leadership development programme.
They were asked to evaluate their managers’ servant leadership behaviour and their
own levels of work engagement, burnout, job demands, and job resources. Their
managers (Sample 1) were asked to complete their version of the Servant
Leadership Survey (SLS), to evaluate their own level of servant leadership.
However, the data of Sample 1 were analysed separately and were not included in
the present study. The purpose of the study, as well as confidentiality, voluntary
participation, and anonymity, was explained to the respondents before they
completed the surveys.
Surveys were distributed to respondents via an electronic survey platform named
SurveyMonkey. Thereafter, the respondents had three weeks to complete the
surveys. For those who did not have computers to complete the survey, a group
session was scheduled to complete pen-and-paper versions of the surveys. The data
were then captured in the electronic survey platform.
After the respondents had completed the surveys, the data were cleaned and
prepared for statistical analysis. Various statistical methods were used to analyse the
data. The results were then reported and shared with management and respondents.
208
3.4 RESULTS
3.4.1 Descriptive Statistical Results
In general, the descriptive statistical results indicated that the data were not
normally distributed. After dividing the skewness and kurtosis scores by their
standard errors, the results showed values larger than 1.96. This exceeded the
accepted cut-off value of normally distributed data (Rose, Spinks, & Canhoto, 2015).
The Shapiro-Wilk and Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality tests confirmed this analysis.
These normality tests were significant at the p < .05 level, which indicated that the
distribution of the scores was not normal (Pallant, 2010). A summary of the
descriptive statistical results is provided in Table 21, below.
Table 21
Descriptive Statistics for Work Engagement, Burnout, Overload, Job Resources, and
Servant Leadership
Scale Mean Median SD Skewness Kurtosis

Work engagement 26.25 80.00 12.57 -.55 -.16
Vigour 27.76 29.00 5.10 -.50 -.34
Dedication 24.33 25.00 4.77 -.70 -.43
Absorption 26.65 27.00 4.71 -.34 -.31
Burnout 17.35 50.00 15.81 .32 -.70
Emotional exhaustion 21.41 19.50 9.78 .68 -.30
Depersonalisation 9.79 9.00 4.55 .82 -.00
Personal accomplishment 20.84 20.00 7.54 .50 -.36
Overload 25.69 26.00 2.66 -.71 .77
Job resources 40.96 84.00 11.97 -.85 .45
Organisational support 58.74 61.00 9.14 -.81 .08
Growth opportunities 23.17 23.00 3.45 -.87 1.05
Servant leadership 16.62 135.00 20.60 -.92 1.92
209
Empowerment 33.04 34.00 6.60 -1.10 1.62
Standing back 12.74 13.00 3.15 -.43 -.14
Accountability 15.00 15.00 2.29 -1.17 2.13
Forgiveness 11.39 11.00 3.32 -.15 -.19
Courage 7.58 8.00 2.50 -.29 -.44
Authenticity 16.70 17.00 3.51 -.51 .71
Humility 21.96 23.00 4.34 -.82 1.00
Stewardship 14.52 15.00 2.66 -1.18 2.13
Note: All decimals were rounded to two places.
3.4.2 Inferential Statistical Results
The Spearman’s correlation analysis indicated a large positive significant
correlation between Job resources and Work engagement (r = .59) and between
Servant leadership and Job resources (r = .58). Medium negative significant
correlations were also found between Work engagement and Burnout (r = -.43) and
between Job resources and Burnout (r = -.44). The results also showed a positive
medium significant correlation between Servant leadership and Work engagement (r
= .47). These correlations were significant at the p < .01 level. A summary of the
correlation results is provided in Table 22, below.
210
Table 22
Correlation Matrix of Latent Variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5
1. Burnout - - - - -
2. Work engagement -.43* - - - -
3. Overload .12 .14 - - -
4. Job resources -.44* .59** .78 - -
5. Servant leadership -.24 .47* .02 .58** -
* Medium significant correlation at p < .001

** Large significant correlation at p < .001
Note: All decimals were rounded to two places. Spearman’s correlation was utilised.
The results of the principal component analysis of the four surveys are presented
in Table 23 for Burnout, Table 24 for Work engagement, Table 25 for Job resources,
Table 26 for Overload, and Table 27 for Servant leadership. The 22 Burnout items
loaded on five factors, which explained 58.17% of the total variance. The
eigenvalues of these factors were 6.04 for Factor 1, 3.04 for Factor 2, 1.34 for Factor
3, 1.26 for Factor 4, and 1.12 for Factor 5. A total of 13 items were removed after
multiple rounds because they did not meet the set criteria (a primary loading of .50 or
higher and a secondary loading smaller than .20). The items removed were: “I feel
emotionally drained from my work”, “Working with people all day is really a strain for
me”, “Working with people directly puts too much stress on me”, “I feel like I'm at the
end of my rope”, “I’ve become more callous toward people since I took this job”, “I
worry that this job is hardening me emotionally”, “I feel recipients blame me for some
of their problems”, “I can easily understand how my recipients feel about things”, “I
feel I’m positively influencing other people’s lives through my work”, “I feel very
energetic”, “I can easily create a relaxed atmosphere with my recipients”, “I feel
211
exhilarated after working closely with my recipients”, and “In my work, I deal with
emotional problems very calmly”. Five items loaded on Factor 1, which was labelled
Exhaustion. The remaining four items loaded on four different factors. These items
were removed from further analysis.
Table 23
Principal Component Analysis Results for Burnout
Item F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
I feel used up at the end of my workday .84 -.09 -.10 -.12 -.17
I feel fatigued when I get up in the morning and
have to face another day on the job .72 .12 .10 -.11 -.03
I feel burned out from my work .80 .05 .03 -.02 -.02
I feel frustrated by my job .79 .04 -.19 .07 .15
I feel I’m working too hard on my job .71 -.45 .00 .13 -.11
I feel I treat some recipients as if they were
‘impersonal objects’ -.14 .10 .86 -.09 .04
I don’t really care what happens to some
recipients .05 .19 .18 .14 .63
I deal very effectively with the problems of my
recipients -.06 .09 -.05 .76 -.10
I have accomplished many worthwhile things in
my job -.13 .66 .08 -.02 .10
The principal component analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)
indicated that the 17 items loaded on three factors, which explained 55.07% of the
total variance. The eigenvalues of these factors were 6.55 for Factor 1, 1.74 for
Factor 2, and 1.07 for Factor 3. Four items were removed because they loaded on
more than one factor outside the set parameters (larger than .50 on one factor and
smaller than .20 on another factor). Three items were removed because of their
212
loading on factors did not make theoretical sense. Four of the remaining items
loaded on Factor 1 (Dedication), and the other four items loaded on Factor 2
(Vigour). Two items loaded on Factor 3 (Absorption).
Table 24
Principal Component Analysis Results for Work Engagement
Item F1 F2 F3
I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose .96 -.15 -.00
I am enthusiastic about my job .86 -.02 -.03
My job inspires me .77 .12 -.03
I am proud of the work that I do .65 .20 -.06
I can continue working for very long periods at a time -.13 .87 -.07
At my job, I am very resilient, mentally -.00 .66 .07
At my work I always persevere, even when things do not go well .18 .47 .08
I feel happy when I am working intensely .18 .70 -.12
When I am working, I forget everything else around me .02 -.30 .71
It is difficult to detach myself from my job .02 -.02 .65
A total of 25 items of the Job Demands‒Resources Scale (JDRS) loaded on six
factors, and explained 64.55% of the total variance. The eigenvalues of these factors
were 9.64 for Factor 1, 1.56 for Factor 2, 1.44 for Factor 3, 1.29 for Factor 4, 1.15 for
Factor 5, and 1.07 for Factor 6. A total of 13 items that cross-loaded on two or more
factors outside the set parameters were removed. Three items loaded on Factor 1,
namely Organisational Support. Two items loaded on Factor 3, labelled Supervisor
support. Three items loaded on Factor 4 (Job clarity), and two items loaded on
Factor 5 (Colleague support). One item loaded on Factor 2, and one item loaded on
Factor 6. These items were removed from further analysis.
213
Table 25
Principal Component Analysis Results for Job Resources
Item F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
Are you kept adequately up-to-date
about important issues within your
organisation? .59 .19 .06 .03 .02 .03
Do you have a direct influence on
your organisation's decisions? .66 .07 -.14 .09 .15 -.17
Does your job offer you opportunities
for personal growth and
development? .74 -.08 .15 -.21 .07 .05
Do you have influence in the
planning of your work activities? .01 .76 -.13 .09 .09 .07
Do you get on well with your
supervisor? -.22 .19 .83 -.03 .10 -.03
In your work, do you feel appreciated
by your supervisor? .08 .03 .69 .09 .04 -.02
Do you know exactly what other
people expect of you in your work? -.07 .08 -.12 .71 -.05 .40
Do you know exactly for what you
are responsible? -.04 .07 -.01 .92 -.14 -.10
Do you receive sufficient information
on the purpose of your work? .13 -.14 .13 .65 .05 .13
Can you count on your colleagues
when you come across difficulties in
your work? .16 -.14 .02 -.04 .82 .03
If necessary, can you ask colleagues
for help? .08 -.07 -.03 -.08 .93 -.13
Do you have enough variety in your
work? -.08 .01 .02 .06 -.10 .91
214
The eight overload items of the Job Demands‒Resources Scale (JDRS) loaded
on three factors, which explained 58.53% of the total variance. The eigenvalues of
these factors were 2.34 for Factor 1, 1.26 for Factor 2, and 1.08 for Factor 3. Three
items were removed, because they loaded on more than one factor outside the set
parameter. Three items loaded on Factor 1, one item on Factor 2, and one item on
Factor 3. Factor 1 was labelled Overload. The other two items were removed from
further analysis.
Table 26
Principal Component Analysis Results for Overload
Item F1 F2 F3
Do you have to be attentive to many things at the same time? .64 .04 .05
Do you have to give continuous attention to your work? .65 .16 -.04
Do you have to remember many things in your work? .83 .13 -.16
Are you confronted in your work with things that affect you
-.05 .68 -.03
personally?
Do you have too much work to do? .01 -.09 .88
The principal component analysis of the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS)
indicated that the 30 items loaded on five factors, which explained 61.49% of the
total variance. The eigenvalues of these factors were 11.31 for Factor 1, 2.39 for
Factor 2, 2.06 for Factor 3, 1.52 for Factor 4, and 1.18 for Factor 5. A total of 11
problematic items were removed that cross-loaded on more than one factor outside
the set parameters. Six items loaded on Factor 1, namely Empowerment. Four items
loaded on Factor 2 (Humility), three items loaded on Factor 3 (Accountability), three
items loaded on Factor 4 (Forgiveness), and two items loaded on Factor 5
215
(Courage). One item was removed because of its loading on a factor did not make
theoretical sense.
Table 27
Principal Component Analysis Results for Servant Leadership
Item F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
My manager gives me the information I need to
.62 .13 .15 -.01 -.11
do my work well
My manager encourages me to use my talents .74 .08 -.01 .11 -.07
My manager helps me to further develop
.90 -.05 -.03 -.01 .01
myself
My manager encourages his/her staff to come
.77 .01 .13 .00 -.12
up with new ideas
My manager offers me abundant opportunities
.80 -.08 .06 .10 .08
to learn new skills
My manager appears to enjoy his/her
.68 .10 -.18 .12 .13
colleagues’ success more than his/her own
My manager is not chasing recognition or
-.18 .73 .17 .14 -.01
rewards for the things he/she does for others
My manager is open about his/her limitations
.18 .65 -.03 -.10 .00
and weaknesses
My manager learns from criticism -.01 .96 -.22 -.13 .06
I people express criticism, my manager tries to
-.08 .91 -.05 -.15 .01
learn from it
My manager holds me responsible for the work
-.07 .01 .85 -.09 .03
I carry out
I am held accountable for my performance by
.05 -.09 .85 -.03 .02
my manager
My manager holds me and my colleagues
-.03 -.05 .85 -.20 .04
responsible for the way we handle a job
My manager criticizes people for the mistakes
.12 -.26 -.03 .77 .07
they have made in their work
My manager maintains a hard attitude towards
-.01 -.07 -.24 .87 -.03
people who have offended him/her at work
216
My manager ﬁnds it difﬁcult to forget things
-.14 .07 -.06 .82 -.01
that went wrong in the past
My manager takes risks even when he/she is
not certain of the support from his/her own -.18 -.01 -.03 .11 .89
manager
My manager takes risks and does what needs
-.05 .02 .11 -.08 .81
to be done in his/her view
Confirmatory factor analysis was done on four measurement models. The first
measurement model (Model 1) included all variables and items as per the principal
component analysis. This model consisted of 17 latent variables, namely Burnout,
Work engagement (defined by Vigour, Dedication, and Absorption), Job resources
(consisting of Organisational support, Supervisor support, Job clarity, and Colleague
support), Overload, and Servant leadership (defined by Empowerment, Humility,
Accountability, Forgiveness, and Courage).
The second measurement model (Model 2) consisted of 14 latent variables. In this
model, Absorption and Forgiveness were removed, because of factor loadings lower
than .40. Courage was also removed, because it showed to be insignificant. Work
engagement consisted of Vigour and Dedication. Job resources consisted of
Organisational support, Supervisor support, Job clarity, and Colleague support.
Servant leadership consisted of Empowerment, Humility, and Accountability. Burnout
was used as a general factor, and overload was included.
The third measurement model (Model 3) used both Work engagement and
Burnout as general factors. In this model, Overload was removed because it showed
to be insignificant, and four additional items were removed because they had lower
factor loadings than the rest.
217
The fourth measurement model (Model 4) also used Work engagement and
Burnout as general factors, but excluded the Vigour items of Work engagement,
because these showed much lower factor loadings than the rest. Colleague support
and Accountability were also removed due to lower factor loadings. Four problematic
items were also removed. This model consisted of nine latent variables, namely
Burnout, Work engagement, Job resources (consisting of Organisational support,
Supervisory support, and Job clarity), and Servant leadership, which consisted of
Empowerment and Humility. After a numerical evaluation, the results indicated that
Model 4 fit the data the best, with acceptable incremental fit indices of CFI = .966,
TLI = .959, RMSEA = .040, SMRM = .051, and WRMR = .973. The goodness-of-fit
indices of the four measurement models are presented in Table 28.
Table 28
Goodness-of-fit Indices of the Measurement Models
Measurement
Model x² df p CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR WRMR
Model 1 1568.96 967 .000 .85 .83 .05 .08 1.48
Model 2 1069.12 646 .000 .88 .86 .05 .08 1.48
Model 3 756.34 451 .000 .89 .88 .06 .07 1.34
Model 4 192.61 141 .003 .97 .96 .04 .05 .97
Note: All decimals were rounded to two places except for the p-value.
The reliability coefficients of the selected measurement model were all
acceptable. The omega coefficients were ω = .93 for Work engagement, ω = .88 for
Burnout, ω = .85 for Job resources, and ω = .91 for Servant leadership. A summary
of the omega coefficients is provided in Table 29.
218
Table 29
Summary of Omega Coefficients
Variable Omega (ω)

Work engagement .93
Burnout .88
Job resources .85
Servant leadership .91
The next step in the inferential statistical analysis was to evaluate two structural
models. Model 1 consisted of nine latent variables, namely Burnout, Work
engagement, Job resources (consisting of Organisational support, Supervisory
support, and Job clarity), and Servant leadership (consisting of Empowerment and
Humility). In this model, Servant leadership was used as independent variable, and
Job resources, Work engagement, and Burnout as dependant variables.
In the second model (Model 2), direct paths were evaluated between Servant
leadership and Burnout and between Servant leadership and Work engagement. Job
resources were removed from this model. In Model 3, Servant leadership was used
as a generic factor, and Humility was removed. Servant leadership was still used as
the independent variable, with Job resources, Work engagement, and Burnout as
dependant variables.
The model fit indices revealed that Model 3 fit the data the best (CFI = .976, TLI =
.970, RMSEA = .037, SMRM = .046, and WRMR = .891). The goodness-of-fit indices
of the three structural models are presented in Table 30. The regression coefficients
of the latent variables are summarised in Table 31.
219
Table 30
Goodness-of-fit Indices of Structural Models
Structural Model x² df p CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR WRMR

Model 1 193.05 143 .003 .97 .96 .04 .05 .99
Model 2 209.11 143 .000 .96 .95 .05 .06 1.18
Model 3 126.96 97 .022 .98 .97 .04 .05 .89
Significance at p < .05

Table 31
Standardised Regression Coefficients of the Latent Variables
Variable Estimate SE z-value p-value

Work engagement
Job resources .63 .06 9.71 .000**
Burnout
Job resources -.33 .08 -3.88 .000**
Job resources
Servant leadership .88 .04 25.21 .000**
** Significance at p < .001

The mediation effects of Job resources on the relationship between Servant
leadership and Work engagement, and the relationship between Servant leadership
and Burnout were also evaluated. The results indicated that Job resources mediated
the relationship between Servant leadership and Work engagement, with a
standardised estimate of .549 (p < .001). Job resources also mediated the
relationship between Servant leadership and Burnout, with a standardised estimate
of -.287 (p < .001). The results of the mediation analysis are presented in Table 32.
220
Table 32
The Indirect Effects of Servant Leadership on Work Engagement and Burnout via
Job Resources
Unstandardized Standardised
Path Estimate Estimate p-value
Servant leadership to Work engagement .70 .55 .000**
Servant leadership to Burnout -.43 -.29 .000**
** Significance at p < .001

3.4.3 Hypotheses Testing
Hypothesis 1 stated that a positive significant relationship exists between servant
leadership and job resources. The correlation analysis confirmed this hypothesis.
The results showed a large positive significant relationship between Servant
leadership and Job resources (r = .58; p < .001). The structural equation analysis
also showed that Servant leadership predicted Job resources, with a standardised
estimate of .879 (p < .001).
Hypothesis 2 predicted a negative significant relationship between servant
leadership and job demands (overload). This hypothesis was rejected, based on the
results of the correlation analysis. The results showed an insignificant relationship
between these two variables.
Hypothesis 3 suggested that a positive significant relationship exists between
servant leadership and work engagement. The correlation analysis confirmed that a
positive medium significant correlation existed between Servant leadership and Work
engagement (r = .47; p < .001). However, the mediation analysis indicated that this
relationship was mediated by Job resources, with a standardised estimate of .549
(p < .001). This confirms the fourth hypothesis, that job resources mediate the
221
relationship between servant leadership and work engagement. Servant leadership
influenced Job resources positively (.879; p < .001), and Job resources influenced
Work engagement positively (.625; p < .001).
Hypothesis 5 predicted a negative significant relationship between servant
leadership and burnout. The Spearman’s correlation results led to this hypothesis
being rejected. No significant relationship was found between these two variables.
Hypothesis 6 suggested that job demands (overload) mediate a negative
relationship between servant leadership and burnout. This hypothesis could not be
tested, because Overload was removed, due to its insignificance in the confirmatory
factor analysis results.
Hypothesis 7 predicted that job resources mediate the relationship between
servant leadership and burnout. This hypothesis was confirmed by the results. The
mediation analysis showed that Job resources mediated the relationship between
Servant leadership and Burnout (-.287; p < .001). Servant leadership influenced Job
resources positively (.879; p < .001), and Job resources influenced Burnout
negatively (-.326; p < .001).
The research model, with the standardised estimates of the latent variables, is
presented in Figure 12, below.
Burnout
-.326
Servant .879 Job

leadership resources
.625 Work
engagement
Figure 12. Theoretical model with findings
222
3.5 DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationships between job demands,
job resources, work engagement, and burnout. Several measurements and structural
models were tested, and the best-fit model was reported. In this section, the results
are clarified in more detail. Limitations, managerial implications, and future research
suggestions are also discussed.
3.5.1 Servant Leadership and Work Engagement
Although previous studies indicated that servant leadership influenced work
engagement directly (Carter & Baghurst, 2013; De Clercq et al., 2014; Hunter et al.,
2013), the present study found that job resources mediate the relationship between
servant leadership and work engagement. This supports the notion that servant
leadership is not a type of job resource, but rather a separate variable that influences
job resources positively, to ultimately enhance work engagement. Similar results
were reported by Schaufeli (2015), that job resources mediate the relationship
between engaging leadership and work engagement.
It was evident that servant leadership influences job resources positively, and that
higher job resources predict work engagement. This result means that servant
leaders provide the necessary job resources to employees, which will, in turn,
increase the work engagement levels or employees. The type of resources servant
leaders offer can be clustered into organisational resources (organisational support),
positional resources (job clarity), and social resources (supervisor support).
Servant leaders provide organisational resources in two ways, namely
participation in decision-making and providing growth and development
223
opportunities. Servant leaders are humble (Patterson, 2003), they listen well, and
allow others to contribute options and solutions before reaching an appropriate
decision or choosing an action (Spears, 2010). In this way, power is shared within
the organisation, and employees become part of the decision-making process.
According to Blanchard (2010), shared power, with high employee involvement, is
one of the main factors that sustains a high-performing organisation. When
employees are allowed to participate and collaborate, they feel more valued and
respected, and become more engaged in their work. Increased work engagement
levels will enhance organisational commitment, which, in turn, produces better
organisational performance.
Another major role of a servant leader is to empower followers (Van Dierendonck,
2011). This is done by means of providing continuous growth and development
opportunities to activate individual talent, and to make employees more autonomous.
Development opportunities might include training and development, coaching,
mentoring, and even allowing employees to make mistakes in a safe environment.
However, empowerment is more than just development. It includes transferring
accountability to the employee and activating individual talent towards achieving a
higher purpose (Bobbio et al., 2012).
Servant leaders portray good stewardship, and hold themselves and others
accountable. They develop employees so that they can transfer accountability
securely to them. They provide clear direction and boundaries for employees, and
develop employees to become more autonomous, so that they control their jobs in
line with individual and organisational goals. Servant leaders ensure that employees
grow personally, professionally, and spiritually (Sendjaya & Cooper, 2011). When
employees participate in the decision-making process and have opportunities for
224
personal growth and development in the organisation, they will become more
engaged in their work.
A servant leader also provides the required positional resources to employees, in
the form of job clarity. Servant leaders set a higher-purpose vision for the
organisation, and align employees’ skill and talent with the achievement of the vision
(Blanchard, 2010). In this way, the employees understand how they are contributing
towards achieving a higher purpose. This strategic alignment makes work more
meaningful and purposeful, especially when it is aligned with the employee’s interest,
passion, purpose, talent, and skill. Servant leaders build close relationship with their
followers and frequently communicate the requirements of a goal or task. This
ensures employees know exactly what is expected of them and why it is important.
When the expectations and purpose of a job are clear, employees become more
engaged in their work.
Servant leaders further provide the social resources employees need in terms of
supervisor support. They genuinely care about employees (Van Dierendonck &
Patterson, 2014), and built good relationships with their followers (Ehrhart, 2004).
They practise good listening skills (Spears, 2010), are authentic and humble, and
portray high levels of integrity (Laub, 1999; Page & Wong, 2000). These
characteristics enable a servant leader to understand the needs of employees better,
to support them more appropriately. It also enables servant leaders to build trustful
relationships with followers. In such relationships, employees will feel safe to ask for
support or guidance when they need it. When employees feel they are valued and
respected by their leader, receive the necessary supervisory support from their
leader, and get on well with their leader, they experience higher employee
engagement levels.
225
3.5.2 Servant Leadership and Burnout
Another result of this study was that job resources have a negative significant
impact on burnout. This means that, when employees receive more job resources,
their burnout levels are likely to decrease. Similar results were found in other studies
(Hu et al., 2011; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Van Den Broeck, Van Ruysseveldt,
Smulders, & De Witte, 2011; Vera, Salanova, & Lorente, 2012). Although no direct
relationship could be found between servant leadership and burnout, servant
leadership predicted an increase in job resources, and an increase in job resources
predicted lower burnout levels. The results confirmed that job resources mediate the
relationship between servant leadership and burnout. The explanation of this finding
could be twofold. Firstly, it could mean that servant leaders provide the required job
resources to buffer the negative effects of high job demands that would normally
cause burnout (Bakker et al., 2008). It could also mean that, when employees
experience high burnout, servant leaders will probably provide the required job
resources to help those employees recover from burnout. In other words, employees
working under servant leaders might be less inclined to experience burnout, because
they will receive the necessary job resources, either to cope with high job demands
or to recover from burnout.
The types of job resources servant leaders provide to decrease burnout are
organisational resources (organisational support), positional resources (job clarity),
and social resources (supervisor support). In this study, organisational support refers
to participating in decision-making and the availability of personal growth and
development opportunities. Job clarity means knowing exactly what the purpose and
expectations of a job are. Supervisor support refers to having a good relationship
226
with your supervisor, receiving the necessary support from your supervisor, and
feeling appreciated by your supervisor. These job resources will ultimately reduce
burnout. With less burnout, employers could expect healthier employees (Rothmann
& Essenko, 2007; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) who work safer (Li et al., 2013),
perform better (Schaufeli, 2003), and are less inclined to leave the company
(Laschinger & Fida, 2014; Laschinger et al., 2012; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
3.5.3 Limitations
A first limitation of this study was that the samples included only employees from
the construction industry. The results are therefore limited to this industry, and
cannot be generalised to other industries. Sample 2 (direct reports and other
employees) also consisted of more men than women, of which the majority had
Afrikaans and English as home language and were mainly black African and white
employees. Hence, another limitation is that the results cannot be generalised to
women or people of other home languages and races, as the sample were not
equally distributed in terms of gender, language, and race. A final limitation is that
some employees evaluated more than one manager, and the pre- and post-
intervention surveys’ data of Sample 2 (direct reports and other employees) were
combined into one data set. This could have influenced the results either positively
or negatively.
3.5.4 Implications for Management
This study indicated that servant leadership could be a viable solution to improve
work engagement and decrease burnout in organisations, in particular construction
companies. Companies should therefore develop servant leaders internally, and
227
create servant leader cultures within organisations, to sustain and improve employee
engagement. Servant leaders will provide the necessary job resources to employees
in the form of organisational support, job clarity, and supervisor support, which will
consequently improve work engagement levels and decrease burnout levels of
employees. When employees are more engaged in their work, the organisation can
expect better productivity, performance, profitability, creativity, commitment, safety
behaviour, customer satisfaction, product quality, corporate citizenship behaviour,
and employee retention.
One way to instil servant leadership in a company could be to incorporate it into
human capital systems, policies, and procedures. For example, psychometric
assessments could be aligned to servant leadership attributes and competencies in
recruiting and selecting new managers. It could also be used in talent management
processes to identify future leaders. Specific servant leader development
programmes could, in addition, be developed and implemented to equip leaders with
servant leader values, attributes, competencies, principles, and practices. A
performance management system could include 360˚ leader reviews and work
engagement surveys to evaluate servant leader behaviour in the company.
Employees could use these surveys to evaluate their own levels of work
engagement and burnout, as well as their leader’s servant leadership behaviour, to
determine how well a leader applies servant leadership principles and practices. The
performance reviews could then be linked to customised remuneration and
recognition systems, to reward servant leader behaviour in the organisation. From an
organisational development perspective, servant leader values can be incorporated
into the values of the company and the general climate and culture of the
organisation. All these interventions would assist a company to select, train, review,
228
and reward servant leaders and, in turn, benefit from a more engaged workforce and
better organisational performance.
3.5.5 Future Research
Valuable future research may include cross-sectional studies to determine if
similar results are found in industries other than the construction industry. Other
future studies may apply longitudinal designs to examine similar effects over time.
This will provide more information on the sustainability and impact of servant
leadership on job resources, work engagement, and burnout over time. The results
of the present study can also be used to design servant leadership development
programmes. The effectiveness of these development programmes can then be
evaluated using experimental-type studies.
Another interesting study might be to investigate the correlation between values,
personality characteristics, and servant leadership. This could establish a benchmark
to appropriately recruit and select servant leaders in organisations. A final research
need is to validate a framework or procedure to implement servant leadership in
organisations, and to create serving organisations. Such a framework could assist
organisational development practitioners to create and sustain serving organisations
that leave behind sustainable and positive legacies in society.
3.6 CONCLUSION
The construction industry is characterised by high job demands, long working
hours, dangerous work environments, low flexibility, and isolated work locations.
These demanding work conditions might enhance the risk of employee
disengagement and ill health caused by stress and burnout. Additional challenges
229
such as labour unrest, skills shortages, talent retention issues, and project execution
problems may make it even more difficult for leaders to sustain high work-related
well-being levels in this industry. It is thus imperative that construction companies
understand how to enhance work-related well-being in this industry, to ensure
sustainable operational performance.
Two work-related well-being constructs are evident in the literature, namely work
engagement and burnout. Work engagement is defined as an employee state
characterised by high energy, dedication, and focus, whereas burnout is evident in
low energy, low motivation, and lack of perceived competence. The job demands‒
resources theory predicts that high job demands in the absence of job resources will
cause burnout, whereas challenging job demands with adequate job resources will
cause work engagement.
Leaders have the ability to influence an employee’s job demands and job
resources, to increase work engagement levels or to decrease burnout levels.
Theoretically, servant leadership seems to be the best leadership approach to
enhance work engagement. It includes dimensions of various leadership theories
that are currently linked to work engagement. Servant leadership also focusses
primarily on serving the needs of employees, and includes additional leadership
practices and principles that are absent from other leadership theories. Although
servant leadership characteristics seem to correlate well theoretically with the
description of job resources, empirical evidence is still needed to validate the
relationships between servant leadership, job demands, job resources, work
engagement, and burnout.
The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationships between servant
leadership and work engagement, as well as between servant leadership and
230
burnout, in the construction industry. The results indicated that job resources
mediate the relationship between servant leadership and work engagement, as well
as between servant leadership and burnout.
The results highlighted that servant leadership can be used in the construction
industry to enhance work engagement levels and to decrease burnout levels.
Servant leaders provide the job resources employees need to become more
engaged in their work and to experience less burnout. These job resources are
provided in the form of organisational support, job clarity, and supervisory support.
In summary, this study revealed how servant leaders improve work engagement
and decrease burnout of employees in a construction company. It highlighted the
importance of incorporating servant leadership into organisational systems to
address the employee engagement problem. This study makes a theoretical and
practical contribution to the body of knowledge on servant leadership, work
engagement, and burnout.
Publication Notice
The authors declare that parts of this chapter were published in a national peer-
reviewed scientific journal: Coetzer, M.F., Bussin, M.H.R., & Geldenhuys, M. (2017).
Servant leadership and work related well-being in a construction company. SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology, 43(0), 1-10. doi: 10.4102/sajip.v43i0.1478
231
REFERENCES
Agarwal, U. A., Datta, S., Blake‐Beard, S., & Bhargava, S. (2012). Linking LMX,
innovative work behaviour and turnover intentions: The mediating role of work
engagement. Career Development International, 17(3), 208–230.
doi: 10.1108/13620431211241063
Albrecht, S. L., & Andreetta, M. (2011). The influence of empowering leadership,
empowerment and engagement on affective commitment and turnover
intentions in community health service workers: Test of a model. Leadership in
Health Services, 24(3), 228–237. doi: 10.1108/17511871111151126
Alok, K., & Israel, D. (2012). Authentic leadership & work engagement. Indian
Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(3), 498–510. Retrieved from EBSCO Host
Altahayneh, Z. L. (2013). The relationship between perceived coaches’ leadership
behaviors and athletes’ burnout in Jordan. International Journal of Academic
Research, 5(1), 60–65. doi: 10.7813/2075-4124.2013/5-1/B.11
doi: 10.1080/15332969.2011.533091
Babcock-Roberson, M. E., & Strickland, O. J. (2010). The relationship between
charismatic leadership, work engagement, and organizational citizenship
behaviours. The Journal of Psychology, 144(3), 313–326. Retrieved from
Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 265–269.
232
doi: 10.1177/0963721411414534
Bakker, A. B. (2015). A job demands–resources approach to public service
motivation. Public Management Review, 75(5), 723–732.
doi: 10.1111/puar.12388.A
Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work
engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1),
4–28. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2010.485352
doi: 10.1108/02683940710733115
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement.
Career Development International, 13(3), 209–223.
doi: 10.1108/13620430810870476
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2016). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock
and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(1), 1–13.
doi: 10.1037/ocp0000056
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work
engagement: The JD–R approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology
and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 389–411. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-
031413-091235
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Dual processes at work in a
call centre: An application of the Job Demands–Resources Model. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12(4), 393–417.
doi: 10.1080/13594320344000165
Bakker, A. B., Emmerik, H. V., & Euwema, M. C. (2006). Crossover of burnout and
233
engagement in work teams. Work and Occupations, 33(4), 464–489.
doi: 10.1177/0730888406291310
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work
engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work &
Stress, 22(3), 187–200. doi: 10.1080/02678370802393649
300–326. doi: 10.1177/1059601106287091
Baron, A. (2013). What do engagement measures really mean? Strategic HR
Review, 12(1), 21–25. doi: 10.1108/14754391311282450
doi: 10.1177/107179190000700302
Bezuidenhout, A., & Schultz, C. (2013). Transformational leadership and employee
engagement in the mining industry. Journal of Contemporary Management, 10,
279–297. Retrieved from
http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/13220/JCM_Sub_Vol9_49_v4_July
%202013.pdf?sequence=1
Bickerton, G. R., Miner, M. H., Dowson, M., & Griffin, B. (2014). Spiritual resources
in the Job Demands‒Resources Model. Journal of Management, Spirituality,
and Religion, 11(3), 245–268. doi: 10.1037/rel0000012
234
Blomme, R. J., Kodden, B., & Beasley-Suffolk, A. (2015). Leadership theories and
the concept of work engagement: Creating a conceptual framework for
management implications and research. Journal of Management &
Organization, 21(2), 125–144. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2014.71
doi: 10.1177/1742715012441176
Boudrias, J., Desrumaux, P., Gaudreau, P., Nelson, K., Brunet, L., & Savoie, A.
(2011). Modeling the experience of psychological health at work: The role of
personal resources, social-organizational resources, and job demands.
International Journal of Stress Management, 18(4), 372–395.
doi: 10.1037/a0025353
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Hetland, J. (2012). The measurement
of state work engagement: A multilevel factor analytic study. European Journal
of Psychological Assessment, 28(4), 305–312. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000111
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Van Den Heuvel, M. (2015). Leader‒
member exchange, work engagement, and job performance. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 30(7), 754–770. doi: 10.1108/JMP-03-2013-0088
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R.
(2014). Daily transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee
engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1),
138–157. doi: 10.1111/joop.12041
235
doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1882-0
CEB. (2015). Are your leaders driving “one-company” results? [Online]. Retrieved
from http://www.executiveboard.com/exbd-resources/pdf/top-
insights/leadership/Transform-Leadership-Article.pdf
011-9479-3
doi: 10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n14p405
Chirico, F. (2016). Spiritual well-being in the 21st century: It’s time to review the
current WHO’s health definition? Journal of Health and Social Sciences, 1(1),
11–16. doi: 10.19204/2016/sprt2
Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2009). Business research: A practical guide for
undergraduate and postgraduate students (3rd ed.). New York: Palgrave
Macmillian.
236
Construction Industry Development Board. (2015). Labour and work conditions in the
South African construction industry: Status and recommendations [Online].
Retrieved from http://www.cidb.org.za/publications/Documents/Labour and Work
Conditions in the South African Construction Industry; Status and
Recommendations.pdf
Danna, K., & Griffen, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review
and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management, 25(3), 357–384.
doi: 10.1177/014920639902500305
Dannhauser, Z., & Boshoff, A. B. (2007). The relationship between servant
De Beer, L. T., Pienaar, J., & Rothmann, S. (2016). Job burnout, work engagement
and self-reported treatment for health conditions in South Africa. Stress and
Health, 32, 36–46. doi: 10.1002/smi.2576
De Braine, R., & Roodt, G. (2011). The Job Demands‒Resources Model as predictor
of work identity and work engagement: A comparative analysis. SA Journal of
Industrial Psychology, 37(2), 1–11. doi: 10.4102/sajip.v37i2.889
doi: 10.1002/hrdq.21185
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Gevers, J. M. P. (2015). Job crafting and extra-role
behavior: The role of work engagement and flourishing. Journal of Vocational
237
Behavior, 91, 87–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.09.001
Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2012). Work engagement and
machiavellianism in the ethical leadership process. Journal of Business Ethics,
107(1), 35–47. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1296-4
600–615. doi: 10.1108/01437730510633692
2013-0133
De Villiers, J. R., & Stander, M. W. (2011). Psychological empowerment, work
engagement and turnover intention: The role of leader relations and role clarity
in a financial institution. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 21(3), 405–412.
doi: 10.1080/14330237.2011.10820474
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being:
Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
Dodge, R., Daly, A. P., Huyton, J., & Sanders, L. D. (2012). The challenge of
defining well-being. International Journal of Well-being, 2, 222–235.
doi: 10.5502/ijw.v2i3.4
238
94. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02484.x
Field, L. K., & Buitendach, J. H. (2012). Work engagement, organisational
commitment, job resources and job demands of teachers working within
disadvantaged high schools in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Journal of
Psychology in Africa, 27(2), 87–95. Retrieved from EBSCO Host database
Gallup. (2013). State of the global workplace: Employee engagement insights for
business leaders worldwide [Online]. Retrieved from
http://www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/164735/state-global-workplace.aspx
Ghadi, M. Y., Fernando, M., & Caputi, P. (2013). Transformational leadership and
work engagement: The mediating effect of meaning in work. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 34(6), 532–550. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-10-
2011-0110
Gonçalves, S. P., & Neves, J. (2011). Factorial validation of Warr’s (1990) well-being
measure: A sample study on police officers. Psychology, 2(7), 706–712.
doi: 10.4236/psych.2011.27108
ementfacpub
239
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2005). How dentists cope with their
job demands and stay engaged: The moderating role of job resources.
European Journal of Oral Sciences, 113(6), 479–487. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-
0722.2005.00250.x
Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., & Ahola, K. (2008). The Job Demands‒Resources
Model: A three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment,
and work engagement. Work & Stress, 22(3), 224–241.
doi: 10.1080/02678370802379432
doi: 10.1177/1742715007082964
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship
between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business
outcomes: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
Hayward, S. (2010). Engaging employees through whole leadership. Strategic HR
Review, 9(3), 11–17. doi: 10.1108/14754391011040028
Hetland, H., Sandal, G. M., & Johnsen, T. B. (2007). Burnout in the information
technology sector: Does leadership matter? European Journal of Work and
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling:
Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business
Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. Retrieved from http://www.ejbrm.com/vol6/v6-
i1/v6-i1-papers.htm
Hox, J. J., & Bechger, T. M. (1998). An introduction to structural equation modeling.
240
Family Science Review, 11, 354–373. Retrieved from
http://joophox.net/publist/semfamre.pdf
Hsieh, C., & Wang, D. (2015). Does supervisor-perceived authentic leadership
influence employee work engagement through employee-perceived authentic
leadership and employee trust? The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 26(18), 2329–2348. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2015.1025234
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.12.001
Huynh, J. Y., Xanthopoulou, D., & Winefield, A. H. (2014). The Job Demands‒
Resources Model in emergency service volunteers: Examining the mediating
roles of exhaustion, work engagement and organizational connectedness. Work
& Stress, 28(3), 305–322. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2014.936922
Jackson, L., & Rothmann, S. (2005). Work-related well-being of educators in a
district of the North-West Province. Perspectives in Education, 23(3), 107–122.
Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=EJ718600
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
241
disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
Kanste, O. (2008). The association between leadership behaviour and burnout
among nursing personnel in health care. Nordic Journal of Nursing Research
and Clinical Studies, 28(3), 4–8. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=2010071277
&site=ehost-live
Kanste, O. (2011). Work engagement, work commitment and their association with
well-being in health care. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 25(4), 754–
761. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2011.00888.x
Kopperud, K., Martinsen, O., & Humborstad, S. (2014). Engaging leaders in the eyes
of the beholder: On the relationship between transformational leadership, work
engagement, service climate, and self-other agreement. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 21(1), 29–42. doi: 10.1177/1548051813475666
Korunka, C., Kubicek, B., Schaufeli, W. B., & Hoonakker, P. (2009). Work
engagement and burnout: Testing the robustness of the Job Demands‒
Resources Model. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(3), 243–255.
doi: 10.1080/17439760902879976
Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S. C., & Jonas, K. (2013). Transformational leadership and
performance: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of basic
needs satisfaction and work engagement. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 86(4), 543–555. doi: 10.1111/joop.12022
Laschinger, H. K. S., Borgogni, L., Consiglio, C., & Read, E. (2015). The effects of
authentic leadership, six areas of worklife, and occupational coping self-efficacy
242
on new graduate nurses’ burnout and mental health: A cross-sectional study.
International Journal of Nursing Studies, 52(6), 1080–1089.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.03.002
Laschinger, H. K. S., & Fida, R. (2014). A time-lagged analysis of the effect of
authentic leadership on workplace bullying, burnout, and occupational turnover
intentions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(5),
739–753. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2013.804646
Laschinger, H. K. S., Wong, C. A., & Grau, A. L. (2012). The influence of authentic
leadership on newly graduated nurses’ experiences of workplace bullying,
burnout and retention outcomes: A cross-sectional study. International Journal
of Nursing Studies, 49(10), 1266–1276. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.05.012
Li, F., Jiang, L., Yao, X., & Li, Y. (2013). Job demands, job resources and safety
outcomes: The roles of emotional exhaustion and safety compliance. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 51, 243–251. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2012.11.029
Lingard, H. (2003). The impact of individual and job characteristics on “burnout”
243
among civil engineers in Australia and the implications for employee turnover.
Construction Management and Economics, 21(1), 69–80.
doi: 10.1080/0144619032000065126
Lingard, H., & Sublet, A. (2002). The impact of job and organizational demands on
marital or relationship satisfaction and conflict among Australian civil engineers.
Construction Managment and Economics, 20, 507–521.
doi: 10.1080/01446190210156073
Lorente, L., Salanova, M., Martínez, I. M., & Vera, M. (2014). How personal
resources predict work engagement and self-rated performance among
construction workers: A social cognitive perspective. International Journal of
Psychology, 49(3), 200–7. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12049
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-
9434.2007.0002.x
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout.
Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 2, 99–113. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.4030020205/pdf
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations
cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do’s, don’ts, and how-
to’s. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97–110.
doi: 10.4090/juee.2008.v2n2.033040
McMahan, E. A., & Estes, D. (2011). Hedonic versus eudaimonic conceptions of
well-being: Evidence of differential associations with self-reported well-being.
Social Indicators Research, 103(1), 93–108. doi: 10.1007/s11205-010-9698-0
244
Mendes, F., & Stander, M. W. (2011). Positive organisation: The role of leader
behaviour in work engagement and retention. SA Journal of Industrial
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with
latent variables (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
Naidoo, D., Brand, A., Harrison, A., Raghuber, B., Botes, D., Deysel, D., Coetzee, J.,
Swanepoel, J., Makhetha, N., Ramawtar, S., Mphuthi, T., & Nkosi, T. (2015). SA
construction: Highligting trends in the South African construction industry
[Online]. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.co.za/en/assets/pdf/sa-construction-
2015.pdf
Pallant. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide for data analysis using
SPSS (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
245
Penger, S., & Cerne, M. (2014). Authentic leadership, employees’ job satisfaction,
and work engagement: A hierarchical linear modelling approach. Economic
Research, 27(1), 508–526. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2014.974340
010-0729-1
Revelle, W., & Zinbarg, R. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb:
Commets on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145–154. doi: 10.1007/s11336-
008-9102-z
Rose, S., Spinks, N., & Canhoto, A. I. (2015). Management research: Applying the
principles. New York: Routledge.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal
of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. Retrieved from
http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/
Rothman, N., & Boschmans, M. (2015). Employee wellness: Impact on an
organisation [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.sara.co.za/sara/file
storage/Documents/presentations/Employee wellness ‒ SARA ‒ Sept 2015.pdf
Rothmann, I., De Beer, L. T., & Rothmann, I. (2014). The psychometric properties of
the organisational human factor benchmark (OHFB): A multi-national validation.
Potchefstroom, South Africa: Afriforte.
246
Rothmann, S., & Essenko, N. (2007). Job characteristics, optimism, burnout, and ill
health of support staff in a higher edication institution in South Africa. South
African Journal of Psychology, 37(1), 135–152. Retrieved from
Rothmann, S., & Joubert, J. H. M. (2007). Job demands, job resources, burnout and
work engagement of managers at a platinum mine in the North West Province.
South African Journal of Business Management, 38(3), 49–61. Retrieved from
http://www.ianrothmann.com/pub/busman_v38_n3_a5.pdf
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potential: A review of
research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology,
52, 141–166. Retrieved from http://condor.depaul.edu/hstein/NYAR.pdf
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being
revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A
eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies,
9(1), 13–39. doi: 10.1007/s10902-006-9019-0
SAFCEC. (2014). State of the South African Civil Industry: 3rd Quarter 2014 [Online].
Retrieved from https://www.safcec.org.za/resource/collection/AAB7C9E5-B817-
466E-84AB-370620F4ACA6/StateOfTheIndustry_2014Q2.pdf
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement.
247
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.
doi: 10.1108/02683940610690169
Salem, I. (2015). Transformational leadership: Relationship to job stress and job
burnout in five-star hotels. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 15(4), 240–253.
doi: 10.1177/1467358415581445
Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Past performance and future perspectives of burnout
research. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(4), 1–15. Retrieved from
www.sajip.co.za/index.php/sajip/article/download/127/123
Schaufeli, W. B. (2015). Engaging leadership in the Job Demands‒Resources
Model. Career Development International, 20(5), 446–463.
doi: 10.1108/02683940010305270
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). Utrecht Work Engagement Scale:
Preliminary manual. Utrecht, Netherlands: Utrecht University.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The
measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor
analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. Retrieved from
http://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/publications/Schaufeli/178.pdf
Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the Job Demands‒
Resources Model: Implications for improving work and health. In G. F. Bauer &
O. Hamming (Eds.), Bridging occupational, organizational and public health: A
transdisciplinary approach, 43–68. Dordrecht: Springer Science and Business
Media.
248
Schulte, P., & Vainio, H. (2010). Well-being at work: Overview and perspective.
Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment Health, 36(5), 422–429.
doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3076
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness
and well-being. New York: Free Press.
402–424. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00761.x
Seppälä, P., Mauno, S., Kinnunen, M., Feldt, T., Juuti, T., Tolvanen, A., & Rusko, H.
(2012). Is work engagement related to healthy cardiac autonomic activity?
Evidence from a field study among Finnish women workers. The Journal of
Positive Psychology, 7(2), 95–106. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2011.637342
Shu, C. (2015). The impact of intrinsic motivation on the effectiveness of leadership
style on work engagement. Contemporary Management Research, 11(4), 327–
350. doi: 10.7903/cmr.14043
Shuck, B. (2011). Four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: An
integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 10(3),
304–328. doi: 10.1177/1534484311410840
Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of
249
Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107–120. doi: 10.1007/s11336-008-
9101-0
Simpson, M. R. (2009). Engagement at work: A review of the literature. International
Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(7), 1012–1024.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.05.003
Solomon, M., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving
performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 89–96.
Retrieved from http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/view/6745
Sonnentag, S. (2011). Research on work engagement is well and alive. European
doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2010.510639
Retrieved from
Sulea, C., Virga, D., Maricutoiu, L. P., Schaufeli, W. B., Dumitru, C. Z., & Sava, F. A.
(2012). Work engagement as mediator between job characteristics and positive
and negative extra-role behaviors. Career Development International, 17(2–3),
188–207. doi: 10.1108/13620431211241054
250
Tuckey, M. R., Bakker, A. B., & Dollard, M. F. (2012). Empowering leaders optimize
working conditions for engagement: A multilevel study. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 17(1), 15–27. doi: 10.1037/a0025942
Van Den Broeck, A., Van Ruysseveldt, J., Smulders, P., & De Witte, H. (2011). Does
an intrinsic work value orientation strengthen the impact of job resources? A
perspective from the Job Demands–Resources Model. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(5), 581–609.
doi: 10.1080/13594321003669053
Management, 37(4), 1228–1261. doi: 10.1177/0149206310380462
Vera, M., Salanova, M., & Lorente, L. (2012). The predicting role of self-efficacy in
the Job Demands‒Resources Model: A longitudinal study. Studies in
Psychology, 33(2), 167–178. doi: 10.1174/021093912800676439
Vincent-Höper, S., Muser, C., & Janneck, M. (2012). Transformational leadership,
work engagement, and occupational success. Career Development
International, 17(7), 663–682. doi: 10.1108/13620431211283805
Warr, P. (1990). The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 193–210. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00521.x/abstract
251
World Health Organization. (2006). Constitution of the World Health Organization.
Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
World Health Organization. (2014). Global Status Report on Noncommunicable
Diseases 2014 [Online]. Retrieved from https://doi.org/ISBN 9789241564854
World Health Organization. (2015). Assessing national capacity for the prevention
and control of noncommunicable diseases [Online]. Retrieved from
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/246223/1/9789241565363-eng.pdf?ua=1
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role
of personal resources in the Job Demands‒Resources Model. International
Journal of Stress Management, 14(2), 121–141. doi: 10.1037/1072-
5245.14.2.121
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). A diary
study on the happy worker: How job resources relate to positive emotions and
personal resources. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
21(4), 489–517. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2011.584386
Yalabik, Z. Y., Popaitoon, P., Chowne, J. A., & Rayton, B. A. (2013). Work
engagement as a mediator between employee attitudes and outcomes. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(14), 2799–2823.
doi: 10.1080/09585192.2013.763844
Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., & Walumba, F. O. (2009). Moderating role of follower
characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement.
252
doi: 10.1177/1059601108331242
Zigarmi, D., Nimon, K., Houson, D., Witt, D., & Diehl, J. (2009). Beyond engagement:
Toward a framework and operational definition for employee work passion.
Human Resource Development Review, 8(3), 300–326.
doi: 10.1177/1534484309338171
Zinbarg, R. E., Yovel, I., Revelle, W., & McDonald, R. P. (2006). Estimating
generalizability to a latent variable common to all of a scale’s indicators: A
comparison of estimators for ωh. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30(2),
121–144. doi: 10.1177/0146621605278814
Zopiatis, A., & Constanti, P. (2010). Leadership styles and burnout: Is there an
association? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
22(3), 300–320. doi: 10.1108/09596111011035927
253
CHAPTER 4: ANTECEDENTS OF AND BARRIERS TO DEVELOP SERVANT
LEADERS (MANUSCRIPT 3)
ABSTRACT
Background: Leadership plays a fundamental role in organisational performance
and sustainability. Inadequate leadership capability, however, has been identified as
a global problem. One way to resolve the leadership capability problem is to
understand the antecedents and barriers related to leadership development. Limited
empirical evidence is available on the antecedents and barriers related specifically to
developing servant leaders.
Research Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the personal and
organisational antecedents of and barriers to develop servant leaders.
Research Method: A qualitative research design was used in the form of focus
groups. A non-probability sample of 39 managers was drawn from a construction
company.
Main Findings: The results indicated that servant leadership development was
promoted by personal antecedents such as personal attributes, competence, life
experiences, and commitment and by organisational antecedents such as
development opportunities, leadership support, performance management, 360˚
surveys, communication, strategic alignment, and organisational culture. Servant
leadership development was furthermore hindered by personal barriers such as
personal attributes and life experiences and by organisational barriers such as
organisational demands, lack of leadership support, and constant changes. The
results were used to conceptualise a framework to develop servant leaders in
organisations.
254
Managerial Implications: A five-phase framework is proposed by this study to
develop servant leaders in an organisation. Management and practitioners can use
this framework to design and implement servant leadership development
programmes effectively in organisations.
Contribution: New empirical evidence is provided in terms of the antecedents of
and barriers to develop servant leaders. A new framework to develop servant
leaders was also conceptualised by this study. This study therefore makes a
theoretical and practical contribution to the body of knowledge on servant leadership.
Keywords: Leadership development, servant leadership, barriers, antecedents.
255
4.1. INTRODUCTION
Leadership plays a fundamental role in organisational performance and
sustainability. Several high-performing organisation frameworks highlight leadership
as a critical component to sustaining a high-performing organisation (De Waal, 2007;
Owen et al., 2001). Leadership has also been shown to influence employee
engagement positively (Babcock-Roberson & Strickland, 2010; Bezuidenhout &
Schultz, 2013; Breevaart et al., 2015; Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012; Ghadi et al.,
2013; Mendes & Stander, 2011; Penger & Cerne, 2014; Schaufeli, 2015), and to
enhance employee retention (Hu et al., 2011), organisational citizenship behaviour
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2008), safety behaviour (Harter et al., 2002; Shuck, 2011;
Solomon & Sridevi, 2010), productivity (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Hayward, 2010;
Shuck, 2011; Simpson, 2009), profitability (Harter et al., 2002; Shuck, 2011;
Simpson, 2009; Solomon & Sridevi, 2010), and customer satisfaction (Bakker et al.,
2011; Baron, 2013; Harter et al., 2002; Hayward, 2010; Simpson, 2009; Solomon &
Sridevi, 2010). It is therefore vital that companies maintain and sustain internal
leadership capability to meet current and future operational needs.
Inadequate leadership capability, however, has been identified as a global
problem. Several reports acknowledged leadership capability as a current human
capital risk and an operational challenge (Bersin et al., 2016; Schatsky & Schwartz,
2015; Sinar, et al., 2015). One study indicated that 86% of companies worldwide
reported a leadership shortage in their talent pipeline (Schatsky & Schwartz, 2015).
Another study reported a significant gap in the current skill level of leaders in
comparison with the leadership competencies required to lead effectively in current
and future work environments (Leslie, 2009).
256
Although the amount companies spend on leadership development increases
annually (O’Leonard, 2014), the leadership capability gap remains a challenge in
several companies globally. A possible reason for this might be ineffective leadership
development programmes. In the view of Sinar et al. (2015), this is indeed the case.
In their study, only 37% of the leaders rated their organisation’s leadership
development programmes as highly effective and sustainable. Petrie (2014) concurs
that the shortage in leadership skills is a development problem, rather than a
leadership capability problem. Petrie (2014) is of the opinion that current leadership
development programmes fail to include (a) opportunities to practise leadership, (b)
the horizontal and vertical development elements of leadership, (c) leader-ownership
development, and (e) collective leadership practices.
One way to resolve the leadership capability problem is to understand the
antecedents and barriers related to leadership development. Antecedents refer to
the personal and organisational factors that promote leadership development.
Previous studies showed that organisational antecedents such as an effective
organisational culture (Brown & Trevino, 2006; Garavan, McGuire, & Lee, 2015),
organisational contextualisation (Gentry, Eckert, Munusamy, Stawiski, & Martin,
2013), effective programme design (Ingraham & Getha-Taylor, 2004), and
organisational strategy and systems alignment (Garavan et al., 2016) promote
leadership development. Other studies also indicated that personal antecedents
such as personal attributes (Barbuto & Bugenhagen, 2009; Brown & Trevino, 2006;
Chiu, Huang, & Hung, 2012; Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012;
Flynn, Smither, & Walker, 2016; Guerin, Oliver, Gottfried, Gottfried, Reichard, &
Riggio, 2011; Kotze & Nel, 2015; Krummaker & Vogel, 2012; Oliver, Gottfried,
257
Guerin, Gottfried, Reichard, & Riggio, 2011) and life experiences (Howard & Irving,
2013; Janson, 2008; Oliver et al., 2011) promote leadership development.
Barriers, on the other hand, are personal and organisational factors that hinder
leadership development. Previous research revealed that organisational barriers
such as an ineffective organisational culture (Catalfamo, 2010; Peltzer, Ford, Shen,
Fischgrund, Teel, Pierce, Jamison, & Waldon, 2015; Schafer, 2010; Warne, 2010), a
lack of leadership support (Johnstal, 2013; Peltzer et al., 2015), ineffective
programme design (Lee, 2010), and incompetent HR department staff (Gallo, 2012;
Garavan et al., 2016; Hamidifar & Ebrahimi, 2016) hinder leadership development.
Literature further revealed that personal barriers such as an insufficient work‒life
balance (Catalfamo, 2010; Gallo, 2012; Maranzan, Sabourin, & Simard-Chicago,
2013; Warne, 2010), lack of competence (Gallo, 2012; Warne, 2010), lack of
confidence (Archard, 2012; Bolden, 2010; Maranzan et al., 2013), age (Gallo, 2012;
Warne, 2010), and anxiety (Bolden, 2010; Chan, 2002) hindered leadership
development.
Although previous studies identified antecedents of and barriers to leadership
development, limited empirical evidence is available on the antecedents and barriers
related specifically to developing servant leaders. Servant leadership is a leadership
theory and practice that starts with an intent to serve (Greenleaf, 1998), which flows
into principles and practices to empower people, build better organisations, and
create humane societies (Van Dierendonck, 2011). It is characterised by compassion
(Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Berger, 2014; Crippen, 2005; Kincaid, 2012; Liden et al.,
2008; Spears, 2010; Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014), humility (De Sousa & Van
Dierendonck, 2014; Patterson, 2003), courage (Russell & Stone, 2002; Van
Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), integrity (Edwards, 2010; Melchar & Bosco, 2010;
258
Pekerti & Sendjaya, 2010), authenticity (Pekerti & Sendjaya, 2010; Peterson &
Seligman, 2004; Russell & Stone, 2002), altruism (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006;
Melchar & Bosco, 2010; Mertel & Brill, 2015; Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014),
accountability (Edwards, 2010; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), and listening
(Spears, 2010). The competencies of a servant leader include setting a compelling
vision (Spears, 2010; Van Dierendonck, 2011; Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014),
building relationships (Bambale, 2014; Edwards, 2010; Liden et al., 2008; Sendjaya
et al., 2008; Stone et al., 2004; Van Dierendonck, 2011; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten,
2011), and practising stewardship (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Melchar & Bosco,
2010; Ozyilmaz & Cicek, 2015; Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2015; Sun & Wang,
2009; Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014).
Known antecedents of servant leadership include the period of leadership,
volunteering, building trustful relationships, altruism, interpersonal competence, and
leading from anywhere in the organisation (Beck, 2014). Additional studies revealed
that organisational barriers to implementing servant leadership are a lack of trust,
paternalism, conflicting leadership styles, the misunderstanding of servant
leadership, lack of engagement and team cohesion, self-serving agendas, conflicting
recognition, poor communication and relationships, insufficient learning and
development (Foster, 2000), fear of change (Savage-Austin & Honeycutt, 2011),
limited resources, lack of skills, and an individualistic organisational culture (Hanse
et al., 2016).
One study also showed that personal barriers such as ego, partiality, poor
leadership skills, poor relationship skills, dishonesty, spiritual issues, financial issues,
lack of role models, lack of opportunity, and lack of accountability hindered the
practice of servant leadership (Saidu, 2013). However, more research is needed to
259
understand the barriers and antecedents related to servant leadership (Beck, 2014).
This would ultimately assist leadership development practitioners to embed servant
leadership programmes more effectively in organisations, and to be better able to
transform individuals into servant leaders. The main objective of the present study
was therefore to identify antecedents of and barriers to developing servant leaders.
4.1.1. Research Objectives
The general aim of this study was to determine the personal and organisational
antecedents of and barriers to develop servant leaders.
The specific objectives of this study were to:
• identify the personal antecedents of developing servant leaders;
• identify the organisational antecedents of developing servant leaders;
• identify the personal barriers to developing servant leaders; and
• identify the organisational barriers to developing servant leaders.
This literature review is divided into four sections, namely (1) the antecedents of
leadership development, (2) the antecedents of developing servant leaders, (3) the
barriers to leadership development, and (4) the barriers to developing servant
leaders.
4.2.1. Antecedents of Leadership Development
Several antecedents of leadership development are discussed in the literature.
These can be divided into organisational antecedents and personal antecedents.
Organisational antecedents of leadership development are factors in an organisation
260
that promote leadership development, such as organisational culture, organisational
context, programme design, and organisational strategy and systems alignment.
Personal antecedents are personal factors that promote leadership development,
such as personal attributes and life experience. These antecedents are described in
more detail below.
4.2.1.1. Organisational Antecedents of Leadership Development
A first organisational leadership development antecedent is organisational culture.
Organisational culture refers to the overall organisational climate, organisational
ethics (Brown & Trevino, 2006), the operational environment of an organisation, and
the learning culture within an organisation (Garavan et al., 2015). Organisational
culture also includes leadership support from top management.
Leaders and supervisors can support employees in several ways, such as (a)
recognising the importance of learning (Garavan et al., 2016), (b) allocating
resources, (c) building trustful relationships with employees (Wilson & Bird, 2014),
(d) prioritising learning (Gallo, 2012), (e) holding employees accountable for
behavioural change after learning, (f) creating an encouraging atmosphere for
learning, (g) providing the time and opportunity to apply learning in the workplace, (h)
aligning learning with workplace- and performance goals, (i) creating a development
plan for the employee, (j) communicating with employees before, during, and after
learning, (k) receiving an overview of the learning course or programme, (l)
scheduling regular communication meetings with employees, (m) mentoring,
evaluating, and providing feedback (Johnstal, 2013), and (n) rewarding and
recognising accomplishments (Dulebohn et al., 2012).
261
The values, behaviours, and attitudes of top leaders also play an important role in
leadership development (Garavan et al., 2016). Leadership development can
become more effective when the values and behaviours of top leaders are aligned
with the behaviours and values taught in leadership development programmes. This
will make it easier for employees to apply those values and behaviours in the
workplace once they have completed a leadership development programme.
A second organisational antecedent of leadership development is organisational
context. Gentry et al. (2013) suggested that leadership development should be done
in accordance with the context of the employee’s job, as well as the organisation.
The organisational context includes factors such as an employee’s work setting or
location (Dulebohn et al., 2012). Ingraham and Getha-Taylor (2004) agree that
leadership development programmes should be developed specifically for the type of
organisation, especially in the case of public versus private organisations. When
learning is relevant to the specific job, an employee would find the learning more
meaningful and apply it easier in the workplace (Gentry et al., 2013).
Effective programme design can also be seen as a development antecedent.
Researchers and practitioners suggest that leadership development programmes
should comprise blended learning methods, to ensure effective leadership
development. For example, Ingraham and Getha-Taylor (2004) suggest that
leadership development programmes should focus on core competencies, and
include learning activities such as classroom training, group activities, individual
projects, and mentorship.
Janson (2008) is of opinion that leadership development programmes should also
focus on personal, relational, and contextual leadership components. Nesbit (2012)
agrees that personal leadership plays a fundamental role in leadership development,
262
and proposes self-reflection as a learning method to create self-awareness and self-
transformation. Another important learning method highlighted in the literature is
experiential learning. The transfer of knowledge to the workplace is a critical
component of effective leadership development (Bolden, 2010; Johnstal, 2013).
Experiential learning is the opportunity to apply new knowledge in the workplace by
means of workplace assignments, working on special projects, on-the-job practice,
job rotation, acting in a higher position, follow-up initiatives, leadership forums
(Lancaster & Di Milia, 2015), and workplace case studies (Lee, 2010). Other learning
methods for leadership development include coaching (Shuck & Herd, 2012), social
networks (Gagnon & Collinson, 2014), storytelling, insight triggering activities
(Janson, 2008), 360˚ surveys, and individual job assignments. Individuals can also
learn through experiencing hardships (McCauley, Moxley, & Van Velsor, 1998).
A fourth organisational antecedent of leadership development is alignment of
organisational strategy and systems. It is important to align leadership development
initiatives with the organisation’s vision, mission, values, and strategy (Garavan et
al., 2016). According to Bolden (2010), leadership development programmes support
an organisational strategy in several ways, namely by developing the organisational
capability to execute strategy, ensuring successful restructuring, building sufficient
talent pipelines, and enhancing innovation and change within the organisation.
Bolden (2010) also suggested that leadership development initiatives should be
embedded in organisational systems such as recruitment, reward, performance
management, and succession planning procedures.
263
4.2.1.2. Personal Antecedents of Leadership Development
A first personal antecedent of leadership development is personal attributes.
Literature shows that leadership behaviour is defined by certain personality traits.
These personality traits act as antecedents of leadership development. For instance,
Brown and Trevino (2006) posited that integrity, extraversion, openness,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, moral reasoning, and an internal locus of control
are positively related to leadership behaviour, and that neuroticism and
Machiavellianism are negatively related to leadership behaviour. Other researchers
agree that extroversion (Dulebohn et al., 2012; Guerin et al., 2011), openness
(Dulebohn et al., 2012; Guerin et al., 2011; Oliver et al., 2011), agreeableness,
conscientiousness (Dulebohn et al., 2012), and an internal locus of control
(Dulebohn et al., 2012; Flynn et al., 2016) are positively related to effective
leadership behaviour, and that neuroticism (Flynn et al., 2016) is negatively related
to effective leadership behaviour. Emotional intelligence is also highlighted as an
important leadership antecedent (Barbuto & Bugenhagen, 2009; Kotze & Nel, 2015;
Shuck & Herd, 2012), which can be defined as social and emotional skills to express
emotions effectively, build trustful relationships, cope with demanding situations, and
to use emotions well (Stein & Book, 2011).
Additional attributes linked to leadership behaviour include self-awareness, self-
reflection (Chiu et al., 2012; Lancaster & Di Milia, 2015), trust (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002),
humility, transcendence, gratitude (Chiu et al., 2012), self-esteem (Flynn et al., 2016)
or self-confidence (Guerin et al., 2011), self-efficacy (Flynn et al., 2016; McCormick,
Tanguma, & Lopez-Forment, 2002), cognitive ability, social skills (Guerin et al.,
2011), self-differentiation (Howard & Irving, 2013), proactivity, hardiness, empathy
(Krummaker & Vogel, 2012), supportiveness, and cohesiveness (Oliver et al., 2011).
264
A second personal antecedent of leadership development is life experiences.
Howard and Irving (2013) argued that life experiences such as hardships, struggle,
and pain may assist in developing effective leaders, because these enhance self-
differentiation and resilience. Janson (2008) stated the same, but indicated that
influential life experiences are not always negative, they can also be positive. Janson
(2008) clustered influential experiences into six categories, namely natural process,
coping and struggle, self-improvement, alignment with a cause, relationship with
parents, and role models.
Natural process refers to life experiences that happen naturally, without conscious
planning, while coping and struggle refers to overcoming a traumatic situation or
event in life. Self-improvement refers to development experiences individuals
consciously planned, whereas alignment to a cause refers to an individual joining a
particular cause or movement. Relationship with parents means the type of parental
relationship an individual had with his or her parents and the family context he or she
experienced as a child. In this regard, Oliver et al. (2011) showed a significant
correlation between family functioning and transformational leadership, and reported
that individuals who grew up in positive family environments and had caring parents
were more likely to portray transformational leadership behaviours as adults.
The last cluster, role models, refers to one or more role models that had a major
impact on an individual’s life. Janson (2008) posited that, from all these life
experience clusters, self-improvement was the most influential, followed by coping
and struggle.
265
4.2.2. Antecedents of Developing Servant Leaders
Literature on the antecedents of servant leadership development is scarce. One
study indicated six servant leadership antecedents, namely leadership duration,
volunteering, building trustful relationships, altruism, interpersonal competence, and
leading from anywhere in the organisation (Beck, 2010). These antecedents, with
the associated behavioural indicators, are summarised in Table 33, below.
Table 33
Antecedents of Servant Leadership, according to Beck (2010)
Antecedent Behavioural indicators

Leadership duration • Role of mentorship
• Reflection
• Self-awareness
• Self-efficacy
Volunteering • Sense of purpose
• Giving back
• Spirituality
Building trustful relationships • Valuing relationships
• Congruent behaviour
• Consensus-builder
• Honest feedback and communication
Altruism • Others-orientated
• Desire to make a difference
• Helping others
Interpersonal competence • Active listening
• Being empathetic
• Perceptive of non-verbal communication
Leading from anywhere • Intrinsic motivation
• Leading by example
266
Beck (2010) highlighted that the longer a leader is in a leadership position, the
more likely he or she will be to adopt servant leadership behaviour. The behavioural
indicators associated with this antecedent are mentorship, reflection, self-awareness,
and self-efficacy. Other researchers also highlighted, reflection, self-awareness
(Lancaster & Di Milia, 2015), and self-efficacy (Flynn et al., 2016) as servant
leadership antecedents. This means that individuals who possess these attributes
might adopt servant leadership behaviour quicker than individuals who do not.
Another antecedent of servant leadership postulated by Beck (2010) is
volunteering, which is defined by behaviours such as having sense of purpose,
giving back, and spirituality. Greenleaf (1998) agreed that servant leadership starts
with an intent to serve. The main reason why servant leaders want to lead is to serve
others. Sendjaya (2015) also stated that servant leadership starts with a heart of
serving or giving. Servant leaders have a serving heart towards others, and believe
that giving is better than receiving.
In terms of spirituality, individuals are more inclined to adopt behaviours and
attitudes that align well with their personal values (Beck, 2010). Hence, a person with
an intent to serve, a giving heart, and high levels of spirituality might adopt servant
leadership quicker and be more receptive to servant leadership development.
A third antecedent of servant leadership is building trustful relationships, which is
characterised by valuing relationships, congruent behaviour, and consensus-building
(Beck, 2010). Building trustful relationships was also highlighted by several other
authors as a characteristic of servant leadership (Bambale, 2014; Beck, 2014;
Berger, 2014; Chatbury et al., 2011; Edwards, 2010; Humphreys, 2005; Jones, 2012;
Liden et al., 2008; Pekerti & Sendjaya, 2010; Rai & Prakash, 2012; Sendjaya et al.,
2008; Stone et al., 2004; Van Dierendonck, 2011; Van Dierendonck & Patterson,
267
2014). Building trustful relationships is defined in the literature as the process of
creating collaboration with others (Sendjaya et al., 2008; Spears, 2010; Van
Dierendonck, 2011), regularly spending time with individuals (Sendjaya et al., 2008),
communicating well (Spears, 2010), and understanding and addressing the needs of
others (Carter & Baghurst, 2013; Humphreys, 2005; Liden et al., 2008; Pekerti &
Sendjaya, 2010; Rai & Prakash, 2012; Van Dierendonck, 2011). In the view of
Russell and Stone (2002), building trust is one of the fundamental characteristics of
servant leadership. Without the trust of followers, servant leaders will not be able to
lead effectively.
A fourth antecedent of servant leadership is an altruistic attitude (Beck, 2010).
Altruism is defined as being people-orientated, unselfish (Beck, 2014; Melchar &
Bosco, 2010; Mertel & Brill, 2015), and having the desire to help and influence others
positively (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014). It is seen
as one of the main characteristics of a servant leader (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). A
person with an altruistic mind-set might therefore be more receptive to the theory
and practice of servant leadership.
Interpersonal competence has been identified as an additional antecedent of
servant leadership, and is characterised by active listening, empathy, and being
perceptive of non-verbal communication (Beck, 2010). Active listening is also
emphasised by Spears (2010) as a servant leadership attribute. Active listening
refers to a leader’s willingness to listen attentively and respectfully (Barbuto &
Wheeler, 2006; Humphreys, 2005; Spears, 2010), to ask questions (Humphreys,
2005; Rai & Prakash, 2012), to allow time for reflection (Spears, 2010), and to be
attentive to non-verbal communication (Neubert et al., 2008; Spears, 2010).
268
Compassion is also recognised as a servant leadership characteristic by other
authors, and is defined in the literature as showing empathy (Barbuto & Wheeler,
2006; Berger, 2014; Crippen, 2005; Kincaid, 2012; Liden et al., 2008; Spears, 2010),
being gentle and caring (Barbuto et al., 2014; Finley, 2012; Jones, 2012; Spears,
2010), forgiving others (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), accepting and
recognising others (Mertel & Brill, 2015; Russell & Stone, 2002; Van Dierendonck &
Nuijten, 2011), and showing a loving attitude towards others (Finley, 2012; Sun,
2013; Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014). It seems that the characteristics of
active listening and compassion could promote the development of servant
leadership. In other words, when a person portrays good listening skills and
compassionate behaviour, he or she might be more likely to assimilate servant
leadership development.
A final servant leader antecedent identified by Beck (2010) is that a servant leader
does not necessarily lead from the front or top of the organisation, but from any
occupational level in the organisation. The reason for this might be that servant
leaders do not lead from a position, but from intrinsic motivation and by example
(Beck, 2010). Blanchard and Hodges (2008) also stated that servant leadership is
not dependent on position, and defined it as the process of influencing the
behaviour, thinking, and growth of another person. Hence, anyone can influence the
behaviour, thinking, and growth of others, from anywhere in the organisation, and
does not necessarily have to be in a leadership position to practise servant
leadership. Individuals who show behaviours of an intrinsic motivation to serve
others and who lead by example might therefore benefit more from servant
leadership development than those who do not.
269
4.2.3. Barriers to Leadership Development
Barriers that hinder leadership development can be divided into organisational
barriers and personal barriers.
4.2.3.1. Organisational Barriers to Leadership Development
Organisational barriers are institutional practices or procedures that hinder
leadership development, such as an ineffective organisational culture, lack of
leadership support, ineffective programme design, and incompetent HR department
staff. An ineffective organisational culture refers to an inadequate learning culture
that is characterised by resistance to change and internal politics (Schafer, 2010).
Internal politics, for example, can limit access to leadership development
opportunities, hinder career advancement (Catalfamo, 2010), and influence decision-
making processes negatively (Hamidifar & Ebrahimi, 2016).
An ineffective organisational culture also includes a lack of resources such as time
and money (Catalfamo, 2010; Peltzer et al., 2015). Leadership development is
hindered when individuals do not receive sufficient time off work to learn and apply
the learning (Peltzer et al., 2015). Leaders often have high work demands and busy
schedules, which limit their availability to participate in leadership development
programmes or to practise what they have learned (Catalfamo, 2010; Gallo, 2012;
Hoefer & Sliva, 2014; Lancaster & Di Milia, 2015). According to Warne (2010), an
ineffective organisational culture is one of the greatest barriers to leadership
development. It is therefore imperative to allocate time and financial resources to
learning programmes and to limit internal politics, to ensure effective leadership
development.
270
A lack of leadership support is another organisational barrier to leadership
development. For example, if an employee’s direct superior does not support
learning and development and is resistant to change, the employee could find it
difficult to implement the learning in the workplace after training (Johnstal, 2013;
Peltzer et al., 2015). Employees perceive a lack of leadership support when
superiors (a) do not show interest in learning and development, (b) do not role model
the leadership behaviours taught in the leadership development programmes, (c) are
unable and unwilling to apply the learning themselves, (d) do not initiate follow-up
discussions with the learner after training, and when (e) the learning is not supported
by the relevant supervisor or manager (Lancaster & Di Milia, 2015). Leaders not only
need to support learning, but also need to align learning to business objectives and
goals (Johnstal, 2013). In this way, the value and business impact of learning can be
evaluated and appreciated.
Other organisational barriers to leadership development include ineffective
programme design and incompetent HR department staff. Ineffective programme
design refers to the use of single learning methods, the lack of practice opportunities,
irregular evaluation and feedback, excessive amount of learning material, the use of
irrelevant case studies, and passive classroom training in a learning programme
(Lee, 2010). Leadership development programmes should thus consist of a variety of
learning methods, to ensure that personal transformation happens, and that the
learning is applied in the workplace.
The HR function also plays a major role in the leadership development process.
Garavan et al. (2016) reported a strong positive relationship between HR department
staff’s expertise and the occurrence and intensity of leadership development
programmes. Gallo (2012) opined that many HR professionals lack the experience to
271
implement global leadership programmes. Hamidifar and Ebrahimi (2016) also noted
that unqualified HR department staff hinders leadership development. It is thus
essential to have competent HR professionals to design, drive, and implement
leadership development programmes effectively.
4.2.3.2. Personal Barriers to Leadership Development
Personal barriers are attitudes and perceptions that hinder leadership
development, such as insufficient work‒life balance, lack of competence, lack of
confidence, age, and anxiety. In terms of insufficient work‒life balance, family
responsibilities were identified by many authors as a potential barrier to leadership
development (Catalfamo, 2010; Gallo, 2012; Maranzan et al., 2013; Warne, 2010).
The majority of individuals in middle- and senior leadership positions have families. It
is therefore important to accommodate individuals with families in leadership
development programmes, to ensure that they complete the learning activities of the
programme successfully, while still attending to their family responsibilities.
Another personal leadership development barrier is lack of competence in
foundational skills such (a) general management (Warne, 2010), (b) communication,
(c) strategic thinking ability, (d) influential skills, (e) ability to create, communicate,
and implement a higher-purpose vision, and a (f) lack of exposure or ability to work
abroad (Gallo, 2012). Sometimes, individuals are unaware of these skills gaps, due
to ineffective performance management systems or training needs analysis
processes (Garavan et al., 2016). The lack of these foundational skills might become
a barrier when a leader participates in more advanced leadership training.
Leadership development practitioners should therefore ensure that individuals are
272
competent in foundational skills before they enrol them in more advanced
programmes.
Lack of confidence was also identified as a personal barrier that hinders
leadership development, which includes low self-esteem (Bolden, 2010; Maranzan et
al., 2013), low self-confidence (Bolden, 2010), and a lack of confidence in one’s own
abilities (Archard, 2012). Ways to improve confidence might be encouragement,
positive reinforcement (Archard, 2012), desensitisation (Bolden, 2010), coaching,
facilitated group discussions, and practice opportunities (Lancaster & Di Milia, 2015).
When confidence increases, individuals will participate more in discussions, share
ideas and opinions more frequently, try new things more often, and access and use
company information more effectively (Lancaster & Di Milia, 2015).
Other potential personal barriers to leadership development include age and
anxiety. Older people often feel that they are too old to learn new things (Catalfamo,
2010). Young people, on the other hand, may not be exposed to leadership practices
because they do not meet the average age of industry leaders (Warne, 2010). Some
cultural aspects might also influence an individual’s view of the typical age of a
leader. For example, in China, the average age of managers is five to ten years
younger than similar managers in other countries, such as the United States of
America (Gallo, 2012).
Anxiety also hinders leadership development. For example, a superior might fear
that a follower will take his or her place after completing a leadership development
programme, and might then hinder that person’s development by not offering support
or helping the individual to complete the training (Chan, 2002). Another form of
anxiety might be the fear of failure (Bolden, 2010). Learners may choose not to
participate in a leadership development programme because they fear failing the
273
programme and then having to experience the disapproval of others. It is the
responsibility of the relevant manager to encourage those individuals and to
counteract their fear of failure by providing a safe environment in which to fail.
Failure is often a meaningful way to learn.
4.2.4. Barriers to Developing Servant Leaders
Limited empirical evidence is available on the barriers to developing servant
leaders. One study revealed six organisational barriers that could hinder such
development in organisations, namely (1) paternalism and a lack of trust, (2)
conflicting leadership styles and a misperception of servant leadership, (3) lack of
engagement and team cohesion, (4) self-serving agendas, (5) poor communication
and relationships, and (6) insufficient learning and development (Foster, 2000).
Savage-Austin and Honeycutt (2011) identified additional organisational barriers
to servant leadership, namely a fear of change, lack of knowledge, and an ineffective
organisational culture. Another study reported that limited resources, lack of skills,
and an individualistic organisational culture hinder servant leadership in an
organisation (Hanse et al., 2016). These barriers are similar to leadership barriers
noted by other authors, such as an ineffective organisational culture (Warne, 2010),
resistance to change, internal politics (Schafer, 2010), lack of leadership support
(Johnstal, 2013; Peltzer et al., 2015), and a lack of resources (Catalfamo, 2010;
Peltzer et al., 2015). However, the misperception of servant leadership is an
organisational barrier unique to servant leadership.
Servant leadership might be perceived by individuals as too philanthropic and
lacking the accountability to produce favourable organisational outcomes. These
perspectives are far from the true theory and practice of servant leadership. Servant
274
leaders aim to achieve a higher-purpose vision, which includes sustainability of the
organisation, the employee, and society (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Servant leaders
practise good stewardship of resources, and keep employees accountable (Van
Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), to produce the best return on investment for a variety
of stakeholders.
Servant leaders also make a real business impact in organisations. For example,
servant leadership has been linked to better customer service (Chen et al., 2015;
Hsiao et al., 2015; Liden et al., 2014), customer satisfaction (Hwang et al., 2014),
and higher sales performance (Jaramillo et al., 2009a; Schwepker & Schultz, 2015).
Servant leadership also produces more engaged employees (Carter & Baghurst,
2013; De Clercq et al., 2014; De Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2014; Sousa & Van
Dierendonck, 2015), who, in turn, produce favourable organisational outcomes, such
as higher productivity (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Harter et al., 2002; Hayward,
2010; Shuck, 2011; Simpson, 2009; Solomon & Sridevi, 2010), performance
(Bakker, 2011; Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Bakker et al., 2014; Baron, 2013;
Demerouti et al., 2015; Hayward, 2010; Kovjanic et al., 2013; Lorente et al., 2014;
Seppälä et al., 2012; Yalabik et al., 2013), profitability (Harter et al., 2002; Shuck,
2011; Simpson, 2009; Solomon & Sridevi, 2010), and customer satisfaction (Bakker
et al., 2011; Baron, 2013; Harter et al., 2002; Hayward, 2010; Simpson, 2009;
Solomon & Sridevi, 2010).
The practices and principles of servant leadership, furthermore, align well with
factors in creating a high-performing organisation, such as setting a clear vision,
promoting customer-centricity, enhancing employee capability through
empowerment, and sharing power and information with employees (Blanchard,
2010). When the true nature of servant leadership is revealed, organisations and
275
individuals become aware of its value and benefits. This could overcome the barrier
of misunderstanding servant leadership.
In terms of personal barriers, Saidu (2013) clustered several barriers into broad
personal barriers that hinder the practice of servant leadership, namely ego,
partiality, poor leadership skills, poor relationship skills, dishonesty, spiritual issues,
financial issues, lack of role models, lack of opportunity, and lack of accountability.
These personal barriers and their characteristics are presented in Table 34, below.
Table 34
Barriers to Servant Leadership, according to Saidu (2013)
Barrier Characteristics
Ego • Pride (lack of humility)
• Addiction to power, fame, and position
• Selfishness
• Competitiveness
• Lack of transparency about weaknesses
Partiality • Tribalism
• Sectionalism
• Favouritism
Poor leadership skills • Lack of commitment
• Lack of education
• Lack of communication skills
• Lack of clear vision
• Laziness
• Improper resource management
• Bias in decision-making
Poor relationship skills • Lack of trust
• Lack of love
• Jealousy
• Grudges
• Gossip
276
Dishonesty • Stealing
• Cheating
• Unfaithfulness
Spiritual issues • Lack of spiritual maturity
• Lack of church involvement
• Lack to grow followers spiritually
Financial issues • Materialism
• Financial problems
Other barriers • Lack of a role model
• Lack of accountability
Ego is the first personal barrier identified by Saidu (2013), which is characterised
by (a) a lack of humility, (b) addiction to power, fame, and position, (c) selfishness,
(d) high competitiveness, and (e) a lack of transparency about one’s weaknesses.
According to Blanchard (2010), an ego of pride and fear is indeed a barrier to
practising servant leadership, because a prideful ego will lead to self-promoting
behaviour, whereas a fearful ego will promote self-protecting behaviour. These
behaviours will ultimately cause leaders to focus on themselves, instead of serving
others. The antidote for ego is to apply humility and to find confidence and security in
God, and not in achievement or the approval of others (Blanchard & Hodges, 2008).
Ego is in contrast with several servant leadership attributes, such as humility,
altruism, standing back, and authenticity. Humility is described in the literature as
consistent and modest behaviour, characterised by high self-awareness, authentic
transparency regarding personal development areas (De Sousa & Van Dierendonck,
2014; Patterson, 2003), being humble (Bobbio et al., 2012), and having the right
perception of one’s strengths (Patterson, 2003).
Altruism refers to being people-orientated, unselfish (Beck, 2014; Melchar &
Bosco, 2010; Mertel & Brill, 2015), and having a positive impact on people,
277
organisations, and society (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Melchar & Bosco, 2010).
Standing back means to give credit to others and to recognise the value of others
(Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).
Standing back can be perceived as the opposite of competitiveness.
Competitiveness focuses on being better than others, whereas standing back
focusses on helping others shine. Authenticity is defined in the literature as
portraying one’s actual character and motives (Peterson & Seligman, 2004),
following ethical practices (Russell & Stone, 2002), showing dependable behaviour
(Sendjaya & Cooper, 2011), and accepting one’s true value (Pekerti & Sendjaya,
2010).
Authenticity and humility are in direct contrast with a lack of transparency
regarding one’s weaknesses. Leadership development practitioners should therefore
evaluate a leader’s ego before starting a leadership development intervention, as an
ego could hinder servant leadership development.
Partiality is the second personal barrier identified by Saidu (2013), which is
defined by tribalism, sectionalism, and favouritism. Building trustful relationships is
one of the foundational aspects of servant leadership. Servant leaders do no work in
silos, but work with people across departments to build a better organisation and a
humane society. Servant leaders build trustful relationships with a variety of
stakeholders, including employees, customers, and the community (Bambale, 2014;
Berger, 2014; Chatbury et al., 2011; Edwards, 2010; Humphreys, 2005; Jaramillo et
al., 2015; Jones, 2012; Liden et al., 2008; Pekerti & Sendjaya, 2010; Rai & Prakash,
2012; Sendjaya et al., 2008; Stone et al., 2004; Van Dierendonck, 2011; Van
Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011; Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014), and activate
individual talent by means of empowerment (Berger, 2014; Carter & Baghurst, 2013;
278
Crippen, 2005; Hu & Liden, 2011; Kincaid, 2012; Mehta & Pillay, 2011; Spears,
2010; Van Dierendonck, 2011). Building trustful relationships with a variety of
stakeholders and empowering all people can be viewed as the antitheses of
tribalism, sectionalism, and favouritism. It therefore makes sense that tribalism,
sectionalism, and favouritism will hinder the practice of servant leadership.
Poor leadership skills are an additional personal barrier that hinders the practice
of servant leadership, evident in a lack of commitment, education, communication
skills, setting a clear vision, and proper resource management (Saidu, 2013). A
servant leader sets a compelling vision, listens well, and practises good stewardship.
These attributes are directly in contrast with the barriers of poor communication, an
inability to set a clear vision, and improper resource management.
Setting a compelling vision refers to a servant leader’s ability to articulate a
higher-purpose vision (Spears, 2010; Van Dierendonck, 2011; Van Dierendonck &
Patterson, 2014), in which past events, current trends, and future possibilities are
intertwined (Berger, 2014; Melchar & Bosco, 2010; Ozyilmaz & Cicek, 2015; Spears,
2010; Sun & Wang, 2009; Van Dierendonck, 2011), to ultimately empower people,
build better organisations, and create a humane society.
The listening attribute of a servant leader is the leader’s desire to listen, value,
and comprehend what followers say (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Humphreys, 2005;
Spears, 2010), and to be attentive to non-verbal communication (Neubert et al.,
2008; Spears, 2010). Stewardship can be defined as being accountable (Hwang et
al., 2014; Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2015) and looking after the interests of others,
the organisation, and society (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Melchar & Bosco, 2010;
Ozyilmaz & Cicek, 2015; Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2015; Sun & Wang, 2009; Van
Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014).
279
Servant leaders perceive themselves, not as owners of assets and resources, but
rather as stewards thereof. Servant leaders therefore use organisational assets and
resources responsibly. Stewardship is also in contrast with other barriers mentioned
by Saidu (2013), such as laziness and lack of accountability. Hence, the inability to
set a compelling vision, to communicate well by listening, and to allocate resources
appropriately by practising good stewardship may limit the implementation of servant
leadership.
Poor relationship skills constitute the fourth personal barrier that could hinder
servant leadership practice, characterised by a lack of compassion and an inability to
build trustful relationships (Saidu, 2013). Compassion is one of the characteristics of
servant leadership (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), and can be defined as
authentic care for others (Barbuto et al., 2014; Finley, 2012; Jones, 2012; Spears,
2010), showing respect, and recognising others (Mertel & Brill, 2015; Russell &
Stone, 2002; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). As mentioned previously, building
relationships is a foundational characteristic of servant leadership. It seems that,
when individuals show a lack of compassion and an inability to build relationships,
they could find it difficult to practise servant leadership.
Dishonesty is another personal barrier to servant leadership (Saidu, 2013).
Integrity, one of the characteristics of servant leadership, contradicts the barrier of
dishonesty. Servant leaders practise integrity by telling the truth, being fair (Russell
& Stone, 2002), and by having high ethical standards (Edwards, 2010; Melchar &
Bosco, 2010; Pekerti & Sendjaya, 2010).
Spiritual issues are a sixth barrier to servant leadership (Saidu, 2013).
Spirituality was also reported as an antecedent for servant leadership (Beck, 2010)
because it aligns well with spiritual believes and practices such as Christianity
280
(Blanchard & Hodges, 2008). Hence, someone lacking spiritual maturity and who
does not participate in spiritual or church activities, may find it difficult to practice
servant leadership (Saidu, 2013).
Financial issues are a seventh barrier to servant leadership, which includes
materialism and financial problems (Saidu, 2013). Someone who focusses mainly on
accumulating wealth at the exploitation of others will find it difficult to practice servant
leadership, because their leadership intent will originate from selfish ambitions. The
intent of a servant leader is to serve others (Greenleaf, 1998) and to leave a
constructive legacy in people, organisations, and society (Van Dierendonck, 2011). A
materialistic mind-set might thus hinder the development or practice of servant
leadership.
Lack of a role model is another important consideration in developing servant
leaders (Janson, 2008). When a person has a servant leader role model, he or she
might adopt servant leadership quicker, especially when that role model provides
continuous coaching (Shuck & Herd, 2012) and mentoring (Johnstal, 2013). The lack
of a servant leader role model could thus hinder the development of servant
leadership.
The above-mentioned literature review highlighted several antecedents of and
barriers to servant leadership development. When leadership practitioners
understand the factors that promote or hinder leadership development, they can
design more effective leadership development programmes and implement
programmes more successfully in organisations. Leadership development
practitioners should therefore consider these antecedents and barriers when
developing leaders, especially in the case of developing servant leaders. However,
limited empirical evidence is available on the antecedents of and barriers to
281
developing servant leaders specifically. This was indeed emphasised as a research
need (Beck, 2010; Garavan et al., 2015). The overall aim of the present study was to
identify those antecedents and barriers in the development of servant leaders in an
organisation.
4.3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD
4.3.1. Research Paradigm
The literature describes two research paradigms, namely interpretivism and
positivism. Interpretivism assumes that social reality is subjective, multiple, and
within the human mind, whereas positivism assumes that social reality is singular,
objective, and is not affected by human interpretation (Collis & Hussey, 2009). The
present study was conducted from an interpretivist research paradigm, because the
purpose thereof was to investigate individual perspectives on and experiences of a
specific phenomenon. A qualitative research design was used to understand
underlying phenomena in terms of the antecedents of and barriers to servant
The research approach used in this study was phenomenology. Phenomenology
can be described as a philosophical research approach to studying conscious
experiences, and focusses on individual beliefs, experiences, and perceptions about
a specific phenomenon (Creswell, 2009). According to Guest, Namey, and Mitchell
(2013), in-depth interviews and focus-groups sessions are preferred methods to
collect phenomenological data. In the present study, a focus group was chosen as
the method to collect qualitative data. The purpose of the session was to determine
282
managers’ experience of personal and organisational antecedents and barriers after
having completed a servant leadership intervention.
A non-probability sample of 44 nominated managers (Sample 1) was drawn from
employees working in a construction company in South Africa of which 39 managers
participated in a focus group. The total number of employees in this company was
approximately 5 526 at the time of the study. The construction company specialised
in road construction, building construction, civil engineering, plant hiring, and
opencast mining, and had operations in six different countries. Due to the size of the
focus group, two sessions were conducted, attended by the sampled managers five
months after they had completed a servant leadership development course. The
demographic details of the participants are presented in Table 35, below.
Table 35
Demographic Characteristics of the Focus Group (Sample 1: Nominated Managers)

Gender Male 37 94.9
Female 2 5.1
English 15 38.4
Tswana 3 7.6
North-Sotho 1 2.6
South-Sotho 1 2.6
Swati 1 2.6
Ndebele 0 0.0
Tsonga 1 2.6
Venda 1 2.6
Xhosa 0 0.0
283
Zulu 1 2.6
Other 0 0.0
Race White 27 69.2
Indian 1 2.6
Coloured 2 5.1
Other 0 0.0
Age ≤ 25 years 3 7.7
26‒35 years 16 41.0
36‒45 years 11 28.2
46‒55 years 7 18.0
56‒59 years 2 5.1
60‒65 years 0 0.0
66+ 0 0.0
Doctorate 0 0.0
1‒2 years 5 12.8
3‒5 years 11 28.2
6‒10 years 14 35.9
Other 1 2.6
284
The majority of the participants were men (95%), had English (38%) or Afrikaans
(38%) as home language, and were white (69%) or black African (23%). Most of the
respondents held a three-year diploma (39%), had worked for six to ten years (36%)
for the company, and were in a middle- (46%) or junior (28%) management position.
Data were collected by means of a focus-group session (the sample was divided
into two, due to its size, and one session was held with each). The purpose of
conducting the session was to gain an understanding of the personal and
organisational antecedents of and barriers to developing servant leaders. Morgan
(1996) describes focus-group sessions as an activity to collect qualitative data
through focussed discussions that are facilitated by the researcher.
The following questions were posed in the focus-group session:
1. Which personal factors enabled (helped) you to become a servant leader?
2. Which organisational factors promoted the implementation of servant leadership?
3. What can organisations and leaders do to create a serving culture?
4. Which personal factors made it difficult for you to become a servant leader?
5. Which organisational factors made it difficult for you to apply servant leadership?
6. What can be done to overcome the organisational barriers of servant leadership?
4.3.5 Data Analysis
Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data and to determine the personal
and organisational barriers and antecedents in developing servant leaders. The six-
step method proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006) was applied to analyse the data,
namely (1) familiarisation with the data, (2) generating initial codes, (3) searching for
285
themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining themes, and (6) producing a report.
ATLAS.ti, a software program for analysing qualitative data, was used to conduct the
analysis.
The five-step procedure to conduct focus-group sessions proposed by Collins and
Hussey (2009) was adopted in the present study, namely to (1) prepare a list of
issues or questions, (2) invite participants with exposure to or experience of the
topic, (3) create a comfortable atmosphere and explain the purpose, (4) start the
session with a broad, open-ended question, and (5) allow the group to discuss the
issue or topic.
An initial step was to get approval from management to conduct the research
within the company. Thereafter, the set of open-ended questions were formulated for
the focus group. Invitations were sent electronically to invite Sample 1 to participate
in the focus-group session. The purpose of the research and the structure of the
session were explained to the participants beforehand, and their informed consent
was obtained. Confidentiality and voluntary participation were also discussed.
At the beginning of the session, the context of the session was set, the purpose
thereof was explained, and the roles of the facilitator and the participants were
clarified. Participants were given the opportunity to ask any questions they may still
have, and a comfortable atmosphere was set. The session started with a broad
question (How did you experience the servant leadership course?), after which the
open-ended questions were used as a guide for the rest of the session. After
discussing a question, participants were asked to summarise their thoughts
individually on a hard copy list of the posed questions during the session.
286
The focus-group session(s) were audio-recorded, and notes were taken
throughout. Afterwards, the audio recordings, notes, and written answers were
saved, reviewed, and archived for further analysis. The data provided in the written
responses were then analysed by means of thematic analysis using the six-step
approach of Braun and Clarke (2006) as mentioned previously. Thereafter, the
results were finalised and documented.
4.3.7 Ethical Considerations
Management was informed about the purpose, context, and duration of this study.
Final approval was received from the General Manager: Human Resources to
conduct this research study within the company. The interests of the company were
respected at all times, and company information remained confidential. The findings
of the research study were shared with the management of the company.
Participants were informed about the purpose and context of this study, and
voluntary participation and confidentiality were discussed before the focus-group
session began. Respect for all participants was encouraged, and a safe and
comfortable atmosphere was set during the sessions. The results were archived in a
password-protected database.
4.4 RESULTS
The research results are described in accordance with the research objectives of
the present study, namely to:
• identify the personal antecedents of developing servant leaders;
• identify the organisational antecedents of developing servant leaders;
• identify the personal barriers to developing servant leaders; and
287
• identify the organisational barriers to developing servant leaders.
4.4.1 Personal Antecedents to Developing Servant Leaders
Four themes emerged from the thematic analysis in terms of personal
antecedents of developing servant leaders. Table 36 provides a list of the themes
with the relevant characteristics of each theme.
Table 36
Personal Antecedents of Servant Leadership Development
Antecedent Theme Characteristics

Personal attributes Self-awareness, calmness, forgiveness, listening, compassion,
people-orientated, standing back, self-determination,
accountability, patience, humility, integrity, confidence
Competence Communication, coaching, building trustful relationships,
empowerment, compelling vision, and stewardship
Life experiences Hardships, work experience, and previous mentorship
Commitment Being willing, passionate, self-driven, and motivated
4.4.1.1 Personal Attributes
The majority of the participants indicated that personal attributes had enabled
them to become a servant leader. The attributes mentioned by the participants were
self-awareness, calmness, forgiveness, listening, compassion, being people-
orientated, standing back, self-determination, accountability, patience, humility,
integrity, and confidence. For example, Participant 1 said that “self-awareness,
calmness, forgiveness, and listening were vital to help others succeed.” Another
participant (Participant 2) mentioned that being a good listener had allowed
employees to open up, and being able to identify personal strengths and
weaknesses had helped him to become a better leader. This participant also stated
288
that being able to stand back and allow others to succeed, without taking credit for it,
had helped him to become a servant leader. In general, the results indicated that the
personal attributes mentioned above promoted servant leadership development.
4.4.1.2 Competence
The second theme that emerged as a personal antecedent of servant leadership
development was competence. The related skills mentioned by the participants were
communication, coaching, building trustful relationships, empowerment, setting a
compelling vision, and stewardship. Participants were of the opinion that, when a
leader portrays these competencies, he or she will more easily adopt servant leader
practices. For instance, Participant 10 said that “the ability to communicate with
people, the ability to coach people and help them achieve their goals, and the skills
to build trust and relationships” had helped him to become an effective servant
leader. Another participant (Participant 21) mentioned that his ability to identify the
personal strengths and weaknesses of his followers had helped him to empower
them accordingly. Participant 33 also highlighted skills that had enabled him to
become a servant leader: “I enjoy teaching people. I have a general interest in other
people’s well-being. I am able to transfer my skills.”
4.4.1.3 Life Experiences
A third personal antecedent that emerged from the thematic analysis was life
experiences. These life experiences included hardships, work experience, and
mentorship. Participants were of the opinion that solid work experience, overcoming
hardships, and having a servant leader as a mentor had enabled them to become
servant leaders. For example, Participant 25 mentioned that his experience, “to have
289
gone through all the hardships of life,” had enabled him to become an effective
servant leader. Another participant (Participant 33) said that having solid work
experience had earned him the respect of his team. The impact of mentorship and
practice were also emphasised by the participants. For instance, Participant 9
revealed that having worked under a servant leader in the past had helped him to
adopt servant leadership practices. The results of the focus-groups session therefore
revealed that life experiences such as hardships, work experience, and mentorship
promote servant leadership development.
4.4.1.4 Commitment
A fourth personal antecedent emerged from the thematic analysis, namely
commitment. This theme included leader qualities such as the willingness, passion,
self-drive, and motivation to become a servant leader. Participants were of the
opinion that servant leadership development is promoted when a leader had the
willingness, passion, drive, and motivation to change. For example, Participant 15
said that “having the willingness, the passion for the job, and being self-driven” had
helped him to become a servant leader. Another participant (Participant 2) stated
that his willingness and positive attitude to improving his management style and
effectiveness, as well as the ability to identify personal development areas, had
helped him to become a servant leader. This willingness to improve was also
highlighted by Participant 23: “…being willing and able to learn new things.” Hence,
the results indicated that a learner having a positive attitude promotes servant
290
4.4.2 Organisational Antecedents to Developing Servant Leaders
Seven themes emerged from the thematic analysis in terms of organisational
antecedents of developing servant leaders. In Table 37, a list of the seven themes is
provided, together with the characteristics of each theme.
Table 37
Organisational Antecedents of Servant Leadership Development
Antecedent Theme Characteristics

Development opportunities Training, coaching, mentorship, and practice
opportunities
Leadership support Open-door policy, role modelling, and support
Performance management Performance review and performance feedback
360˚ surveys Perception surveys, surveys, heart-style
questionnaires
Communication Communication and awareness campaigns
Strategic alignment Vision, mission, and strategy alignment; values
alignment; and goal-setting alignment
Organisational culture Company’s history and the corporate culture
4.4.2.1 Development Opportunities
A first organisational antecedent of developing servant leaders was development
opportunities, which consisted of training programmes, coaching, mentorship, and
practice opportunities. Participants were of the opinion that individuals could
transform into servant leaders if they (a) participated in development programmes,
(b) had the opportunity to practise the skills in the workplace, and (c) received
coaching and mentorship from a servant leader. For example, Participant 13 stated
that the leadership development programme had helped him to understand the
organisational values, and enabled him to implement these in the workplace.
Another participant (Participant 35) mentioned that the “implementation of training
291
programmes for most staff members” and “opportunities to practise servant
leadership” could promote servant leadership in the company. The importance of
coaching was also highlighted. For instance, Participant 2 said that “coaching from
higher-level managers” would promote servant leadership development. It was thus
evident from the results that development activities, practice opportunities, and
coaching and mentorship would promote servant leadership development.
4.4.2.2 Leadership Support
Leadership support emerged as a second organisational antecedent of developing
servant leaders. Leadership support included dimensions such as an open-door
policy, role modelling, and supervisory support. The discussions of the focus groups
revealed that support from superiors in terms of their availability, their role modelling
of servant leadership behaviour, and their development support had played a
fundamental role in their becoming servant leaders. For instance, Participant 19 said
that, “being given the freedom by my superior management to define my leadership
style and not having to fear backlash from my manager” had helped him become a
servant leader. Another participant (Participant 21) noted that it would be easier to
implement servant leadership when “current leaders promoted servant leadership
and had an open-door policy.” Leadership support in the form of availability, role
modelling, and support therefore emerged as important antecedents of promoting
4.4.2.3 Performance Management
A third organisational antecedent for developing servant leaders was performance
management. This antecedent consisted of performance reviews and performance
292
feedback. Participants noted that performance reviews and feedback had helped
them to identify personal performance or behavioural gaps, and promoted
engagement opportunities with followers. Participants also highlighted the
importance of the performance management system in implementing servant
leadership in the company. For example, Participant 15 stated that performance
reviews had created an awareness in him of his personal development needs.
Another participant (Participant 25) mentioned that “the performance review process
forces engagement with employees.” It was therefore evident that a performance
management system would help leaders become more aware of personal
development areas, and would promote regular communication with followers.
4.4.2.4 360˚ Surveys
Surveys were identified as a fourth organisational antecedent that promoted the
development of servant leaders in the organisation. Participants used words such as
“perception survey”, “surveys”, “360˚ surveys”, “heart-style survey” or “heart-style
questionnaire” to describe these surveys. In general, participants valued 360˚
surveys, and felt that these create personal awareness of leadership strengths and
weaknesses. For instance, Participant 2 mentioned that surveys on all levels would
promote the implementation of servant leadership. The results therefore indicated
that 360˚ surveys would enhance the development of servant leaders, because
these create an awareness of leadership strengths and development areas.
4.4.2.5 Communication
A fifth organisational antecedent that emerged from the thematic analysis was
communication, which includes awareness campaigns. Participants revealed that
293
good internal communication with their teams and other stakeholders, as well as
awareness campaigns, could promote servant leadership development in the
organisation. For example, Participant 19 said that “good, open communication with
teams” would promote the implementation of servant leadership. Another participant
(Participant 1) stated that an internal marketing or communication campaign could
assist servant leadership development in the organisation, if it is linked to the
leadership development programme. Participants also felt that more awareness of
servant leadership could promote its development in the company. Communication
and awareness were therefore seen as important factors in promoting servant
leadership in the company.
4.4.2.6 Strategic Alignment
An additional organisational antecedent was strategic alignment. The participants
emphasised the importance of aligning servant leadership development programmes
with the company’s vision, mission, strategy, and values. This theme consisted of (a)
vision, mission, and strategy alignment, (b) values alignment, and (c) goal-setting
alignment. For example, Participant 13 mentioned that it had been easier for him to
implement the principles of the leadership course when these were aligned with the
vision, mission, and values of the company. Other participants mentioned that the
vision and strategy of the company had helped them to implement servant
leadership in the organisation. It was therefore evident from the results that servant
leadership development is promoted when the company’s vision, mission, strategy,
goals, and values are aligned with a servant leadership development course.
294
4.4.2.7 Organisational Culture
Organisational culture emerged as a final organisational antecedent of developing
servant leaders. Participants indicated that factors such as the company’s history
and the corporate culture promote the development of servant leaders. For example,
Participant 2 stated that the synergy within the company promoted servant
leadership. Several participants also mentioned that the company’s history,
accomplishments, and legacy promoted servant leadership development.
Participants furthermore indicated that the corporate culture had played a
fundamental role in implementing servant leadership in their immediate workplaces.
These results highlighted the importance of considering corporate culture and the
company’s history when developing servant leaders.
4.4.3 Personal Barriers to Developing Servant Leaders
Two themes emerged from the thematic analysis in terms of personal barriers to
developing servant leaders. Table 38 lists the themes with their characteristics.
Table 38
Personal Barriers to Servant Leadership Development
Barrier Theme Characteristics

Personal attributes Lack of trust, introversion, impatience, ego
(or pride), and fear
Life experiences Personal background, previous leadership
education, and conflicting leadership style
The first barrier theme that emerged from the thematic analysis was personal
attributes. This personal barrier included a lack of trust, introversion, impatience, ego
295
(or pride), and fear. Participants agreed that their lack of trust in others had withheld
them from applying servant leadership effectively. They felt that it was sometimes
difficult to let go and entrust accountability to others. For example, Participant 19
stated that “trust and letting go to allow people to make mistakes” had been difficult
for him. Another participant (Participant 21) stated that his need to be in control at all
times and his unwillingness to step back had made it difficult to apply servant
leadership. Participants also mentioned that a lack of trust by their superior had
hindered them from implementing servant leadership effectively.
Introversion was also mentioned as a possible barrier to servant leadership
application. For instance, Participant 13 noted: “Being an introvert made it difficult to
communicate at times and to assert myself to prove a point.” This was confirmed by
other participants. Impatience was another attribute that hindered participants from
becoming a servant leader. Participant 39, for instance, said that his lack of patience
with individuals who require a lot of support and make unnecessary mistakes had
been one of his personal barriers to becoming a servant leader.
Ego (or pride) and fear were identified as additional barriers to becoming a
servant leader. Several participants mentioned that their ego, pride, or fear had
stood in the way to becoming a servant leader. The results further revealed that
reflection might help leaders to identify and overcome these barrier attributes. For
example, Participant 1 said: “You need to take a hard look in the mirror and fix
personal issues such as pride or lack of trust before you can think about helping
others.” It was thus evident from the results that personal attributes might hinder the
application of servant leadership.
296
A second personal barrier that emerged from the results was life experiences,
which included personal background and previous leadership styles. Participants
mentioned that their personal background, previous education in leadership, and
conflicting leadership styles had acted as barriers to applying servant leadership.
Participant 2, for example, stated that “Becoming a servant leader is a big change,
especially if another leadership or management style was previously adopted.”
Another participant (Participant 39) said: “The manner in which we were brought up”
made it difficult to adopt servant leadership. The results therefore indicated that life
experience such as personal background, previous leadership education, and
conflicting leadership styles could hinder the adoption of servant leadership
principles and practices.
4.4.4 Organisational Barriers to Developing Servant Leaders
The thematic analysis revealed five organisational barriers that would hinder
servant leadership development. Table 39 lists the organisational barrier themes,
together with the characteristics of each theme.
Table 39
Organisational Barriers to Servant Leadership Development
Barriers/Theme Characteristics
Organisational demands Work demands and financial pressure
Lack of leadership support Lack of role-modelling behaviour and lack
of implementing servant leadership on all
occupational levels
297
Consistent changes Consistent changes in working teams,
operating systems, and organisational
structures
4.4.4.1 Organisational Demands
The first organisational barrier that emerged from the thematic analysis was
organisational demands, which consisted of work demands and financial pressure.
Participants mentioned that demands such as pressure from top management,
pressure to perform, small margins for error, stringent deadlines, loss-making
projects, budget- and time constraints, client demands, and cash flow issues had
made it difficult to find the time to grow and empower employees and build trustful
relationships with direct reports. For example, Participant 13 mentioned that, “Due to
the need for cost cutting, it is difficult to leave subordinates to make mistakes in
order to learn from them. Instead of leaving them, one is quick to start instructing.”
Participant 2 commented: “Profit margins are tight and project milestones need to be
achieved. There is not much time to properly get to know fellow employees.”
Another participant said that “Loss-making projects tend to demotivate employees.”
In general, the results indicated that organisational demands such as work demands
and financial pressure might delay leaders empowering followers or building trustful
relationships with employees.
4.4.4.2 Lack of Leadership Support
The second organisational barrier identified was a lack of leadership support,
which included a lack of role-modelling behaviour and a lack of implementing servant
leadership on higher occupational levels. Participants commented that their
superiors did not portray or role model servant leadership behaviour. This had made
298
it difficult for them to apply servant leadership in the workplace. For example,
Participant 14 said that “management underestimate what you are capable of, give
you bad remarks, break your self-esteem, are sarcastic, get personal, do not give
you the opportunity to prove yourself, micro-manage you, or call you every second to
ask what you are doing.”
Another participant (Participant 16) said: “The way you are being managed affects
the way you manage people.” Participants also mentioned that servant leadership
should be implemented on all occupational levels, especially on higher managerial
levels. For instance, Participant 4 said: “The leaders that lead you must also adopt a
servant style of leadership.” The results thus indicated that a lack of role model
behaviour from superiors and not implementing servant leadership on all
occupational levels (especially on higher occupational levels) would make it difficult
for individuals to apply servant leadership.
4.4.4.3 Consistent Changes
A third organisational barrier to servant leadership development was constant
changes in working teams, operating systems, and organisational structures.
Participants agreed that regular changes in working teams, structures, and systems
had made it difficult for them to apply servant leadership consistently. For example,
Participant 5 responded: “not having enough time to spend with teams and
individuals, because they move from site to site,” had made it difficult for him to build
relationships with followers.
Participants added that another reason for the regular change in working teams
was high employee turnover. This had made it even more challenging to build trustful
relationships with followers. Participants also mentioned that ineffective operating
299
systems had limited their time to implement servant leadership effectively. It is
therefore evident that constant organisational changes could influence servant
leadership development and the implementation thereof, if proper change
management principles and practices are not applied.
4.5 DISCUSSION
The focus group results highlighted several antecedents of and barriers to the
development and application of servant leadership. These results are discussed in
accordance with the research objectives of this study.
4.5.1 Personal Antecedents to Developing Servant Leaders
The results indicated four personal antecedents that promote the development of
servant leadership, namely (1) personal attributes, (2) competence, (3) life
experiences, and (4) commitment.
The results indicated that the personal attributes of self-awareness, calmness,
forgiveness, listening, compassion, being people-orientated, standing back, self-
determination, accountability, patience, humility, integrity, and confidence promote
the development of servant leadership. Previous research produced similar results.
For example, other researchers also found that self-awareness (Chiu et al., 2012;
Lancaster & Di Milia, 2015), humility (Chiu et al., 2012), self-confidence (Guerin et
al., 2011), integrity (Brown & Trevino, 2006), empathy (Krummaker & Vogel, 2012),
and being people-orientated in the form of social skills (Guerin et al., 2011) were
antecedents of leadership behaviour. Forgiveness, compassion, standing back,
300
humility, and integrity were identified by Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) as
servant leader attributes. It therefore makes sense that individuals who possess
these attributes would be more likely to become servant leaders. In other words,
servant leadership development would progress faster when individuals are naturally
inclined to being self-aware, calm, forgiving, listening, compassionate, people-
orientated, to stand back, being self-determined, accountable, patient, humble, and
confident, and when they show high integrity. The results highlighted the importance
of evaluating these personal attributes before selecting individuals for servant
leadership development programmes. This would ultimately help to develop servant
leaders faster and more effectively.
4.5.1.2 Competence
Another finding of this study was that competencies such as communication,
coaching, building trustful relationships, empowerment, compelling vision, and
stewardship promote the development of servant leaders. This result supports the
findings of other researchers who acknowledged that servant leadership is
characterised by building relationships (Ehrhart, 2004), empowerment, stewardship
(Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), and compelling vision (Page & Wong, 2000).
When individuals are able to communicate effectively, coach others towards
improved performance, build trustful relationships with multiple stakeholders,
empower followers to become autonomous, set and translate a higher-purpose
vision, and apply good stewardship, they would be more likely to benefit from servant
leadership development. Hence, leadership development practitioners should
consider these competencies when they evaluate and select individuals for
leadership development programmes. They should also embed these competencies
301
in the organisation by incorporating them into recruitment and selection procedures,
training and development processes, performance management systems, and talent
management processes. This would ultimately promote faster and more effective
servant leadership development in an organisation.
The results, in addition, revealed that life experiences such as hardships, work
experience, and previous mentorship promote the development of servant leaders.
Howard and Irving (2013) also stated that hardships might advance leadership
development, because it creates self-differentiation and resilience. Hardships can be
humbling and transformational life experiences that equip leaders with the right
perspective in life to serve a higher purpose, beyond self-interest. When individuals
face difficult life trials and overcome challenging situations in life, their levels of
resilience and self-differentiation improve, which would ultimately make them more
effective leaders.
Often, leadership development practitioners only consider education and work
experience when they select potential leaders, but fail to consider a person’s life
experiences in the form of hardships. These hardships can be instrumental in
transforming a self-serving leader into a servant leader.
Previous mentorship has also been highlighted by other researchers as an
antecedent of leadership (Beck, 2010; Johnstal, 2013). Individuals are more
receptive to servant leadership development when they have had a servant leader
role model or mentor in their life. This could either be a role model in the family, such
as a father or mother, or a professional mentor, such as a direct superior. Oliver et
al. (2011) posited that individuals portray more leadership behaviour in adult life
302
when they had experienced a positive family environment as a child, with loving
parents. It is therefore important to start leadership development at an early age, and
even teach servant leader behaviour in primary, secondary, and tertiary institutions.
Mentors should be allocated to individuals early in life and at the beginning of a
working career, to ensure that servant leadership attributes, knowledge, and skills
are transferred effectively. This would promote servant leadership development and
practice later in life or a career.
4.5.1.4 Commitment
The final personal antecedent of servant leadership development was individual
commitment in the form of willingness, passion, self-drive, and motivation. It would
be difficult to develop someone if he or she does not have the willingness, passion,
self-drive, or motivation to complete a course or to become an effective leader.
Leadership development practitioners should therefore evaluate a person’s
willingness, passion, drive, and motivation before enrolling him or her in a servant
leadership development course. This will ensure that individuals are fully committed
to completing the course and adopting servant leadership principles and practices.
4.5.2 Organisational Antecedents of Developing Servant Leaders
The results identified seven organisational antecedents that promote the
development of servant leadership, namely (1) development opportunities, (2)
leadership support, (3) performance management, (4) 360˚ surveys, (5)
communication, (6) strategic alignment, and (7) organisational culture. These
antecedents are described in more detail below.
303
4.5.2.1 Development Opportunities
The results showed that development opportunities such as training, coaching,
mentorship, and practice opportunities would promote servant leadership
development. Other researchers have also indicated that leadership development is
enhanced by blending multiple learning methods such as classroom training, group
activities, individual projects, mentorship (Ingraham & Getha-Taylor, 2004),
workplace assignments, working on special projects, on-the-job practice, job rotation,
acting in a higher position, leadership forums (Lancaster & Di Milia, 2015), workplace
case studies (Lee, 2010), and coaching (Shuck & Herd, 2012) into one programme.
Leadership development practitioners should therefore employ blended learning
methods in a servant leadership development programme, to ensure individuals
receive fundamental, experiential, and personal transformational development.
Examples of fundamental training methods are classroom training, electronic
learning, seminars or webinars, conferences, workshops, research, and personal
reading. Experiential learning includes activities such as on-the-job training,
simulations, gamification, action learning, workplace assignments, and workplace
case studies. Personal learning methods consist of coaching, mentoring, social
learning, and reflection. The 70-20-10 principle could be used to determine the
proportion of fundamental, experiential, and personal transformational activities
when designing a servant leadership development programme (Lombardo &
Eichinger, 2006). This will ensure that 10% of the learning activities are fundamental,
70% are experiential, and 20% are focussed on personal transformation.
304
4.5.2.2 Leadership Support
Leadership support in the form of an open-door policy, role modelling, and general
supervisory support was another organisational antecedent that emanated from the
results. The direct managers of employees have a significant role to play in
embedding the learning in the workplace once employees have completed a training
course. For example, before an employee joins a development programme, his or
her direct superior should identify competency gaps, create individual development
plans, allocate learning resources, and create a learning culture. During the course,
the direct manager should allow time off work for the employee to complete learning
activities, and should create a suitable environment for the employee to focus while
learning.
After the course, superiors should (a) hold employees accountable for personal
development, (b) provide opportunities in the workplace to practise the skill, (c)
provide regular coaching and mentoring to the learner, (d) role model the desired
behaviour, (e) conduct performance reviews to evaluate the impact of the learning,
and (f) provide encouragement, recognition, and reward for applying the learning
effectively in the workplace. Other research studies have also emphasised
leadership support as an antecedent of leadership development (Johnstal, 2013;
Peltzer et al., 2015). It is therefore imperative that learning and development
practitioners ensure that managers are well informed about their role in the
development process. The purpose, context, and content of a servant leadership
programme should also be shared with managers, before employees start the
programme. This will ensure that employees receive the necessary leadership
support to complete the programme.
305
4.5.2.3 Performance Management
The results of the focus-group sessions revealed that performance management
promotes servant leadership development. Performance reviews are a useful way to
evaluate performance and behaviour objectively against set criteria, and to provide
authentic performance feedback to individuals. Individuals who receive regular
feedback on what they did well and how they can excel are more aware of their
strengths and development areas. This would enable them to become more effective
servant leaders. It is thus important to incorporate the characteristics and
competencies of servant leadership into performance management systems, to
ensure that regular performance reviews and feedback are provided to individuals on
what they did well in terms of servant leadership, and what they need to do to excel
as a servant leader.
4.5.2.4 360˚ Surveys
The results furthermore revealed that 360˚ surveys create more awareness in
terms of personal strengths and development areas in becoming a servant leader.
The direct reports of leaders are ideally positioned to give feedback regarding the
effectiveness of a person’s leadership, because they experience it directly.
Colleagues can add to this evaluation regarding the way the person is leading other
stakeholders across the organisation and the impact the employee has had in the
organisation. Managers, on the other hand, can evaluate a person’s leadership
effectiveness in the form of business results and the impact the person has made on
other employees, the organisation, and society. With this combined evaluation, a
person could get an accurate appraisal of his or her leadership impact. This would
provide the individual with useful information to reflect upon, in order to become a
306
better servant leader. Leadership development practitioners should therefore
include 360˚ surveys in servant leadership development programmes. This would
promote the development of servant leaders.
4.5.2.5 Communication
Communication and awareness campaigns emerged as additional factors that
could promote servant leadership development in an organisation. Participants
mentioned that effective communication with their direct reports had helped them to
implement servant leadership in the workplace. Previous research yielded similar
findings. For example, communication was also noted by Beck (2010) as an
antecedent of servant leadership. A leader needs to create effective communication
channels to build trustful relationships with employees. Trustful relationships can
only be built when effective, authentic, and regular communication takes place with
employees. This can be done through either physical or virtual contact with
employees. Today, new communication technology and social media platforms make
it easier for leaders to communicate and to build relationships with employees.
Leaders should therefore utilise these new communication technologies and social
platforms to communicate regularly and to build trustful relationships with followers.
This would aid the implementation of servant leadership in an organisation.
Participants also shared that awareness campaigns might be useful to further
promote servant leadership in a company. Awareness campaigns could be valuable
after employees have completed a servant leadership development programme.
Such an awareness campaign could include (a) additional reading material on
servant leadership, (b) videos of people who share their success stories on the
implementation of servant leadership, (c) relevant business case studies revealing
307
the impact and value of servant leadership, and (d) videos or webinars by external
experts. New technology such as virtual reality and smart device applications could,
in addition, be used to develop simulations, knowledge games, and implementation
toolkits that would further assist leaders to apply servant leadership in their
immediate workplaces. Continuous communication and regular awareness
campaigns are therefore imperative to sustain and promote servant leadership in an
organisation, especially after employees have completed a servant leadership
development programme.
4.5.2.6 Strategic Alignment
The results indicated a sixth organisational antecedent, namely strategic
alignment. This antecedent refers to alignment between the vision, mission,
strategy, goals, and values of a company and the servant leadership development
programme. Other researchers also proposed that leadership development
programmes should support the vision, mission, and values of a company (Garavan
et al., 2016). When a servant leadership course is linked to the vision, mission, and
values of the company, the content thereof will be contextualised for that specific
company. This will enable leaders to implement the principles and practices of
servant leadership more easily in that particular organisation or context. A servant
leadership development programme supporting the company’s vision, mission, and
values will greatly assist the development, implementation, and sustainability of
servant leadership in an organisation.
308
4.5.2.7 Organisational Culture
Organisational culture dimensions such as the company’s history and the
corporate culture were additional organisational factors that were identified as
promoting servant leadership development. A company’s history and culture are
generally influenced by past leaders. If a company had servant leaders that
managed and governed the company in the past, those leaders probably hired and
promoted servant leaders over the years. Over time, this would have cultivated a
serving corporate culture in a company. It would therefore be easier to implement
servant leadership in such a company. However, if a company was managed and
governed by self-serving leaders over the years, the company would probably have
a self-serving culture, which would make it more difficult for individuals to implement
and practise servant leadership. Leadership development practitioners should thus
consider the company’s history and corporate culture when implementing servant
leadership development programmes or interventions. Executive officers and board
members should (a) drive and role model servant leader behaviour, (b) cultivate a
serving culture within the organisation, and (c) hire and promote servant leaders.
This would encourage employees to implement and practise servant leadership.
4.5.3 Personal Barriers to Developing Servant Leaders
Two personal barriers to servant leadership development were identified from the
results, namely (1) personal attributes, and (2) life experiences. These barriers are
discussed in more detail below.
309
Personal attributes were shown to act, not only as personal antecedents of
servant leadership, but also as barriers to developing servant leaders; certain
attributes could promote servant leadership development, whereas others could
hinder such development. The results showed that the personal attributes that hinder
the development of servant leaders are a lack of trust, introversion, impatience, ego
(or pride), and fear.
Empowerment and building trustful relationships are two characteristics or skills of
servant leadership (Ehrhart, 2004). Individuals might find it difficult to delegate
responsibility to others, and possibly apply demand- and control techniques when
they distrust others. An individual might also struggle to empower others if he or she
distrusts them. In such a case, power will be centralised around the leader, and
employees will become resources to use and abuse to obtain the leader’s or the
company’s goals. However, if a person naturally trusts others, he or she will delegate
responsibility easier to followers once they have been empowered to perform the
work successfully. In this way, employees are empowered to deliver on the agreed
results, to the benefit of the individual and the organisation. According to Blanchard
(2010), sharing power and information with employees is one of the ways to sustain
a high-performing organisation.
Participants in the focus group also noted that introversion might hinder the
application of servant leadership. This result is in line with that of other research
studies that revealed extroversion as an antecedent of leadership behaviour
(Dulebohn et al., 2012; Guerin et al., 2011). One of the main competencies of a
servant leader is building trustful relationships with others. This means that leaders
should communicate effectively to build quality, long-term relationships with multiple
310
stakeholders, cultivate an atmosphere of care, support, and recognition, and work in
collaboration with others.
However, another study found that extroversion was negatively related to servant
leadership (Hunter et al., 2013). Introverts can also communicate effectively, build
sustainable relationships, and create an atmosphere of care, support, and
recognition. Hunter et al. (2013) are of the opinion that introverts make better
servant leaders because they are more open to the ideas of others, listen more, take
a less dominant interaction approach, and are able to communicate both verbally
and non-verbally.
Nevertheless, both personality types have strengths and weaknesses related to
servant leadership. For example, extroverts might find it difficult to listen, while
introverts might find it difficult to be assertive. Leadership development practitioners
should therefore understand a person’s personality type in terms of introversion
versus extroversion, in order to customise the contents of a servant leadership
development programme, which would enhance the success of the programme.
Impatience was mentioned as another attribute that could hinder the application of
servant leadership. Building trustful relationships with others and empowering
individuals take time. A servant leader therefore needs patience to organically grow
people and to forgive followers when they make mistakes (Van Dierendonck, 2011).
Patience was also identified from the results as an antecedent attribute of servant
leadership application.
The last two personal barrier attributes mentioned were pride and fear. This
finding is supported by current literature. Several authors have proposed that a heart
of fear and pride will cause self-serving leadership behaviour, whereas a heart of
311
love and humility will produce servant leadership behaviour (Anderson & Jahng,
2014; Blanchard & Hodges, 2008).
Leadership development practitioners should therefore evaluate an individual’s
inclination towards fearful or prideful behaviour as part of a servant leadership
development course, by means of 360˚ surveys. This would create awareness of
fearful or prideful behaviour, which should be addressed in the servant leadership
development programme or via individual coaching.
Another personal barrier to developing servant leadership was life experiences,
including personal background, previous leadership education, and having practised
conflicting leadership styles. Life experiences were also mentioned as an antecedent
of servant leadership. This means that certain life experiences, such as hardship and
previous mentorship, could promote servant leadership, while other life experiences,
such as previous leadership education and conflicting leadership styles, could limit
the development of servant leaders.
The barriers of personal background, previous leadership education, and
conflicting leadership styles highlight the importance of leadership education and
effective upbringing early in life. If individuals received servant leadership training
early in life and were brought up by a servant leader, they might be more prone to
adopting servant leader behaviour later in life. However, when individuals received
ineffective leadership education, or no leadership education, early in life and were
brought up by a self-serving leader, they might find it difficult to adopt servant
leadership later in life. The same applies to conflicting leadership practices. When a
leader has practised a leadership style that conflicts with servant leadership for a
312
long period, he or she may be less likely to adopt servant leadership. The barrier of a
previous, conflicting leadership style was also emphasised by Foster (2000).
Leadership development practitioners should therefore evaluate the personal
background, previous leadership education, and conflicting leadership styles of
individuals before deploying servant leadership development programmes. These
evaluation results can then be used to customise servant leadership development
programmes, to address these personal barriers. This would ultimately enhance
4.5.4 Organisational Barriers to Developing Servant Leaders
The results revealed that three organisational barriers could hinder servant
leadership development, namely (1) organisational demands, (2) lack of leadership
support, and (3) constant changes. These organisational barriers are described in
more detail below.
4.5.4.1 Organisational Demands
Organisational demands were clustered into work demands and financial
pressure. Organisational demands such as pressure from top management,
pressure to perform, small margins for error, stringent deadlines, loss-making
projects, budget- and time constrains, client demands, and cash-flow issues could
make it more challenging to complete servant leadership development programmes.
Other researchers confirmed that work demands, time pressure, and financial
limitations hinder the development of leaders (Catalfamo, 2010; Peltzer et al., 2015).
It is therefore important to consider the current work pressure and time available
of individuals to complete learning activities, before enrolling them in a servant
313
leadership development programme. The number of learning activities could then be
adjusted to fit the employee’s current work pressure and available time. The
company’s training budget should also be considered before deployment. Servant
leadership development programmes should thus be offered flexibly, to
accommodate different financial budgets and time constraints.
4.5.4.2 Lack of Leadership Support
A lack of leadership support was acknowledged as a second organisational barrier
to developing servant leaders. Leadership support was also identified in the present
study as an antecedent that promotes servant leadership development. Individuals
will find it difficult to practise servant leadership and to transform into servant leaders
if they do not receive the necessary support from their superiors.
According to Lancaster and Di Milia (2015), individuals may experience a lack of
leadership support when superiors (a) do not perceive leadership development and
behavioural change as important, (b) do not role model leadership behaviour, (c) are
unable to apply leadership behaviours and skills themselves, (d) do not hold learners
accountable for behavioural change after leadership training, and (e) do not provide
learners the opportunity to practise leadership skills during and after leadership
training. This is in line with the findings of the present study.
Participants experienced a lack of leadership support when superiors did not role
model servant leadership behaviour, and when superiors were not able to apply
servant leadership themselves. It is thus important to ensure that servant leadership
is implemented at all occupational levels within the organisation, starting from the
top, and to link leadership behaviour to performance management, reward, and
314
recognition systems. This will cultivate a servant leadership culture within the
organisation, and will make it easier for individuals to become servant leaders.
4.5.4.3 Constant Changes
Constant changes may also hinder the development of servant leadership in a
company. These include changes in working teams, operating systems, and
organisational structures. Individuals might experience frustration and feel
overwhelmed if constant changes are made in short periods of time, without effective
change management processes being applied. For example, if work teams
constantly change, leaders would need to put in more effort to build trustful
relationships with new team members, and need to spend more time to empower
them. This might, over time, drain the leader’s energy and motivation to apply
servant leadership principles and practices. However, when effective change
management procedures are applied when organisational changes occur, leaders
would apply servant leadership principles and practices more sustainably.
De Sousa and Van Dierendonck (2014) found that servant leadership had a
positive effect of employee engagement during major organisational changes, and
facilitated challenging change demands successfully during significant organisational
changes. In their view, servant leadership is particularly useful in uncertain and
volatile work environments. Servant leadership is therefore an effective leadership
practice to ensure high employee engagement during organisational change.
However, organisational change should be effected using validated change
management practices, to ensure successful change. This would enable individuals
to optimise the benefits of applying servant leadership during organisational
changes.
315
4.5.5 A Conceptual Framework for Servant Leadership Development
The results of this study were consolidated into a conceptual framework for
developing servant leaders. This framework is presented in Figure 13.
316
Before Learning During Learning After Learning
IDENTIFICATION EVALUATION DEVELOPMENT EMBEDMENT IMPACT
Antecedent Barrier
Strategic Alignment
• Self-awareness • Lack of trust
• Forgiveness • Pride Company vision, mission, and strategy
• Listening • Fear Company values framework
• Compassion Behavioural
• performance
Attributes
Accountable
• Standing back
• Self-
determined
• Patient
• Humility FUNDAMENTAL EXPERIENTIAL PERSONAL
• Integrity
• Confident • Classroom • On-the-job training • Coaching
• E-Learning • Workplace • Mentorship Job
Performance
• Reading assignments • Reflection performance
Management • Hardships • Personal • Conferences • Simulations • Social learning • Awareness
Life Exepriences
• Work background • Gamification

• Previous campaign
Communication
experience • Action learning • Additional
• Previous leadership • Application toolkits knowledge and
mentorship education resources
• Conflicting 10% 70% 20% • Business
leadership style cases
360 Surveys • Success
stories Team
• Expert talks performance
• Building
Competence
relationships
• Empowerment SL Competencies SL Characteristics
• Compelling
vision Strategic Servant Operational Servant • Courage
• Stewardship
• Communication Leadership Leadership • Altruism
• Coaching • Authenticity
Compelling vision Building • Humility Organisational
relationships • Integrity performance
Commitment
• Willingness Stewardship • Listening

• Passion Empowerment • Compassion
• Self-driven • Accountability
• Motivated
LEADERSHIP SUPPORT
Conduct performance review Receive overview of learning content Hold learner accountable
Complete 360 survey (reviewer) Ensure time off work to learn Role model behaviour
Identify competency gaps Create learning culture Conduct performance review
Provide feedback Limit organisational demands Complete 360 survey (reviewer)
Create individual development plan Coaching and mentorship Provide performance feedback
Align learning to individual and organisational goals Provide practice opportunities Recognition and reward
Allocate learning resources
Figure 13. Conceptual framework for servant leadership development (conceptualised by the author)
317
The above framework proposes five-step process to develop servant leaders
effectively, namely (1) identification, (2) evaluation, (3) development, (4) embedment,
and (5) impact. These steps are described in more detail below.
4.5.5.1 Identification
The first step in servant leadership development is to identify individuals for
development and to evaluate individual factors that would either promote or hinder
their servant leadership development. According to the results of this study,
performance management and 360˚ surveys are two antecedents that promote
servant leadership development. These methods might be effective ways to identify
individuals for further development. For example, performance reviews can be used
to identify individual strengths and development areas in terms of job performance,
while 360˚ surveys can be used to reveal individual strengths and development
areas in terms of servant leadership behaviour. The results of performance reviews
and 360˚ surveys can then be used to identify individuals for leadership development
to either build individual strengths in terms of job performance and behaviour, or to
improve personal development areas in terms of job performance and behaviour.
Managers should therefore conduct performance reviews with employees, provide
regular feedback, and identify the strengths and development areas of employees,
before leadership development starts. This would make employees more aware of
personal strengths and development areas, and assist managers to align leadership
development with individual, positional, or organisational goals.
318
4.5.5.2 Evaluation
Once individuals have been identified for leadership development, further
evaluation should be done in terms of personal attributes, life experiences,
competencies, and commitment levels. The results of this study showed that
personal attributes such as self-awareness, forgiveness, listening, compassion,
accountability, standing back, self-determination, patience, humility, integrity, and
confidence promote servant leadership development. The results also revealed that
personal attributes such as distrust, pride, and fear hinder servant leadership
development. It is therefore imperative to evaluate these personal attributes, to
understand a person’s stance on each. This will allow leadership development
practitioners and coaches to focus on individual strengths and development areas
during the leadership development phase.
The results further showed that life experience such as hardships, work
experience, and previous mentorship promote the development of servant leaders,
whereas life experiences such as personal background, previous leadership
education, and having conflicting leadership styles hinder servant leadership
development. Leadership development practitioners should therefore evaluate these
types of life experiences, to understand individual antecedents or barriers that could
either promote or hinder their development. This evaluation will give practitioners the
diagnostic information to build on personal life experiences that would promote
individuals’ development as servant leaders, and to bridge or overcome individual life
experiences that could hinder their development.
Competencies such as building relationships, empowerment, compelling vision,
stewardship, communication, and coaching were also identified from the results as
antecedents of servant leadership development. Individuals should thus be
319
evaluated to determine personal strengths and development areas in terms of the
competencies of building relationships, empowerment, compelling vision,
stewardship, communication, and coaching. This would enable practitioners to
customise leadership development accordingly.
The last evaluation component is commitment. The results of this study showed
that commitment in the form of willingness, passion, self-drive, and motivation
promotes the development of servant leaders. Managers and leadership
development practitioners should therefore determine the willingness, passion, self-
drive, and motivation of employees to develop further and to become servant
leaders, before enrolling them in servant leadership development courses. This
would reduce dropout rates and improve the success of servant leadership
development programmes. Without the required commitment, individuals might not
take accountability for their personal development, and be more inclined to leave the
programme. However, when individuals are committed, they will take responsibility
for their own development, and will be more likely to complete the leadership
programme.
Leadership support was also identified as either an antecedent of or a barrier to
developing servant leaders. When individuals receive the necessary development
support from their leaders, they will be more capable of completing servant
leadership development programmes. However, if employees do not receive the
necessary leadership support from their leaders, their commitment to completing a
servant leadership development programme will decline. Hence, the type of
leadership support that is required before training consists of seven responsibilities,
namely to (1) evaluate individual performance by means of performance reviews, (2)
evaluate leadership behaviour of individuals by means of 360˚ surveys, (3) evaluate
320
individual competencies, (4) provide feedback to individuals once a performance
review, 360˚ survey, or competencies review has been completed, (5) create
individual development plans for employees, using the diagnostic and evaluation
information, (6) align individual development plans with individual, positional, and
organisational goals, and to (7) allocate the necessary learning resources, such as a
training budget. When individuals receive this type of leadership support, they would
benefit more from the development activities in the next phase.
4.5.5.3 Development
Once individuals have been evaluated, the next step in the development process
is to complete a leadership development programme. Servant leadership
development programmes should, firstly, be aligned to the company’s vision,
mission, strategy, and values. The results of this study showed that servant
leadership development is promoted when it was aligned with the company’s vision,
mission, strategy, and values.
Servant leadership development programmes should, secondly, be designed
according to the 70-20-10 principle (Lombardo & Eichinger, 2006). In other words,
10% of a servant leadership development programme should consist of fundamental
learning activities such as classroom training, electronic learning, reading, or
conferences, 70% should be experiential learning activities, such as on-the-job
training, workplace assignments, simulations, gamification, action learning, and
application toolkits, and 20% should be personal transformation activities, such as
coaching, mentorship, reflection, and social learning. In this way, leaners will receive
fundamental knowledge about servant leadership, the opportunities and tools to
321
practise servant leadership in the organisation, and the personal transformational
support to become an effective servant leader.
Servant leadership development programmes should, thirdly, focus on the
competencies and attributes of servant leadership as defined in foundational and
current literature. The competencies of a servant leader are: stewardship, providing
a compelling vision, the ability to build relationships, and empowerment. The
characteristics of servant leadership include courage, altruism, authenticity, humility,
integrity, listening, compassion, and accountability. Employees can only become
effective servant leaders if they are equipped with both the strategic and operational
competencies of servant leadership, as well as the characteristics of a servant
leader.
Before a servant leadership development programme starts, the direct line
managers of employees should be informed about the purpose, content, and
duration of the learning programme, to enable them to support employees
accordingly. This can be done via classroom- or electronic information sessions.
These information sessions should also inform leaders about their roles and
responsibilities during and after the programme.
The leadership support that is required during training is embodied in five
responsibilities, namely to (1) ensure learners have sufficient time off work to
complete the learning activities, (2) cultivate a learning culture that promotes
personal development, (3) limit organisational and other work demands that could
hinder an individual’s mental focus while participating in development activities, (4)
provide regular coaching and mentoring sessions to employees to help them
become servant leaders, and to (5) provide practice opportunities for employees to
apply the knowledge gained. The results of this study revealed that servant
322
leadership development is promoted when individuals receive adequate leadership
support, coaching, mentorship, and practice opportunities.
4.5.5.4 Embedment
The fourth step in developing servant leaders is to embed the learning after
development. The results of this study showed that communication and awareness
campaigns enhance servant leadership development. It is therefore important to
create continuous communication opportunities with learners after development, to
embed and sustain learning over time. This could include (a) implementing a formal
servant leadership awareness campaign within the organisation, (b) sending new
servant leadership knowledge and resources to learners on a weekly or monthly
basis, (c) regularly sharing business case studies and success stories of the impact
of servant leadership, and (d) scheduling regular expert talks or webinars on servant
leadership at the organisation. All of these communication initiatives might aid
embedding servant leadership in an organisation once employees have completed a
formal servant leadership development programme.
4.5.5.5 Impact
A final step in the development process is to measure the impact of learning. The
manager should determine the impact of the development, especially in terms of
improvement of the job performance and behavioural performance of the employee.
This can be done by conducting a second performance review and 360˚ survey, and
comparing the results with those of the initial performance review and survey. It is
also important to determine the impact in terms of team- and organisational
performance. Financial and non-financial metrics can be reviewed before and after
323
leadership development, to determine the return the learning yielded in terms of
team- and organisational performance.
The leadership support needed after training consists of six responsibilities,
namely to (1) hold the employee accountable to implement servant leadership
behaviours and practices in the workplace, (2) role model servant leader behaviour,
(3) conduct post-learning performance reviews, (4) complete post-learning survey
reviews, (5) provide feedback to the employee after performance reviews and 360˚
surveys, and to (6) award and recognise servant leadership behaviour and practice
continuously.
4.5.6 Limitations
The individuals who participated in the focus-group session were from a
construction company. The results of the study are therefore limited to this industry,
and cannot be generalised to other industries. A second limitation is that the majority
of the participants were white or black African men. The findings of this study are
therefore limited to this gender and these races. A final limitation is that the thematic
analysis was done of the written answers to the open-ended questions posed in the
focus-group sessions, which may have led to some of the richness of the data being
lost. To mitigate this limitation, the researcher facilitated the focus-group session(s),
recorded all discussions, and made notes during the session.
4.5.7 Managerial Implications
The conceptual framework for effective servant leadership development proposed
in this study can be used by practitioners to develop servant leaders in an
organisation. It provides a systematic procedure to develop servant leaders, based
324
on the personal and organisational antecedents of and barriers to servant leadership
development that were identified from the study results. Practitioners can use this
framework to design servant leadership development programmes and to implement
these successfully in an organisation. Effective implementation of servant leadership
development programmes will produce a higher return on investment and an
increase in individual, team, and organisational performance.
4.5.8 Future Research
A first suggestion for future research is to validate this framework with
experiential-type research studies. A second research need is to conduct similar
studies in other industries, to determine if the same results are found across different
industries and countries. Another research need is to validate servant leadership
development programmes, and to evaluate their impact on individuals, organisations,
and societies. This would provide researchers and practitioners with the practical
knowledge and resources to develop servant leaders effectively. A fourth research
need is to determine which type or method of learning will develop servant leaders
the best. This would provide practitioners with valuable information on which
methods they should apply to develop servant leaders.
4.6 CONCLUSION
The overall objective of this qualitative study was to determine the personal and
organisational antecedents and barriers that would either promote or hinder the
development of servant leaders in an organisation. This objective was achieved by
conducting a focus-group session in a construction company in South Africa. A total
of 39 managers participated in the session (divided into two groups), after
325
completing a servant leadership development course. The results revealed that the
personal antecedents to developing servant leadership are the attributes of
competence, life experiences, and commitment. The study further identified seven
organisational antecedents that could promote servant leadership development,
namely development opportunities, leadership support, performance management,
conducting 360˚ surveys, communication, strategic alignment, and organisational
culture. In terms of barriers, this study showed that personal barriers such as
personal attributes and life experiences hinder servant leadership development. The
results, furthermore, revealed that the organisational barriers of organisational
demands, lack of leadership support, and constant organisational change hinder the
development of servant leaders. These results were discussed in detail and used to
conceptualise a framework to develop servant leaders effectively. This framework
can be used by practitioners to develop servant leaders successfully in an
organisation. Limitations and future research needs were also discussed.
326
REFERENCES
Archard, N. (2012). Student leadership development in Australian and New Zealand
secondary girls’ schools: A staff perspective. International Journal of Leadership
in Education, 15(1), 23–47. doi: 10.1080/13603124.2011.605472
doi: 10.1177/0963721411414534
4–28. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2010.485352
doi: 10.1108/13620430810870476
031413-091235
327
Stress, 22(3), 187–200. doi: 10.1080/02678370802393649
doi: 10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
Barbuto, J. E., & Bugenhagen, M. J. (2009). The emotional intelligence of leaders as
antecedent to leader‒member exchanges: A field study. Journal of Leadership
Education, 8(2), 135–146. Retrieved from
http://www.journalofleadershiped.org/attachments/article/180/Barbuto%20and%
20Bugenhagen.pdf
doi: 10.1177/1548051814531826
300–326. doi: 10.1177/1059601106287091
Review, 12(1), 21–25. doi: 10.1108/14754391311282450
doi: 10.1177/1548051814529993
328
Bersin, J., Mallon, D., Huddart, A., Barnett, L., & Hines, J. (2016). Predictions for
2016: A bold new world of talent, learning, leadership, and HR technology
ahead [Online]. Retrieved from
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/at/Documents/human-
capital/bersin-predictions-2016.pdf
doi: 10.1177/1742715012441176
Bolden, R. (2010). Leadership, management and organisational development. In J.
Gold, R. Thorpe, & A. Mumford (Eds.), Handbook of leadership and
management development, 1–12. Aldershot: Gower.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Retrieved from EBSCO Host database
329
Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future
directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004
doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1882-0
Catalfamo, H. (2010). An examination of leadership development in colleges.
Educational Planning, 19(4), 8–31. Retrieved from EBSCO Host database
Chan, S. (2002). Factors influencing nursing leadership effectiveness in Hong Kong.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 38(6), 615–623. Retrieved from EBSCO Host
Psychology, 100(2), 511–521. doi: 10.1037/a0038036
Chiu, T. S., Huang, H. J., & Hung, Y. (2012). The influence of humility on leadership:
A Chinese and Western review. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Economics, Business and Marketing Management, 29, 129–133. Retrieved from
330
http://www.ipedr.com/vol29/24-CEBMM2012-Q00050.pdf
Macmillian.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Education, 18(5), 11–16. doi: 10.1177/089202060501800503
doi: 10.1002/hrdq.21185
107(1), 35–47. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1296-4
2013-0133
331
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and
implications for research and practice. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(4), 611–628. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012).
A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader‒member
exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of
Management, 38(6), 1715–1759. doi: 10.1177/0149206311415280
94. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02484.x
Flynn, C. B., Smither, J. W., & Walker, A. G. (2016). Exploring the relationship
between leaders' core self-evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of servant
leadership: A field study. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(3),
260–271. doi: 10.1177/1548051815621257
Foster, B. A. (2000). Barriers to servant leadership: Perceived organisational
elements that impede servant leader effectiveness (Doctoral dissertation). The
332
Fielding Institute, Santa Barbara, California. Retrieved from
http://www.proquest.com/products-services/dissertations/ProQuest-Most-
Accessed-Dissertations-and-Theses-April-2015.html
Gagnon, S., & Collinson, D. (2014). Rethinking global leadership development
programmes: The interrelated significance of power, context and identity.
Organization Studies, 35(5), 645–670. doi: 10.1177/0170840613509917
Gallo, F. T. (2012). How Chinese managers can become effective global leaders.
People & Strategy, 35(2), 24–29. Retrieved from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/sd.2013.05629aaa.006?journal
Code=sd
Garavan, T. N., McGuire, D., & Lee, M. (2015). Reclaiming the “D” in HRD: A
typology of development conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes.
doi: 10.1177/1534484315607053
Garavan, T. N., Watson, S., & O’Brien, F. (2016). The antecedents of leadership
development practices in SMEs: The influence of HRM strategy and practice.
International Small Business Journal, 34(6), 870–890.
doi: 10.1177/0266242615594215
Gentry, W. A., Eckert, R. H., Munusamy, V. P., Stawiski, S. A., & Martin, J. L. (2013).
The needs of participants in leadership development programs: A qualitative
and quantitative cross-country investigation. Journal of Leadership &
333
2011-0110
Guerin, D. W., Oliver, P. H., Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Reichard, R. J., &
Riggio, R. E. (2011). Childhood and adolescent antecedents of social skills and
leadership potential in adulthood: Temperamental approach/withdrawal and
extraversion. Leadership Quarterly, 22(3), 482–494.
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.006
Guest, G., Namey, E. E., & Mitchell, M. L. (2013). Collecting qualitative data: A field
manual for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Hamidifar, F., & Ebrahimi, M. (2016). Academic leadership in a private university: An
Iranian case study. International Education Studies, 9(5), 193–203.
doi: 10.5539/ies.v9n5p193
doi: 10.1111/jonm.12304
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
Review, 9(3), 11–17. doi: 10.1108/14754391011040028
Hoefer, R., & Sliva, S. M. (2014). Assessing and augmenting administration skills in
nonprofits: An exploratory mixed methods study. Human Service Organizations:
334
Management, Leadership & Governance, 38(3), 246–257.
doi: 10.1080/23303131.2014.892049
Howard, C. S., & Irving, J. A. (2013). The impact of obstacles defined by
developmental antecedents on resilience in leadership formation. Proceedings
of the ASBBS Annual Conference, 20(1), 679‒687. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2013-0072
1431. doi: 10.1108/00251740510634949
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.12.001
335
Ingraham, P. W., & Getha-Taylor, H. (2004). Leadership in the public sector: Models
and assumptions for leadership development in the federal government. Review
of Public Personnel Administration, 24(2), 95–112.
doi: 10.1177/0734371X04263323
Janson, A. (2008). Extracting leadership knowledge from formative experiences.
Leadership, 4(1), 73–94. doi: 10.1177/1742715007085770
doi: 10.1080/08853134.2015.1010539
3134290404
Johnstal, S. P. (2013). Successful strategies for transfer of learned leadership.
Performance Improvement, 52(7), 5–12. doi: 10.1002/pfi.21358
Retrieved from
336
Kotze, M., & Nel, P. (2015). The influence of trait-emotional intelligence on authentic
leadership. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(1), 1–10. doi:
10.4102/sajhrm.v13i1.716
Krummaker, S., & Vogel, B. (2012). An in-depth view of the facets, antecedents, and
effects of leaders’ change competency: Lessons from a case study. The Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(3), 279–307.
doi: 10.1177/0021886312469442
Lancaster, S., & Di Milia, L. (2015). Developing a supportive learning environment in
a newly formed organisation. Journal of Workplace Learning, 27(6), 442–456.
doi: 10.1108/JWL-08-2014-0061
Lee, J. (2010). Design of blended training for transfer into the workplace. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 181–198. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2008.00909.x
Leslie, J. B. (2009). The leadership gap: What you need, and don’t have, when it
comes to leadership talent [Online]. Retrieved from
http://www.hreonline.com/pdfs/02012010Extra_CLCStudy.pdf
337
Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (2006). The career architect development
planner (4th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Lominger Limited Inc.
Maranzan, K. A., Sabourin, A., & Simard-Chicago, C. (2013). A community-based
leadership development program for first nations women: Revaluing and
honoring women’s strengths. The International Indigenous Policy Journal Article,
4(2), 1–12. doi: 10.18584/iipj.2013.4.2.5
McCauley, C. D., Moxley, R. S., & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (1998). The Center for
Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (1st ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McCormick, M. J., Tanguma, J., & Lopez-Forment, A. S. (2002). Extending self-
efficacy theory to leadership: A review and empirical test. Journal of Leadership
338
Retrieved from
&oi=p
doi: 10.1108/ICT-02-2015-0013
Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129–152.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083427?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
Nesbit, P. L. (2012). The role of self-reflection, emotional management of feedback,
and self-regulation processes in self-directed leadership development. Human
Resource Development Review, 11(2), 203–226.
doi: 10.1177/1534484312439196
1220–1233. doi: 10.1037/a0012695
O’Leonard, K. (2014). The corporate learning factbook 2014: Benchmarks, trends
and analysis of the U.S. training market [Online]. Retrieved from
http://www.cedma-europe.org/newsletter articles/Brandon Hall/The Corporate
Learning Factbook 2014 (Jan 14).pdf
339
Oliver, P. H., Gottfried, A. W., Guerin, D. W., Gottfried, A. E., Reichard, R. J., &
Riggio, R. E. (2011). Adolescent family environmental antecedents to
transformational leadership potential: A longitudinal mediational analysis.
11(1), 10–21. doi: 10.1108/09604520110362443
doi: 10.1017/jmo.2014.80
doi: 10.1080/09585191003658920
Peltzer, J. N., Ford, D. J., Shen, Q., Fischgrund, A., Teel, C. S., Pierce, J., Jamison,
M., & Waldon, T. (2015). Exploring leadership roles, goals, and barriers among
Kansas registered nurses: A descriptive cross-sectional study. Nursing Outlook,
63(2), 117–123. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2015.01.003
340
Research, 27(1), 508–526. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2014.974340
Petrie, N. (2014). Future trends in leadership development [Online]. Retrieved from
http://www.ccl.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/futureTrends.pdf
doi: 10.1002/jls.21238
Journal, 23(3), 145–157. doi: 10.1108/01437730210424084
Saidu, H. (2013). Barriers and obstacles to the implementation and practice of
servant leadership among pastors and lay leaders of evangelical church winning
all (ECWA), Nigeria (Doctoral dissertation). Asbury Theological Seminary,
Wilmore, KY. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/openview/fce4f6a086cd8aa358b5ec82246d2b3b/1?
pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
Schafer, J. A. (2010). Effective leaders and leadership in policing: Traits,
assessment, development, and expansion. Policing: An International Journal of
341
Police Strategies & Management, 33(4), 644–663.
doi: 10.1108/13639511011085060
Schatsky, D., & Schwartz, J. (2015). Global human capital trends 2015: Leading in
the new world of work [Online]. Retrieved from
http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/at/Documents/human-capital/hc-
trends-2015.pdf
doi: 10.1108/02683940010305270
doi: 10.1080/08853134.2015.1010537
402–424. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00761.x
342
304–328. doi: 10.1177/1534484311410840
Shuck, B., & Herd, A. M. (2012). Employee engagement and leadership: Exploring
the convergence of two frameworks and implications for leadership development
in HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 11(2), 156–181.
doi: 10.1177/1534484312438211
doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.05.003
Retrieved from
343
Stein, S. J., & Book, H. E. (2011). The EQ edge: Emotional intelligence and your
success (3rd ed.). Mississauga, Canada: Jossey-Bass.
doi: 10.1108/S1535-1203(2009)0000005017
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.03.008
Management, 37(4), 1228–1261. doi: 10.1177/0149206310380462
Warne, L. (2010). Leadership in the construction industry [Online]. Retrieved from
https://www.ciob.org/sites/default/files/CIOB research - Leadership in the
Construction Industry 2008.pdf
Wilson, K., & Bird, S. (2014). Doctor who? The barriers and enablers to developing
medical leadership talent [Online]. Retrieved from
http://www.haygroup.com/downloads/uk/doctor who-the barriers and enablers to
344
developing medical leadership talent.pdf
doi: 10.1080/09585192.2013.763844
345
CHAPTER 5: EVALUATION OF A SERVANT LEADERSHIP INTERVENTION IN
THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY (MANUSCRIPT 4)
ABSTRACT
Background: The construction industry is labour-intensive and requires a people-
orientated leadership approach to ensure sustainable operational performance. A
people-orientated leadership approach that could work well in the construction
industry is servant leadership. Although previous studies have shown that servant
leadership produces favourable individual and organisational outcomes, no servant
leadership intervention has been validated to date.
Research Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a
servant leadership development intervention.
Research Method: A one group pre-test and post-test experimental design was
applied to evaluate servant leadership behaviour before and after a servant
leadership intervention. A sample of 44 managers was drawn from a construction
company in South Africa.
Main Findings: The results showed that the servant leadership intervention
significantly enhanced servant leadership behaviour, particularly in terms of
empowerment, stewardship, and forgiveness. Managers that participated in the
servant leadership intervention showed more servant leadership behaviour after the
intervention in terms of empowerment, stewardship, and forgiving behaviour.
Managerial Implications: The servant leadership intervention evaluated by this
study can be used as an effective method to enhance servant leadership behaviour
and to cultivate servant leadership cultures within construction companies. In return,
346
organisations can benefit from the favourable individual and organisational outcomes
that servant leadership produce.
Contribution: This is one of the first known studies to evaluate a servant
leadership intervention. It therefore makes a theoretical and practical contribution to
the body of knowledge on servant leadership.
Keywords: Servant leadership, intervention, evaluation, leadership development.
347
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Leadership plays a fundamental role in organisational performance and
sustainability. Several frameworks highlight leadership as a key factor in sustaining
a high-performing organisation (Blanchard, 2010; De Waal, 2012; Owen et al.,
2001). Leaders not only steer organisations strategically and operationally, they also
influence employee behaviours, such as work engagement, which ultimately affect
levels of corporate citizenship behaviour (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Saks, 2006;
Sulea et al., 2012), productivity (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Harter et al., 2002;
Hayward, 2010; Shuck, 2011; Simpson, 2009; Solomon & Sridevi, 2010),
performance (Bakker, 2011; Bakker et al., 2014, 2008; Baron, 2013; Demerouti et
al., 2015; Hayward, 2010; Kovjanic et al., 2013; Lorente et al., 2014; Shuck, 2011;
Simpson, 2009; Yalabik et al., 2013), profitability (Shuck, 2011; Simpson, 2009;
Solomon & Sridevi, 2010), safety behaviour (Shuck, 2011; Solomon & Sridevi, 2010),
and customer satisfaction (Bakker et al., 2011; Baron, 2013; Hayward, 2010;
Simpson, 2009; Solomon & Sridevi, 2010).
Although the importance of leadership is clear, leadership development seems to
remain a significant challenge in most organisations (Mallon, Atamanik, Chakrabarti,
Choudhury, Clarey, Derler, Erickson, Sherman, Johnson, Manning, Mike, & Moulton,
2017). Leadership capability and capacity problems are evident in most
organisations, and is considered one of the top ten global human capital challenges
(Bersin et al., 2016; Mallon et al., 2017; Schatsky & Schwartz, 2015). Even though
leadership development initiatives claim the largest percentage of learning and
development budgets (O’Leonard, 2014), the leadership gap seems to widen over
the years (Mallon et al., 2017). Hence, the need for more effective leadership
development programmes is obvious.
348
In the construction industry, leadership plays a critical role in sustaining
operational performance. The construction industry is a labour-intensive industry that
formally employees approximately 8%, and informally about 17%, of South African’s
workforce, of which 70% are low-, semi-, or unskilled employees (Construction
Industry Development Board, 2015a). These figures emphasise the need for a
people-orientated leadership approach in this industry, to ensure sustainable
operational performance. Increased labour unrest, poor operational performance,
low productivity, and health-and-safety issues are current challenges in the
construction industry (Naidoo, Brand, Raghuber, Suburaman, Beukes, & Serepong,
2016). All these challenges can be linked to leadership, either directly or indirectly.
Leadership has been shown to influence productivity (Butt, Waseem, Rafiq,
Nawab, Khilji, & Cantt, 2014), performance (Kuria, Namusonge, & Iravo, 2016;
Liphadzi, Aigbavboa, & Thwala, 2015; Wang, Chich-Jen, & Mei-Ling, 2010), safety
behaviour (Skeepers & Mbohwa, 2015), and work engagement levels (Babcock-
Roberson & Strickland, 2010; Breevaart et al., 2015; Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012;
Ghadi et al., 2013; Mendes & Stander, 2011; Penger & Cerne, 2014; Schaufeli,
2015). Effective leadership development therefore plays a fundamental role in
sustaining operational performance in the construction industry.
A people-orientated leadership approach that could work well in the construction
industry is servant leadership. Servant leadership is a comprehensive leadership
approach that focusses first on serving and empowering employees, to ultimately
achieve a higher-purpose vision to the benefit of multiple stakeholders (Van
Dierendonck, 2011). These stakeholders include customers, employees, suppliers,
shareholders, society, as well as the environment.
349
Servant leadership is characterised by courage, authenticity, accountability (Van
Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), altruism (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006), integrity (Page &
Wong, 2000), humility, compassion (Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014), and
listening (Spears, 2010). Servant leaders set compelling visions (Hale & Fields,
2007), build trustful relationships (Liden et al., 2008), empower employees (Dennis &
Bocarnea, 2005), and produce a solid return on investment as good stewards of a
company’s resources and assets (Russell & Stone, 2002).
Servant leadership is different from, but also similar to, other leadership theories.
For example, servant leadership includes dimensions of transformational leadership
(Stone et al., 2004), authentic leadership, Level-5 leadership (Van Dierendonck,
2011), enterprise leadership (Liden et al., 2014), situational leadership (Blanchard &
Hodges, 2008), spiritual leadership (Sendjaya et al., 2008), charismatic leadership,
and leader‒member exchange (LMX) (Hanse et al., 2016). However, servant
leadership is different from these leadership theories in that it focusses on people
first (Stone et al., 2004), and aims to achieve a higher-purpose vision, beyond self-
interest (Barbuto et al., 2014), to the benefit of multiple stakeholders. Servant
leadership also includes additional leadership attributes that is absent from the
aforementioned leadership theories.
Servant leadership has been shown to produce favourable organisational and
employee outcomes, such as an increase in the levels of work engagement (Carter
& Baghurst, 2013; De Clercq et al., 2014), organisational citizenship behaviour
(Bobbio et al., 2012; Newman et al., 2015; Ozyilmaz & Cicek, 2015; Panaccio et al.,
2015; Walumbwa et al., 2010), creativity (Neubert et al., 2008), innovation (Panaccio
et al., 2015), organisational commitment (Bobbio et al., 2012; Chinomona et al.,
2013), trust (Chatbury et al., 2011; Chinomona et al., 2013), and self-efficacy (Chen
350
et al., 2015). Servant leadership also been shown to decrease levels of employee
turnover (Babakus et al., 2011; Hunter et al., 2013; Liden et al., 2014) and individual
burnout (Babakus et al., 2011; Bobbio et al., 2012; Tang et al., 2015). In terms of
organisational outcomes, servant leadership has been shown to enhance customer
service (Chen et al., 2015; Hsiao et al., 2015; Hwang et al., 2014) and sales
performance (Schwepker & Schultz, 2015) in organisations.
Despite previous studies having highlighted the importance of servant leadership,
no servant leadership intervention has been validated to date. Previous research on
servant leadership focussed mainly on defining servant leadership, measuring
servant leadership, and reporting the impact of servant leadership. Evaluating the
application of servant leadership, using experiential or longitudinal study designs,
has been called for by several authors (Chen et al., 2015; De Clercq et al., 2014;
Mehta & Pillay, 2011). Validated interventions could provide practitioners with the
means to develop servant leaders effectively in organisations. In turn, organisations
can benefit from the favourable outcomes that servant leadership produces. The
purpose of the present study was therefore to evaluate the effectiveness of a servant
leadership intervention.
5.1.1 Research Objectives
The general aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a servant
leadership intervention in enhancing servant leadership behaviour in the construction
industry. The specific objectives of this study were to evaluate the effectiveness of a
servant leadership intervention to enhance (a) empowerment, (b) standing back, (c)
forgiveness, (d) courage, (e) authenticity, (f) humility, and (g) stewardship behaviour
in the construction industry.
351
5.2 LITERATURE REVIEW
5.2.1 Defining Servant Leadership
The original teachings on servant leadership were introduced by Jesus Christ,
more than 2 000 years ago, and can be found in the Bible (Sendjaya, 2015). For
example, Jesus taught His disciples in Luke 22: 26-26 (New International Version)
that “…the kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who exercise authority
over them call themselves benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the
greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one
who serves” (p 115).
In the late 1970s, Robert Greenleaf applied the principles and practices of servant
leadership in the business- and education sectors. Greenleaf (1998) described
servant leadership as a practice that starts with a willingness to serve that flows into
a motivation to lead others. Servant leadership has been researched internationally,
and its impact on individuals and organisations has been reported in several
scientific journals.
Servant leadership can be defined as a comprehensive leadership practice that
starts with an intent to serve (Greenleaf, 1998) that flows into a set of principles and
practices to empower people (Van Dierendonck, 2011), to build sustainable
organisations and to create a humane society (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Van
Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) posited that servant leadership is characterised by
empowerment, standing back, accountability, forgiveness, courage, authenticity,
humility, and stewardship. Other researchers included additional servant leadership
traits, such as compassion (Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014), integrity (Ehrhart,
2004; Liden et al., 2008; Page & Wong, 2000; Wong & Davey, 2007), listening
352
(Spears, 2010), building relationships (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005; Ehrhart, 2004;
Page & Wong, 2000; Sendjaya et al., 2008; Wong & Davey, 2007), and setting a
compelling vision (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005; Ehrhart,
2004; Hale & Fields, 2007; Laub, 1999; Page & Wong, 2000; Sendjaya et al., 2008).
In the present study, the eight servant leadership characteristics proposed by Van
Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) were used to evaluate servant leadership. These
characteristics are described in more detail below.
Empowerment refers to the consistent effort to grow and development
individuals, personally and professionally (Berger, 2014; Carter & Baghurst, 2013;
Crippen, 2005; Hu & Liden, 2011; Kincaid, 2012; Mehta & Pillay, 2011; Spears,
2010; Van Dierendonck, 2011), and to transfer accountability to individuals, to make
them more autonomous (Bobbio et al., 2012). Empowerment also includes the
alignment and activation of individual talent (Bobbio et al., 2012; Flint & Grayce,
2013; Humphreys, 2005; Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002; Van Dierendonck & Patterson,
2014), creating an effective work environment in which people can flourish (Mittal &
Dorfman, 2012), and promoting the confidence, wellness, and independent
behaviour of individuals (Mittal & Dorfman, 2012; Rai & Prakash, 2012; Van
Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).
Standing back is described as putting the interests of others above one’s own,
helping others perform better, and giving credit to others once a task has been
successfully completed (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). Collins (2001) described
this behaviour as taking responsibility when problems occur, and giving credit to
others when a task was successfully completed.
353
Accountability is defined as setting clear objectives for oneself and others, being
responsible (Van Dierendonck, 2011), and keeping others accountable, while
monitoring performance continuously (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).
Forgiveness is the ability to forgive others for past mistakes without holding a
grudge (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).
Courage is the willingness to stand up for what is right, despite hardships, and to
take calculated risks to the benefit of others (Russell & Stone, 2002; Van
Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).
Authenticity is defined as showing genuine intentions and motivations to others
(Peterson & Seligman, 2004), without hiding one’s true self (Pekerti & Sendjaya,
2010). Authenticity also includes having good ethical principles (Russell & Stone,
2002), behaving consistently, acknowledging one’s development areas, and learning
from criticism (Sendjaya & Cooper, 2011).
Humility is defined as being modest and self-aware (De Sousa & Van
Dierendonck, 2014; Patterson, 2003), while focussing on personal development (Van
Dierendonck, 2011), and viewing one’s strengths in the right perspective (Patterson,
2003). Blanchard and Hodges (2008) described humility as not thinking less of
yourself, but thinking of yourself less often.
Stewardship can be defined as being a caretaker of the belongings or interests of
others (Flint & Grayce, 2013; Melchar & Bosco, 2010; Ozyilmaz & Cicek, 2015;
Searle & Barbuto, 2011; Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002; Van Dierendonck & Patterson,
2014), while protecting the common good in organisations and society (Barbuto &
Wheeler, 2006; Melchar & Bosco, 2010; Ozyilmaz & Cicek, 2015; Sun & Wang,
2009; Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014).
354
5.2.2 The Measurement of Servant Leadership
Several instruments have been validated to measure servant leadership. One
measurement was development by Laub (1999), which measures servant leadership
according to five characteristics, namely authenticity, shared leadership, valuing
people, developing people, building community, and providing leadership. The
instrument of Page and Wong (2000) includes traits such as humility, care,
servanthood, integrity, empowerment, leading, modelling, team-building, shared
decision-making, visioning, and goal-setting.
Ehrhart (2004) developed a servant leadership instrument that includes eight
servant leadership attributes, namely putting subordinates first, behaving ethically,
empowering followers, helping subordinates grow, forming relationships with
subordinates, creating value for the community, and using conceptual skills. The
instrument designed by Dennis and Bocarnea (2005) measures servant leadership
by the attributes of humility, agape love, empowerment, trust, and vision.
Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) developed a servant leadership instrument that
measures five servant leadership characteristics, namely emotional healing, altruistic
calling, organisational stewardship, persuasive mapping, and wisdom. Sendjaya et
al. (2008) introduced an instrument that measures servant leadership according to
the characteristics of authentic self, conventional relationships, voluntary
subordination, transforming influence, responsible morality, and transcendental
spirituality.
The latest servant leadership instrument was developed by Van Dierendonck and
Nuijten (2011), and includes eight servant leadership characteristics, namely
empowerment, standing back, forgiveness, accountability, humility, authenticity,
courage, and stewardship. This survey was used in the present study.
355
5.2.3 The Outcomes of Servant Leadership
Servant leadership has been shown to produce favourable individual and
organisational outcomes. These outcomes are described in more detail below.
5.2.3.1 Individual Outcomes
Previous studies revealed that servant leadership influences work engagement
levels positively (Carter & Baghurst, 2013; De Clercq et al., 2014). In one study, goal
congruence and social interaction moderated the relationship between servant
leadership and work engagement (De Clercq et al., 2014), and, in another study, this
relationship was mediated by organisational identification and psychological
empowerment (De Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2014).
Servant leadership has also been shown to increase organisational citizenship
behaviour (Bobbio et al., 2012; Newman et al., 2015; Ozyilmaz & Cicek, 2015;
Panaccio et al., 2015; Walumbwa et al., 2010). The relationship between servant
leadership and organisational citizenship behaviour is mediated by leader‒member
exchange (LMX) (Hsiao et al., 2015; Newman et al., 2015), psychological capital
(Wu et al., 2013), psychological contract (Panaccio et al., 2015), commitment to
supervisor, self-efficacy, procedural justice climate, and service climate (Walumbwa
et al., 2010).
Innovative behaviour and individual trust are, furthermore, positively influenced by
servant leadership. For example, Panaccio et al. (2015) reported that servant
leadership enhanced innovative behaviour, which was mediated by the psychological
contract. Other researchers also reported that servant leadership increased creative
behaviour (Liden et al., 2014; Neubert et al., 2008). Interpersonal trust (Chatbury et
356
al., 2011), employee trust (Chinomona et al., 2013), affective trust (Miao et al.,
2014), and organisational trust (Jones, 2012) were, in addition, all increased by
servant leadership.
Other individual outcomes linked to servant leadership include higher job
satisfaction (Chung et al., 2010; Jones, 2012; Mehta & Pillay, 2011; Ozyilmaz &
Cicek, 2015; Sturm, 2009), organisational commitment (Bobbio et al., 2012;
Chinomona et al., 2013), self-efficacy (Chen et al., 2015; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten,
2011), person‒job fit (Carter & Baghurst, 2013), and communication with leaders
(Hanse et al., 2016; Newman et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2013). Servant leadership also
seems to lower burnout levels (Babakus et al., 2011; Bobbio et al., 2012; Tang et al.,
2015) and turnover intention levels (Babakus et al., 2011; Hunter et al., 2013;
Jaramillo et al., 2009b; Kashyap & Rangnekar, 2016) of employees.
5.1.1.1. Organisational Outcomes
Servant leadership has been shown to produce several positive organisational
outcomes, such as higher customer service levels and better sales performance.
Various studies reported a positive relationship between servant leadership and
customer service performance (Chen et al., 2015), service-orientated organisational
citizenship behaviour, customer value co-creation (Hsiao et al., 2015), customer trust
in the firm, customer satisfaction (Hwang et al., 2014), customer orientation
(Jaramillo et al., 2009a), customer-serving behaviour (Liden et al., 2014), and value-
enhancing behaviour (Schwepker & Schultz, 2015). Further, a negative relationship
was found between servant leadership and customer turnover (Jones, 2012).
Servant leadership directly influences sales performance positively (Jaramillo et al.,
357
2015; Schwepker & Schultz, 2015), or indirectly, via customer orientation (Jaramillo
et al., 2009a) or a serving culture (Liden et al., 2014).
Other organisational benefits of servant leadership include enhanced levels of
group identification (Chen et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2012), group organisational
citizenship behaviour (Bakar & McCann, 2016; Hu & Liden, 2011), serving culture
(Liden et al., 2014), a serving climate (Walumbwa et al., 2010), and procedural
justice (Chung et al., 2010; Walumbwa et al., 2010).
5.2.4 Servant Leadership Interventions
Different types of servant leadership interventions are available. The Servant
Leadership Institute, for example, offers a variety of servant leadership interventions,
such as workshops, coaching programmes, webinars, and conferences. Their
introduction course is a three-day workshop that focusses on defining servant
leadership, the importance of servant leadership, the characteristics of servant
leadership, the relationship between personal and organisational values, and the
importance of business morale and culture (The Servant Leadership Institute,
2017a). Another workshop offered by The Servant Leadership Institute (2017b) is a
six-hour workshop that concentrates on practices to enhance team effectiveness,
resolve conflict, facilitate difficult conversations, and understand the role of the HR
Department and leadership. A third workshop provided by The Servant Leadership
Institute (2017c) is three hours in duration, and focusses on the definition of servant
leadership, the difference between servant leadership and other leadership theories,
the benefits of servant leadership, and the methods to become a servant leader. The
Servant Leadership Institute (2017d) also offers a four- to 12-months coaching
358
programme that aims to maximize personal and professional growth as a servant
leader.
The Greenleaf Centre for Servant Leadership is another institution that offers
different types of servant leadership interventions, such as short courses and
conferences. The three short courses offered by this institution are: (1) The
Foundations of Servant Leadership, (2) The Key Practices of Servant Leadership,
and (3) The Implementation of Servant Leadership. The Foundations of Servant
Leadership short course focusses on the philosophy of Robert Greenleaf, the
importance of servant leadership, the principles of servant leadership, and the
application strategies of servant leadership (The Greenleaf Centre for Servant
Leadership, 2017b). The curriculum of the second short course includes the
exploration of the practices of servant leadership, the identification of ways to
incorporate servant leadership into daily life, developing implementation strategies
for servant leadership, and reflecting on and sharing best practices (The Greenleaf
Centre for Servant Leadership, 2017c). The third short course of this institution
focusses on reviewing Greenleaf’s philosophy, discussing personal development
action steps, understanding setbacks, effective implementation strategies, and
sharing case studies and best practices (The Greenleaf Centre for Servant
Leadership, 2017a). All these short courses are done via telephone conferencing,
and are of short duration.
Another servant leadership intervention is a short course developed by Blanchard,
Hodges, and Hendry (2014), named the Lead Like Jesus Encounter. This one-day
course focusses on the heart, head, hands, and habits of a servant leader. The
Heart section of the course describes four heart types, namely pride, fear, humility,
and God-grounded confidence. The Head section explores the two parts of
359
leadership, namely direction and implementation. It also emphasises the importance
of personal values. The Hands section of the course describes four development
stages of a servant leader, namely novice, apprentice, journeyman, and master. The
Habits section explains four habits of a servant leader, namely (1) accepting and
abiding in God’s unconditional love, (2) experiencing solitude, (3) practising prayer,
(4) applying scripture, and (5) maintaining supportive relationships.
None of these interventions has been scientifically evaluated to determine its
effectiveness in enhancing servant leadership behaviour. A shortcoming of the
above-mentioned interventions is that none of them utilises blended learning
methods, and few include experiential exercises and assessments. Lombardo and
Eichinger (2006) suggested that 10% of leadership development programmes should
consist of theoretical training, 70% of experiential training, and 20% of personal
training. Other researchers agree with this notion, and suggest that leadership
development programmes should consist of classroom training, group activities,
individual projects, mentorship (Ingraham & Getha-Taylor, 2004), self-reflection
(Nesbit, 2012), coaching (Shuck & Herd, 2012), social networks (Gagnon &
Collinson, 2014), storytelling (Janson, 2008), 360˚ surveys, individual job
assignments (McCauley et al., 1998), and experiential learning (Bolden, 2010;
Johnstal, 2013), such as workplace assignments, special projects, on-the-job
training, job rotation, refresher training, attending leadership forums (Lancaster & Di
Milia, 2015), and workplace case studies (Lee, 2010). A third challenge of the
available interventions is the short duration of the workshops or courses. Behavioural
change most often happens over longer periods of time.
The present researcher thus decided to develop a more comprehensive servant
leadership intervention in this research study, using current literature, that consists of
360
blended learning methods and is applied over a longer period. The aim of this study
was then to evaluate the effectiveness of the designed intervention to enhance
servant leadership behaviour. A validated servant leadership intervention could offer
practitioners an effective way to cultivate servant leaders in the workplace, which
would, in turn, offer organisations the benefits that servant leadership produces. This
study also addressed the research need for experiential-type studies to evaluate the
effective application of servant leadership (Chen et al., 2015; De Clercq et al., 2014;
Mehta & Pillay, 2011).
5.3 RESEARCH METHOD
5.3.1 Research Approach
This study was conducted using a positivist research approach. According to
Collis and Hussey (2009), positivism is an objective research approach to measure
social phenomena quantitatively. A one-group pre-test post-test experimental design
was used in the present study. Data were collected using a quantitative survey
before and after a leadership development intervention. Descriptive and inferential
statistical methods were used to analyse the data.
5.3.2 Sample Framework
The population of this study was employees working in a company in the
construction industry in South Africa. This industry was chosen due to its high labour
intensity, which requires an advanced level of servant leadership to lead people
effectively. The services rendered by this company included road construction,
building construction, civil engineering, plant hiring, and opencast mining. The
361
combined number of employees in this company was approximately 5 526 at the
time of the research. The company had operations in six different countries.
A non-probability sample of 44 managers (Sample 1) was drawn to participate in a
servant leadership development programme. They completed the Servant
Leadership Survey (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011) before and after attending the
leadership programme, to evaluate their own servant leadership behaviour. The
demographic information of the sample is presented in Table 40, below.
Table 40
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample

Gender Male 42 95.5
Female 2 4.5
English 17 38.6
Tswana 2 4.5
North-Sotho 2 4.5
South-Sotho 2 4.5
Swati 1 2.3
Ndebele 0 0.0
Tsonga 1 2.3
Venda 1 2.3
Xhosa 0 0.0
Zulu 1 2.3
Other 0 0.0
Race White 32 72.7
Indian 1 2.3
Coloured 1 2.3
Other 0 0.0
Age ≤ 25 years 3 6.8
26‒35 years 20 45.5
362
36‒45 years 13 29.5
46‒55 years 8 18.2
56‒59 years 0 0.0
60‒65 years 0 0.0
66+ 0 0.0
Doctorate 0 0.0
1‒2 years 5 11.4
3‒5 years 14 31.8
6‒10 years 13 29.5
Other 0 0.0
The majority of the sample consisted of men with a home language of either
Afrikaans or English, and were aged 26 to 45 years. The race distribution of the
sample was 73% white, 23% black African, 2% Indian, and 2% Coloured. Most of
the respondents had a three-year diploma or bachelor’s degree, with three to ten
years’ work experience. The sample consisted of nine senior managers (21%), 20
363
middle managers (46%), nine junior managers (21%), three senior supervisors (7%),
and three junior supervisors (7%).
5.3.3 Data Collection Method
The Servant Leadership Survey of Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) was used
to collect data before and after the intervention. This survey consists of 30 items, and
measures eight servant leadership characteristics, namely (1) standing back, (2)
forgiveness, (3) courage, (4) empowerment, (5) accountability, (6) authenticity, (7)
humility, and (8) stewardship. Sample items are: “My manager offers me abundant
opportunities to learn new skills” (empowerment), “My manager keeps himself in the
background and gives credit to others” (standing back), “My manager holds me
responsible for the work I carry out” (accountability), “My manager maintains a hard
attitude towards people who have offended him/her at work” (forgiveness), “My
manager takes risks even when he/she is not certain of the support from his own
manager” (courage), “My manager is open about his/her limitations and
weaknesses” (authenticity), “My manager admits his/her mistakes to his/her
superior” (humility), and “My manager emphasizes the societal responsibility of our
work” (stewardship). A six-point Likert-type response scale is used in this survey.
Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) reported Cronbach alpha coefficients of .76 for
Standing back, .72 for Forgiveness, .69 for Courage, .89 for Empowerment, .81 for
Accountability, .82 for Authenticity, .91 for Humility, and .74 for Stewardship.
Another study also revealed acceptable reliability coefficients for Empowerment (α =
.92), Accountability (α =.74), Stewardship (α =.79), Humility (α = .94), Standing back
(α = .71), Forgiveness (α = .71), Courage (α = .75), and Authenticity (α =.79) (De
Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2014).
364
The original version of the Servant Leadership Survey was used. Respondents
had to evaluate their own leadership behaviour before and after the leadership
development programme. In the present study, the pre- and post-test data of the
direct reports and other employees (Sample 2) was not used. Only the pre- and post-
test data of the managers (Sample 1) was utilised.
5.3.4 Data Analysis
Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistical methods. These
methods are described in more details below.
5.3.4.1 Descriptive Statistical Methods
The central tendency and data distribution were analysed using the mean,
median, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis (Collis & Hussey, 2009). Data
normality was determined by dividing the skewness and kurtosis scores by their
standard errors and by conducting Shapiro-Wilk and Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality
tests (Pallant, 2010). The reliability of the instrument in terms of internal consistency
was, in addition, evaluated by computing the combined Cronbach alpha coefficient
value of the items. SPSS statistical software was utilised to conduct the descriptive
analysis.
5.3.4.2 Inferential Statistical Methods
A paired-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference between pre- and post-
test results. According to Collis and Hussey (2009), a paired-sample t-test is an
effective method to compare two data sets of a single group. In the present study,
the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used, because the data were not normally
365
distributed. This test is the non-parametric alternative to a paired-sample t-test
(Pallant, 2010). SPSS statistical software was utilised to conduct the inferential
statistical analysis.
5.3.5.1 Development of the Intervention
The Servant Leadership Framework and Model proposed in Chapter 2 was used
as a basis to develop the intervention. This framework consists of four main
functions of a servant leader, namely (1) to set, translate, and execute a higher-
purpose vision, (2) to become a role model and ambassador, (3) to align, care for,
and grow talent, and (4) to continuously monitor and improve. A summary of this
framework is provided in Table 41, below.
Table 41
The Functions, Objectives, Characteristics, and Competencies of a Servant Leader
Performance
Area Strategic Servant Leadership Operational Servant Leadership
Set, translate,
Become a role Align, care for, Continuously
and execute a
Function model and and grow monitor and
higher-purpose
ambassador talent improve
vision
• Set a higher- • Self-knowledge • Good
• Align
purpose vision • Self- stewardship
followers
• Translate the management • Monitor
• Care for and
vision into a • Self- performance
Objectives protect
mission, improvement • Improve
followers
strategy, and • Self-revealing systems,
• Grow
goals • Stay within the policies,
followers
• Execute the rules processes,
366
vision by products, and
serving others services
• Stand up for
what is right
Authenticity
Courage Listening
Characteristics Humility Accountability
Altruism Compassion
Integrity
Building
Personal
Competencies Compelling vision relationships Stewardship
capability
Empowerment
The types of learning methods that were included in this intervention were
personal assessments, electronic learning, classroom training, gamification,
experiential learning, application toolkits, and neuroscience principles. Coaching was
initially included, but was discontinued later on, due to insufficient resources. The
learning programme consisted of pre- and post-intervention assessments, a three-
day classroom training session, electronic assessments, and experiential
assignments.
The pre-intervention assessments were conducted one month before the
classroom training session, and the post-intervention assessments were done two
months after completing the classroom training, electronic learning assignments, and
experiential exercises. The pre- and post-intervention tests assessed the levels of
servant leadership, leadership intent of the managers, and the levels of work
engagement, burnout, job demands, and job resources of their direct reports.
The classroom training was designed to be highly interactive, and included
several individual and group exercises, as well as gamification. The content of the
classroom session was divided into three modules. The first module focussed on the
heart of a servant leader. This module explained the purpose of a leader, the
367
difference between a self-serving and a servant leader, the definition of servant
leadership, the dimensions of servant leadership, the different types of leadership
intent, and the role of personal and organisational values in servant leadership.
The second module focussed on the head of servant leadership, which related to
strategic leadership. In this module, the first two functions of a servant leader were
introduced, and the objectives, characteristics, and competencies of these functions
were explained. The difference between strategic and operational servant leadership
was also discussed.
The third module focussed on the hands of a servant leader. In this module, the
third and fourth functions of a servant leader were introduced, and the objectives,
characteristics, and competencies of these functions were explained. This module
also introduced the Talent Wheel of Servant Leadership and described the Servant
Leadership Model. A general framework to implement servant leadership was also
discussed.
The electronic exercises consisted of relevant reading material, videos, and
questionnaires. The experiential challenges included several workplace
assignments, individual assignments, mentorship sessions, video sessions, and
case studies. Application toolkits were also designed to assist leaders to apply the
knowledge gained during the classroom session in the workplace. The structure of
the servant leadership intervention is depicted in Figure 14, below.
368
1 month 3 days 3 months 2 months
E-learning
HUMI LOAssignments
Pre- Post-
intervention LITY
Classroom VE intervention
training
assessment assessment
Experiential
challenges
PRI FE
DE AR
• Servant • Heart of a • Servant
leadership servant leader leadership
• Leadership • Head of a • 8 e-learning • Leadership
intent servant leader assignments intent
• Work • Hands of a • 12 experiential • Work
engagement servant leader challenges engagement
• Burnout • 7 models • 10 leader toolkits • Burnout
• Job demands • 4 tables • Job demands
• Job resources • 10 exercises • Job resources
Figure 14. Structure of the servant leadership intervention
5.3.5.2 Obtaining Permission
Permission to conduct the study in the company was obtained from the General
Manager: Human Resources. The purpose and process of the research were
explained, and the protection of the company’s name and interests was guaranteed.
5.3.5.3 Pre-assessments
The third step was to administer the Servant Leadership Survey, in which
respondents evaluated their own servant leadership behaviour. A digital survey
platform, SurveyMonkey, was utilised to set up and configure the survey. Website
links, e-mail templates, and consent forms were then created.
369
The next step was to invite the identified managers to complete the Servant
Leadership Survey before the intervention started. The purpose, confidentiality,
voluntary participation, and anonymity of the survey were explained to the
respondents. Respondents also received a feedback report with their individual
results during the classroom training session.
5.3.5.4 Implementing the Intervention
The fifth step of this research study was to implement the servant leadership
intervention. The identified managers completed a three-day training course on
servant leadership, followed by several electronic learning assignments and
workplace experiential exercises. Initially, a total duration of three months was
provided to complete the electronic assignments and experiential workplace
exercises after the classroom training session. This period was extended to six
months, to allow the delegates additional time to complete the assignments.
5.3.5.5 Post-intervention assessments
The sixth step in this research study was to conduct post-intervention
assessments. The respondents were invited to complete the post-intervention
assessment surveys six months after the programme. The same respondents who
had completed the pre-intervention assessments were asked to complete the post-
intervention assessments. The same survey was used.
370
5.3.5.6 Data Analysis and Reporting
The final step in this research study was to clean the data, conduct the statistical
analysis, and write up the results. The results of the study were also shared with the
respondents and the management of the company.
5.4. RESULTS
5.4.1. Descriptive Statistical Results
The descriptive statistics indicated that the data were not normally distributed.
After dividing the skewness and kurtosis scores by their standard errors, the results
showed values larger than 1.96 for Accountability, Courage, Stewardship, and
Forgiveness. This exceeded the accepted value of normally distributed data (Rose
et al., 2015). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test was significant for all the
variables (p < .05), which confirmed non-normality (Pallant, 2010). A summary of the
descriptive statistics results is provided in Table 42, below.
Table 42
Descriptive Statistics of Servant Leadership
Scale Mean Median SD Skewness Kurtosis

Servant leadership 146.33 147.00 9.57 .03 -.17
Empowerment 36.19 36.00 3.18 -.20 .56
Standing back 14.53 15.00 1.70 -.15 -.30
Accountability 15.22 15.00 2.18 -.97 .97
Courage 8.51 9.00 2.01 -.66 .20
Authenticity 18.07 18.00 2.17 -.26 -.22
Humility 25.19 25.00 2.46 -.45 .69
Stewardship 15.57 16.00 1.40 -.64 1.34
Forgiveness 13.05 13.00 2.78 -.61 -.07
Note: All decimals are rounded to two places.
371
5.4.2. Inferential Statistics Results
The first step in the inferential statistical analysis was to evaluate the reliability of
the measurement instrument. The reliability coefficient of the Servant Leadership
Survey was acceptable, with a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .78. This indicated that
the Servant Leadership Survey had acceptable values of internal consistency.
The second step in the inferential statistical analysis was to compare the pre- and
post-intervention results of the sample, to determine whether servant leadership
behaviour increased after the sample had participated in the intervention. A Wilcoxon
signed-rank test showed a significant increase in servant leadership behaviour (z = -
3.04; p < .01), with a medium effect (r = .32), after the sample had participated in the
servant leadership development programme.
The median score of Servant leadership increased from Md = 146 (pre-
intervention) to Md = 149 (post-intervention). However, the Wilcoxon signed-rank
rest results of the sub-scales showed a significant increase in only three variables
after the intervention, namely Empowerment (z = -2.47; p < .05), Stewardship (z = -
3.29; p < .01), and Forgiveness (z = -3.98; p < .001). Empowerment changed with a
small effect (r = .26), and Stewardship and Forgiveness with a medium effect (r =
.35; r = .42). The median scores of these variables increased from Md = 35.5 (pre-
test) to Md = 36 (post-test) for Empowerment, Md = 15 (pre-test) to Md = 16 (post-
test) for Stewardship, and Md = 12 (pre-test) to Md = 15 (post-test) for Forgiveness.
The Wilcoxon signed-rank test results for Standing back, Accountability, Courage,
Authenticity, and Humility were thus insignificant, which indicated that these
behaviours did not increase. A summary of the results is provided in Table 43,
below.
372
Table 43
Servant Leadership Results Pre- and Post-Intervention
Wilcoxon Sig. (2- Effect

Median Median Signed-rank tailed) size
Variable (pre-test) (post-test) Test (z) (p) (r)
Servant leadership 146.00 149.00 -3.03 .002 .32**
Empowerment 35.5 36.00 -2.47 .014 .26*
Standing back 14.00 15.00 -1.22 .222 .13
Accountability 15.00 15.00 -.632 .527 .07
Courage 9.00 9.00 -.027 .978 .00
Authenticity 19.00 18.00 -1.17 .242 .13
Humility 25.00 25.00 -.301 .763 .03
Stewardship 15.00 16.00 -3.29 .001 .35**
Forgiveness 12.00 15.00 -3.98 .000 .42***
* Significant with small effect at p < .05

** Significant with medium effect at p < .01
*** Significance with medium effect at p < .001
Note: Some decimals were rounded to two places except for the p-value.
5.5. DISCUSSION
The main purpose of this study was to evaluate a servant leadership intervention.
This was done by means of a pre-test post-test experiential design, in which servant
leadership behaviour was evaluated before and after a sample of managers
participated in a servant leadership intervention. Overall, the results indicated that
servant leadership behaviour increased after the managers had participated in the
servant leadership development programme. The servant leadership intervention
was therefore effective in enhancing servant leadership behaviour.
After further analysis, the results showed that servant leadership behaviour only
increased significantly in terms of empowerment, stewardship, and forgiveness. The
373
other servant leadership behaviours — standing back, accountability, courage,
authenticity, and humility — did not significantly increase after managers had
completed the programme. This could either mean that individuals needed more
than six months to adopt these behaviours, or that the programme should be
extended, to cultivate these behaviours more effectively. The latter reasoning,
however, makes more sense.
Empowerment is the ability to activate individual talent (Bobbio et al., 2012; Flint &
Grayce, 2013; Humphreys, 2005; Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002; Van Dierendonck &
Patterson, 2014) and to make individuals more independent (Liden et al., 2008;
Spears, 2010), by means of continuous development (Berger, 2014; Carter &
Baghurst, 2013; Crippen, 2005; Hu & Liden, 2011; Kincaid, 2012; Mehta & Pillay,
2011; Spears, 2010; Van Dierendonck, 2011) and by creating an effective working
climate and culture (Mittal & Dorfman, 2012), to ultimately transfer accountability and
authority to individuals (Bobbio et al., 2012). The servant leadership intervention
used in the present study was successful in enhancing the empowerment behaviour
of managers. After completing the development programme, the managers who had
participated were better able to (a) activate the talents of direct reports, (b) create
effective working climates and cultures, (c) develop and support direct reports, and
(e) transfer accountability and authority to direct reports.
Stewardship is the ability to take accountability (Hwang, Kang, & Youn, 2014;
Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2015) for the best interests of employees, organisations,
and society (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Melchar & Bosco, 2010; Ozyilmaz & Cicek,
2015; Sun & Wang, 2009; Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014), with a mental
perspective of being a caretaker in life (not an owner) (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006;
Flint & Grayce, 2013; Melchar & Bosco, 2010; Ozyilmaz & Cicek, 2015; Searle &
374
Barbuto, 2011; Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002; Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2014), to
ultimately produce a constructive legacy (Savage-Austin & Honeycutt, 2011) in
people, organisations, and society. The development programme used in the present
research study was successful in transforming individuals into caretakers who take
accountability for the interests of others, and who leave a positive legacy in people,
organisations, and society.
Forgiveness is the practice of forgiving others for past mistakes, without holding a
grudge (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). The managers who had participated in
the servant leadership development programme were more able to forgive others for
past mistakes, and were better able to let go of grudges towards others after
completing the programme. The ability to allow employees to take risks and make
mistakes is one of the components of building a high-performing organisation (De
Waal, 2012). Hence, managers who allow direct reports to learn from their mistakes
and forgive them without holding any grudges will cultivate an organisational climate
and culture of openness, trust, innovation, and support, which would help build and
sustain a high-performing organisation.
5.5.1. Limitations
A first limitation of the study is that a control group was not included, because this
study used a one-group pre-test post-test experiential design. Hence, the study did
not control for other factors other than the intervention that could have influenced
servant leadership behaviour. Another limitation was that their servant leadership
behaviour was evaluated by the managers themselves. The managers could have
evaluated their servant leadership behaviour either better or worse than it really was.
375
A third limitation is that not all managers completed the electronic learning
assignments or workplace experiential exercises. This might have limited the
development progress of these managers. A fourth limitation is that the servant
leadership intervention was part of a broader management development programme.
Other modules of the management development programme might have influenced
the managers’ servant leadership behaviour.
A fifth limitation is that this study was conducted in the construction industry.
Therefore, the results cannot be generalised to other industries. A final limitation is
that the majority of the sample consisted of white or black African men. This means
that the results of this study cannot be generalised to all races or women.
5.5.2. Implications for Management
Servant leadership has been shown to produce favourable employee outcomes,
such as increased work engagement, organisational citizenship behaviour,
innovative behaviour, organisational commitment, trust, self-efficacy, person‒job fit,
person‒organisation fit, and leader‒member exchange (LMX). Servant leadership
has also been linked to better customer service and sales performance. It is
therefore important to cultivate servant leadership behaviour in organisations.
The servant leadership intervention of this research study can be used to enhance
servant leadership behaviour in organisations. Practitioners could use the servant
leadership development programme to transform leaders into servant leaders and to
cultivate a servant leadership culture within the organisation, especially in terms of
empowerment, stewardship, and forgiving behaviour. The servant leadership
intervention can also be incorporated into talent management and learning and
development practices, to enhance servant leadership behaviour in companies. In
376
turn, organisations could benefit from the positive outcomes that servant leadership
produces.
5.5.3. Future Research Needs
A first research need is to evaluate the effectiveness of the servant leadership
intervention used in this study in other industries and countries. This could validate
the intervention’s effectiveness across a variety of industries and cultures. Another
research need is to evaluate different learning methods to develop servant leaders.
This would provide researchers and practitioners with a set of best practices to
develop servant leaders effectively.
An additional research need is to determine the impact of servant leadership
interventions on individual and organisational outcomes. This could provide evidence
of the return on investment that servant leadership interventions produce. A final
research need is to study the transformational process of becoming a servant leader
using longitudinal research designs. This would help researchers and practitioners
understand the development process individuals experience in becoming a servant
leader.
5.6. CONCLUSION
The construction industry is a labour-intensive industry and requires a people-
orientated leadership approach to ensure sustainable operational performance.
Currently, this industry experiences issues such as increased labour unrest, poor
operational performance, low productivity, and health-and-safety problems. These
challenges influence organisational performance and productivity negatively. The
377
effective development of leaders in this industry is therefore critical to ensure high
organisational performance and sustainability.
A people-orientated leadership approach that could work well in the construction
industry is servant leadership. Servant leadership is a comprehensive leadership
approach that focusses on empowering, supporting, and serving people, to ultimately
achieve a higher-purpose vision, to the benefit of multiple stakeholders, including
employees, customers, shareholders, the organisation, society, and the
environment. Although previous studies have shown that servant leadership
produces favourable individual and organisational outcomes, no servant leadership
intervention that enhanced servant leadership behaviour successfully has been
validated to date. The aim of this research study was to develop such an intervention
and evaluate its effectiveness in enhancing servant leadership behaviour in the
construction industry.
A one-group pre-test post-test experiential design was applied to attain the
objective of the study. The Servant Leadership Survey of Van Dierendonck and
Nuijten (2011) was used to evaluate servant leadership behaviour before and after
the servant leadership intervention. The data were analysed using descriptive and
inferential statistical methods. The results of this study showed that the servant
leadership intervention significantly enhanced servant leadership behaviour,
particularly in terms of empowerment, stewardship, and forgiveness. Managers who
had participated in the intervention showed more servant leadership behaviour in
terms of empowerment, stewardship, and forgiving behaviour after completing the
learning programme. The managerial implications of the results were discussed, and
future research suggestions were made.
378
REFERENCES
doi: 10.1080/15332969.2011.533091
doi: 10.1177/0963721411414534
4–28. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2010.485352
doi: 10.1108/13620430810870476
379
031413-091235
Stress, 22(3), 187–200. doi: 10.1080/02678370802393649
doi: 10.1177/1548051814531826
300–326. doi: 10.1177/1059601106287091
Review, 12(1), 21–25. doi: 10.1108/14754391311282450
380
Blanchard, K., Hodges, P., & Hendry, P. (2014). Lead like Jesus encounter: Follow
the leader. Augusta, GA: The Centre for Faithwalk Leadership.
doi: 10.1177/1742715012441176
Butt, F. S., Waseem, M., Rafiq, T., Nawab, S., Khilji, B. A., & Cantt, W. (2014). The
impact of leadership on the productivity of employees: An evidence from
Pakistan. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology,
7(24), 5221–5226. doi: 10.19026/rjaset.7.917
doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1882-0
381
Psychology, 100(2), 511–521. doi: 10.1037/a0038036
doi: 10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n14p405
from http://0-
resolve
Macmillian.
Construction Industry Development Board. (2015). Construction monitor:
Employment [Online]. Retrieved from
http://www.cidb.org.za/publications/Documents/Construction Monitor ‒ October
2015.pdf
382
Education, 18(5), 11–16. doi: 10.1177/089202060501800503
doi: 10.1002/hrdq.21185
107(1), 35–47. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1296-4
600–615. doi: 10.1108/01437730510633692
2013-0133
94. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02484.x
383
3660(2013)0000020004
2011-0110
doi: 10.1177/1742715007082964
doi: 10.1111/jonm.12304
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
Review, 9(3), 11–17. doi: 10.1108/14754391011040028
384
1431. doi: 10.1108/00251740510634949
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.12.001
doi: 10.1177/0734371X04263323
Leadership, 4(1), 73–94. doi: 10.1177/1742715007085770
385
doi: 10.1080/08853134.2015.1010539
3134290404
doi: 10.2753/PSS0885-3134290404
014-0152-6
Retrieved from
386
Kuria, L. K., Namusonge, G. S., & Iravo, M. (2016). Effect of leadership on
organizational performance in the health sector in Kenya. International Journal
of Scientific and Research Publications, 6(7), 658–663. Retrieved from
www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-0716.php?rp=P555655
doi: 10.1108/JWL-08-2014-0061
8535.2008.00909.x
Liphadzi, M., Aigbavboa, C., & Thwala, W. (2015). An investigation of leadership
387
characteristics of project and construction managers in the South African
construction industry. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on
Construction in the 21st Century. Retrieved from
https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Repository/uj:18432
Mallon, D., Atamanik, C., Chakrabarti, M., Choudhury, V. D., Clarey, J., Derler, A.,
Erickson, R., Sherman, S., Johnson, D., Manning, C., Mike, J., & Moulton, D.
(2017). Rewriting the rules for the digital age [Online]. Retrieved from
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/HumanCapita
l/hc-2017-global-human-capital-trends-gx.pdf
Retrieved from
388
&oi=p
Naidoo, D., Brand, A., Raghuber, B., Suburaman, F., Beukes, S., & Serepong, T.
(2016). SA construction: Highligting trends in the South African construction
industry [Online]. Retrieved from https://www.pwc.co.za/en/assets/pdf/sa-
construction-2016.pdf
doi: 10.1177/1534484312439196
1220–1233. doi: 10.1037/a0012695
389
doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2827-6
11(1), 10–21. doi: 10.1108/09604520110362443
doi: 10.1017/jmo.2014.80
675. doi: 10.1007/s10869-014-9388-z
390
doi: 10.1080/09585191003658920
Research, 27(1), 508–526. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2014.974340
doi: 10.1002/jls.21238
Journal, 23(3), 145–157. doi: 10.1108/01437730210424084
doi: 10.1108/02683940610690169
391
trends-2015.pdf
doi: 10.1108/02683940010305270
doi: 10.1080/08853134.2015.1010537
107–117. doi: 10.1177/1548051810383863
Studies, 9(2), 57–64. doi: 10.1177/107179190200900205
392
402–424. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00761.x
304–328. doi: 10.1177/1534484311410840
doi: 10.1177/1534484312438211
doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.05.003
Skeepers, N. C., & Mbohwa, C. (2015). A study on the leadership behaviour, safety
leadership and safety performance in the construction industry in South Africa.
Procedia Manufacturing, 4, 10–16. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2015.11.008
Retrieved from
393
188–207. doi: 10.1108/13620431211241054
doi: 10.1108/S1535-1203(2009)0000005017
The Greenleaf Centre for Servant Leadership. (2017a). Implementing servant
leadership [Brochure]. Retrieved from https://www.greenleaf.org/implementing-
servant-leadership/
The Greenleaf Centre for Servant Leadership. (2017b). The foundations of servant
leadership [Brochure]. Retrieved from https://www.greenleaf.org/foundations-
servant-leadership/
The Greenleaf Centre for Servant Leadership. (2017c). The key practices of servant
leadership [Brochure]. Retrieved from https://www.greenleaf.org/key-practices-
servant-leadership/
394
The Servant Leadership Institute. (2017a). Let’s get started: Servant leadership
overview [Brochure]. Retrieved from
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5852ba8f440243b02de213ba/t/586c1567
5016e1c664650c39/1483478379286/Let%27s+get+started.pdf
The Servant Leadership Institute. (2017b). Results-driven servant leadership
[Brochure]. Retrieved from
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5852ba8f440243b02de213ba/t/58742bf58
419c2e22d0c666f/1484008441577/Results-driven_UPDATED.pdf
The Servant Leadership Institute. (2017c). Servant leadership 101: The road less
travelled [Brochure]. Retrieved from
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5852ba8f440243b02de213ba/t/5865b3ae
8419c2fbf057b8c7/1483060180315/The+road+best+traveled+v.1.pdf
The Servant Leadership Institute. (2017d). Servant leadership coaching program
3e00bec12e7cb57d/1483478548563/SL+Coaching.pdf
Management, 37(4), 1228–1261. doi: 10.1177/0149206310380462
395
Psychology, 95(3), 517–529. doi: 10.1037/a0018867
Wang, F., Chich-Jen, S., & Mei-Ling, T. (2010). Effect of leadership style on
organizational performance as viewed from human resource management
strategy. African Journal of Business Management, 4(18), 3924–3936.
Retrieved from
www.academicjournals.org/article/article1380534513_Wang%20et%20al%2022
22.pdf
54(4), 383–395. doi: 10.1177/1938965513482519
doi: 10.1080/09585192.2013.763844
747–768. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21498
396
CHAPTER 6: GENERAL DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a servant
leadership intervention and to explore the impact of servant leadership on work
engagement and burnout in the construction industry. The aim was to aid resolving
some of the human capital issues in organisations, such as low work engagement,
high stress-related ill health, ineffective organisational cultures, talent retention
issues, and leadership incapability, that hinder operational performance, especially in
the construction industry. It was also intended to resolve theoretical challenges
related to servant leadership, such as (a) a lack of a framework to implement servant
leadership in organisations, (b) insufficient empirical evidence on the relationship
between servant leadership and work engagement, burnout, job demands, or job
resources, (c) insufficient empirical evidence on the personal and organisational
barriers to and antecedents of developing servant leaders, and (d) a lack of a
validated servant leadership intervention.
The first objective of this study was therefore to conceptualise a framework to
operationalise servant leadership within an organisation. To attain this objective, a
systematic literature study was conducted on the characteristics, competencies,
measurements, and outcomes of servant leadership. This was discussed in Chapter
2. The results indicated that servant leadership is characterised by courage,
altruism, authenticity, humility, integrity, listening, compassion, and accountability.
The competencies of servant leadership are: providing a compelling vision, building
relationships, empowerment, and stewardship.
The results of the systematic literature review further revealed that ten different
instruments are available to measure servant leadership. The individual outcomes of
397
servant leadership were found to be an increase in work engagement, organisational
citizenship behaviour, creativity and innovation, organisational commitment, trust,
self-efficacy, person‒job fit, person‒organisation fit, leader‒member exchange
(LMX), work‒life balance, and lower burnout levels. The team outcomes of servant
leadership are: higher team organisational citizenship behaviour, group identification,
and a service climate and culture. Some of the organisational outcomes of servant
leadership are improved customer service and sales performance.
These results of the systematic literature review were used to conceptualise a
framework to make servant leadership practical in organisations. This framework
consisted of four functions of a servant leader, namely (1) to set, translate, and
execute a higher-purpose vision, (2) to become a role model and ambassador, (3) to
align, care for, and grow talent, and (4) to continuously monitor and improve. These
functions are further divided into two spheres of servant leadership (strategic servant
leadership and operational servant leadership) and three dimensions of servant
leadership (the heart, the head, and the hands of a servant leader). This framework
was used to develop the servant leadership intervention discussed in Chapter 5.
The second objective of this study was to explore the relationship between
servant leadership and four latent variables, namely (1) work engagement, (2)
burnout, (3) job demands, and (4) job resources in the construction industry. To
achieve this objective, the pre- and post-test data were combined and analysed by
means of various statistical methods. This was discussed in Chapter 3. The results
revealed that Job resources mediate a positive significant relationship between
Servant leadership and Work engagement, and a negative significant relationship
between Servant leadership and Burnout. Servant leadership increases specific job
resources, such as organisational support, job clarity, and supervisor support.
398
The third objective of this study was to determine the personal and organisational
antecedents of and barriers to developing servant leaders in the construction
industry. As discussed in Chapter 4, the qualitative data collected during the focus-
group session were used to achieve this objective. The results revealed that the
development of servant leadership is promoted by personal antecedents such as
personal attributes, competence, life experiences, and commitment. Organisational
antecedents are: development opportunities, leadership support, performance
management, 360˚ surveys, communication, strategic alignment, and organisational
culture. The results furthermore indicated that servant leadership development is
hindered by personal barriers such as personal attributes and life experiences, and
by organisational barriers such as organisational demands, lack of leadership
support, and constant changes. These antecedents and barriers were consolidated
into a framework to develop servant leaders effectively in an organisation.
The final objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a servant
leadership intervention in increasing servant leadership behaviour in the construction
industry. The pre- and post-test data were compared in Chapter 5. The results
showed that servant leadership behaviour was successfully enhanced by the
intervention, especially in terms of empowerment, stewardship, and forgiveness.
Managers showed more empowerment, stewardship, and forgiveness after they had
completed the intervention. The other servant leader behaviours (standing back,
accountability, courage, authenticity, and humility) were not significantly improved by
the intervention. This means that the intervention should be improved to cultivate
these behaviours more effectively.
A summary of the human capital challenges, theoretical challenges, research
objectives, and research outcomes is provided in Table 44, below.
399
Table 44
Human Capital Challenges, Theoretical Challenges, Research Objectives, and Research Results
Human Capital Thesis

Challenge Possible Cause Possible Solution Theoretical Challenge Research Objective Chapter Research Outcome
Engagement, Ineffective New leadership • No framework • Establish 2 A framework to
retention, leadership approach: Servant available to framework to operationalise
culture, and leadership implement servant operationalise servant leadership
wellness leadership servant leadership
• Limited empirical • Explore 3 Job resources
evidence available on relationship mediate the
the relationship between servant positive
between servant leadership and relationship
leadership and work work engagement between servant
engagement leadership and
work engagement
• Limited empirical • Explore 3 Job resources
evidence available on relationship mediate the
the relationship between servant negative
between servant leadership and relationship
leadership and burnout between servant
burnout leadership and
burnout
400
• Limited empirical • Explore 3 Servant leadership
evidence available on relationship has a positive
the relationship between servant significant
between servant leadership and job relationship with
leadership and job demands and job job resources
characteristics resources
Leadership • Lack of • Understand • Lack of empirical • Determine 4 A framework to
capability understanding of personal and evidence on the personal and effectively develop
personal and organisational personal and organisational servant leaders
organisational barriers to and organisational barriers to and (consisting of
barriers to antecedents of antecedents of and antecedents of several personal
leadership leadership barriers to developing developing servant and organisational
development development servant leaders leaders antecedents and
barriers)
• Ineffective • Apply multi- • No validated servant • Evaluate 5 Intervention
leadership learning methods leadership effectiveness of a enhanced servant
development intervention (using servant leadership leadership
multi-learning intervention behaviour in terms
methods) of empowerment,
stewardship, and
forgiveness
401
6.1. INTEGRATION OF RESULTS
The results of the systematic literature review (Chapter 2) indicated that servant
leaders apply four leadership functions; they (1) set, translate, and execute a higher-
purpose vision, (2) become role models and ambassadors for that vision, (3) align,
care for, and grow talent, and (4) continuously monitor and improve. The first two
functions form part of strategic servant leadership, and the last two form part of
operational servant leadership. These results are congruent with the findings
reported in Chapter 3.
The results discussed in Chapter 3 revealed that servant leaders provide three
types of job resources to employees, namely positional resources (job clarity), social
resources (supervisor support), and organisational resources (organisational
support). In terms of job clarity, servant leaders translate the company’s higher-
purpose vision into a mission, strategy, and individual goals, and communicate to
employees what their individual contribution should be to achieve that vision. This is
part of strategic servant leadership. In this way, the purpose and outcomes of a job
are clearly defined and communicated. Servant leaders also ensure alignment
between the relevant job profile and an individual’s purpose, passion, interests,
knowledge, skills, experience, talents, and attributes. This is part of operational
servant leadership. In this way, employees know exactly what is expected of them
and how their individual talent and attributes help to achieve the higher-purpose
vision.
The job resources of supervisory support and organisational support also form
part of operational servant leadership. Servant leaders not only align employee talent
with the higher-purpose vision, but also care for and grow employees. Caring for
employees means supporting employees and looking after their well-being. It also
402
entails creating an effective work environment that increases employees’ work
engagement levels and decreases burnout levels.
The results provided in Chapter 3 indicated that job resources, such as
supervisory support and organisational support, mediate a positive relationship
between servant leadership and work engagement, as well as a negative
relationship between servant leadership and burnout. Servant leaders therefore care
for employees by providing the social and organisational resources to enhance their
work engagement and to reduce their burnout. Servant leaders do this by listening to
employees, by showing compassion, and by building trustful relationships with
employees (as described in Chapter 1).
As part of operational servant leadership, servant leaders also grow employees.
Growing employees means to continuously develop employees, to activate individual
talent in line with a higher purpose vision. Chapter 2 highlighted that servant leaders
empower employees to become more autonomous and independent. Servant
leaders do this by providing the necessary organisational support, which includes
involving employees in decision-making processes and providing growth and
development opportunities to employees. This was confirmed by the results
discussed in Chapter 3. As an outcome, employees experience higher work
engagement and lower burnout.
When servant leaders apply the strategic and operational servant leadership
functions (as per the results discussed in Chapter 2), the work engagement levels of
employees will increase, and burnout levels will decrease (as confirmed by the
results discussed in Chapter 3). When employee engagement is enhanced and
burnout decreases, organisations will experience higher productivity, performance,
profitability, creativity, commitment, safety behaviour, customer satisfaction, product
403
quality, corporate citizenship behaviour, and employee retention. This would
ultimately help to resolve the human capital challenges of low employee
engagement, ineffective organisational cultures, and high stress-related ill-health
levels, as well as the challenges faced by the construction industry, namely labour
unrest, poor operational performance, low productivity, and health-and-safety issues.
Hence, one way to resolve human capital and industry problems could be to
implement servant leadership within organisations, especially within construction
companies. Servant leadership interventions are therefore important mechanisms to
cultivate a servant leadership culture within organisations.
The results discussed in Chapter 5 indicated that the servant leadership
intervention of the present study was successful in enhancing servant leadership
behaviour in the construction industry in terms of empowerment, stewardship, and
forgiveness. However, the intervention was ineffective in enhancing the servant
leadership behaviours of standing back, accountability, courage, authenticity, and
humility. The intervention should therefore be improved and broadened to develop
these servant leader behaviours more effectively. One way to make this intervention
more effective would be to incorporate the development framework proposed in
Chapter 4. This framework includes the barriers to and antecedents of servant
leadership development, and proposes five steps to develop servant leaders
effectively, namely (1) identification, (2) evaluation, (3) development, (4) embedment,
and (5) impact. The intervention used in this study only applied the development
step, and did not include the steps of identification, evaluation, embedment, or
impact. These additional activities should thus be added, to make the intervention
more effective.
404
The first improvement to be made to the intervention could be to include a
identification process. In this process, performance management- and 360˚ survey
data are used to identify employees for a servant leadership development
programme. A second improvement would be to include an evaluation phase in the
intervention. Once employees are identified, their personal attributes, life
experiences, competencies, and commitment levels should be evaluated, to
determine any barriers to or antecedents of their servant leadership development.
The results of this evaluation could then be used to customise servant leadership
development programmes according to individual strengths and weaknesses.
A third improvement could be to include an embedment process after
development. This process consists of continuous communication activities to share
additional knowledge, resources, business cases, success stories, and expert talks
with individuals. An awareness campaign could also be useful after development, to
continuously make employees aware of the principles and practices of servant
leadership. In this way, a servant leadership culture would be strengthened. A final
improvement to the intervention could be to measure the impact of the intervention in
terms of behavioural performance, job performance, team performance, and
organisational performance, and to distribute impact reports to employees,
managers, and executives. This would communicate the effectiveness of the
intervention to multiple stakeholders.
The intervention could furthermore be improved by ensuring employees receive
the necessary support from their line manager before, during, and after
development, as indicated by the results reported in Chapter 4. This leadership
support includes creating individual development plans, aligning individual goals to
organisational goals, allocating learning resources, ensuring time off work to learn,
405
creating a learning culture, providing practice opportunities, providing coaching and
mentoring, role modelling the desired behaviour, and giving recognition.
Leadership support was also highlighted by the results reported in Chapter 3.
Supervisory support, for example, was shown to be one of the job resources that
enhance work engagement and decrease burnout levels. When employees
experience higher work engagement levels and less burnout, the probability that they
will complete a development programme may increase. This will improve the
effectiveness of the intervention.
The results reported in Chapter 3 further indicated that servant leadership has a
significant positive relationship with job resources such as supervisory and
organisational support. The intervention will thus be more successful when
employees in the programme report to a servant leader who provides them with the
required supervisory and organisational support. Hence, the implementation of the
intervention should be done on higher occupational levels first, before implementing
it on lower occupational levels.
In summary, the results of this study indicated that servant leadership enhances
work engagement and decreases burnout via job resources, and that servant
leadership behaviour was enhanced by the intervention deployed in this study. The
results further revealed that servant leadership development can be improved by
incorporating identification, evaluation, embedment, and impact activities into servant
leadership development programmes.
6.2. LIMITATIONS
A first limitation of this study was that the systematic literature review (Chapter 1)
was conducted by only one researcher. Normally, two or more researchers are
406
involved in a systematic literature review. A second limitation was that the literature
review excluded (a) grey literature, books, book reviews, magazine articles,
conference presentations, and white papers, (b) studies conducted before the year
2000 and after the year 2015, and (c) research within a sector other than the
primary, secondary, or tertiary sector. However, literature from these sources was
used to support the study results. A third limitation was that the sample was drawn
from the construction industry. The results of this study can therefore not be
generalised to other industries. A fourth limitation was that the sample consisted of
mainly white and black African men. Hence, the results cannot be generalised to all
cultures or women.
A fifth limitation was that the participating managers were nominated by executive
management as top talent within the company. These managers could have adopted
servant leadership more easily. Another limitation is that the pre- and post-test data
of Sample 2 (direct reports and other employees) were combined into one data set
(in Chapter 3), to evaluate the relationships between servant leadership, work
engagement, and burnout. Some direct reports also evaluated more than one
manager. This could have influenced the results either positively or negatively.
An additional limitation was that participants wrote down their answers after a
question had been discussed in the focus group. This data were analysed using
thematic analysis; hence, some of the richness of the data could have been lost.
However, the researcher facilitated the focus-group session(s) and considered the
notes taken during focus-group sessions while interpreting the results.
A further limitation was that a control group was not utilised in this study. A one-
group pre-test post-test experiential design was applied. The study therefore did not
control for other factors that could have enhanced servant leadership behaviour. An
407
additional limitation was that managers evaluated their own servant leadership
behaviour before and after the intervention. Managers could have evaluated their
servant leadership behaviour either more positively or negatively than it really was. A
final limitation was that not all managers completed the workplace and electronic
learning assignments. This could have influenced the results negatively.
6.3. IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT
A general framework to implement servant leadership was conceptualised in
Chapter 2. Management could use this framework as a systematic guide to apply
servant leadership in organisations. Leadership development practitioners could use
this framework to develop servant leadership courses and programmes. HR
practitioners could also incorporate this framework into recruitment and selection,
performance management, talent management, and remuneration procedures,
policies, and systems to recruit, evaluate, promote, and reward servant leadership in
companies. Organisational development practitioners could, in addition, use this
framework to cultivate servant leadership cultures within organisations, to ultimately
transform self-serving organisations into servant organisations.
Researchers could use the Servant Leadership Model and Framework to evaluate
the effectiveness of servant leadership in organisations, to develop servant
leadership measures, and to design servant leadership interventions. This would
ultimately help to expand the body of knowledge on the application of servant
leadership in organisations.
In Chapter 3, the benefits of servant leadership shown to be enhanced work
engagement and reduced burnout. Management can therefore use servant
leadership to enhance work engagement and to reduce burnout levels in
408
organisations, especially in construction companies. In turn, organisations would
benefit from the favourable individual and organisational outcomes that servant
leadership and work engagement produce, such as higher productivity, performance,
profitability, creativity, commitment, safety behaviour, customer satisfaction, product
quality, corporate citizenship behaviour, and employee retention.
A framework to develop servant leaders was conceptualised, presented in
Chapter 4. Management could use this framework to develop servant leaders
effectively within organisations. Management could also use this framework to
optimise the financial resources allocated to development programmes and to
measure the impact of development programmes in terms of job performance,
behavioural performance, team performance, and organisational performance.
Learning and development practitioners could also use this framework to design,
develop, and implement servant leadership development programmes or
interventions effectively in organisations. HR practitioners could incorporate this
framework into learning and development, talent management, performance
management, and psychometric assessment policies, procedures, and systems to
develop servant leaders effectively in companies. HR practitioners could, in addition,
use this framework to make servant leadership development programmes more
effective.
The results reported in Chapter 5 indicated that the servant leadership
intervention used in this study was effective in enhancing servant leadership
behaviour. Management could therefore use this intervention to develop servant
leaders in companies and to cultivate a servant leadership culture in organisations.
In turn, the work engagement level of employees will increase, and burnout levels
will decrease (as per the findings reported in Chapter 3), which would ultimately
409
enhance individual and organisational performance. This intervention could also be
included in on-boarding and talent management procedures to train incoming and
upcoming leaders. This will ensure that an effective servant leadership culture is
sustained within organisations.
6.4. THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS
This study makes a theoretical contribution to the knowledge base of servant
leadership. In Chapter 2, previous research on servant leadership was summarised
in terms of the characteristics, competencies, measures, and the outcomes of
servant leadership. Researchers may find this synthesis of servant leadership
literature useful. The results reported in Chapter 2 were furthermore used to
conceptualise a framework to operationalise servant leadership in organisations.
This is the first framework of its kind in the servant leadership literature. It defines the
functions, objectives, characteristics, competencies, and dimensions of servant
leadership, and proposes a systematic way to implement servant leadership in
organisations.
In Chapter 3, the results provided an understanding of the inter-relationships
between servant leadership, job resources, work engagement, and burnout. This is
the first known study that explored these relationships in the construction industry. It
therefore contributed, not only to the body of knowledge on servant leadership, but
also to the body of knowledge on work-related well-being. The results also indicated
that servant leadership is not a type of job resource, but rather an independent
variable that influences job resources positively. This broadened the body of
knowledge on both servant leadership and the Job Demands‒Resources Model.
410
Chapter 4 offered additional insight into the process of developing servant leaders
effectively, specifically in the construction industry. The barriers to and antecedents
of servant leadership development were revealed by the results, and were used to
conceptualise a framework to effectively develop servant leaders. This development
framework is the first of its kind, and is thus a significant contribution to the body of
knowledge on servant leadership. Researchers and practitioners now have a
framework and process with which to develop servant leaders effectively in
construction companies.
As discussed in Chapter 5, a servant leadership intervention was validated. The
results indicated that that the intervention was successful in enhancing servant
leader behaviour in terms of empowerment, stewardship, and forgiveness. This is
the first validated servant leadership intervention or programme available in the
literature. It was also the first servant leadership intervention that was effective in the
construction industry. Hence, it expanded the body of knowledge on the effective
application of servant leadership.
6.5. FUTURE RESEARCH
A first research need is to validate the conceptual framework to operationalise
servant leadership (as proposed in Chapter 2). Experiential or longitudinal studies
could be useful to determine the impact of implementing this framework in terms of
individual or organisational performance. A second research suggestion is to
evaluate the effectiveness of this framework in transforming a self-serving
organisation into a servant organisation. This would clarify the effectiveness of this
framework.
411
A third research suggestion is to explore the relationships between servant
leadership and work engagement or burnout over the long term, using longitudinal
study designs. This would (a) validate the impact of servant leadership over longer
periods of time, (b) indicate any fluctuation effects, and (c) highlight possible reasons
for those fluctuations.
A fourth research need is to validate the framework to effectively develop servant
leaders (as described in Chapter 4). This could be done using experiential or
longitudinal studies. Practitioners also need additional ways to develop servant
leaders effectively. More research is needed to explore effective methods of
developing servant leaders. A sixth research suggestion is to examine the
transformational process of becoming a servant leader using diaries or any other
type of longitudinal approach. This would address the need to understand the
transformational process individuals experience in becoming servant leaders.
A seventh research need is to evaluate the effectiveness of the servant leadership
intervention used in this study to enhance other favourable outcomes, such as
individual and organisational performance. This would provide some valuable insight
into the return on investment that this servant leadership intervention may offer.
Other servant leadership interventions should also be validated.
A final research need is to conduct cross-sectional studies to determine if similar
results are found in other industries or countries. This could validate the frameworks
and intervention proposed by this study in other industries and countries.
412
REFERENCES
Agarwal, U. A., Datta, S., Blake‐Beard, S., & Bhargava, S. (2012). Linking LMX,
innovative work behaviour and turnover intentions: The mediating role of work
engagement. Career Development International, 17(3), 208–230.
doi: 10.1108/13620431211241063
Akdemir, B., Erdem, O., & Polat, S. (2010). Characteristics of high performance
organizations. The Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative
Sciences, 15(1), 155–175. Retrieved from EBSCO Host database http://0-
Albrecht, S. L., & Andreetta, M. (2011). The influence of empowering leadership,
empowerment and engagement on affective commitment and turnover
intentions in community health service workers: Test of a model. Leadership in
Health Services, 24(3), 228–237. doi: 10.1108/17511871111151126
Alok, K., & Israel, D. (2012). Authentic leadership & work engagement. Indian
Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(3), 498–510. Retrieved from EBSCO Host
Altahayneh, Z. L. (2013). The relationship between perceived coaches’ leadership
behaviors and athletes’ burnout in Jordan. International Journal of Academic
Research, 5(1), 60–65. doi: 10.7813/2075-4124.2013/5-1/B.11
Archard, N. (2012). Student leadership development in Australian and New Zealand
secondary girls’ schools: A staff perspective. International Journal of Leadership
in Education, 15(1), 23–47. doi: 10.1080/13603124.2011.605472
413
doi: 10.1080/15332969.2011.533091
doi: 10.1177/0963721411414534
Bakker, A. B. (2014). Daily fluctuations in work engagement: An overview and
current directions. European Psychologist, 1(4), 1–10. doi: 10.1027/1016-
9040/a000160
Bakker, A. B. (2015). A job demands–resources approach to public service
motivation. Public Management Review, 75(5), 723–732.
doi: 10.1111/puar.12388.A
4–28. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2010.485352
414
doi: 10.1108/02683940710733115
doi: 10.1108/13620430810870476
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2016). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock
and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(1), 1–13.
doi: 10.1037/ocp0000056
031413-091235
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Dual processes at work in a
call centre: An application of the Job Demands–Resources Model. European
doi: 10.1080/13594320344000165
Bakker, A. B., Emmerik, H. V., & Euwema, M. C. (2006). Crossover of burnout and
engagement in work teams. Work and Occupations, 33(4), 464–489.
doi: 10.1177/0730888406291310
Stress, 22(3), 187–200. doi: 10.1080/02678370802393649
Ball, J., Bradley, L., Dunn, W., Durando, P., Gaines, R., Home, S., Housser, E., Lou,
J. Q., Mathews, M., McCluskey, A., Michlovitz, S., Missiuna, C., Pollock, N.,
Telford, J., Thompson, L., Tickle-Degnen, L., & Watson, D. (2008). Evidence-
based rehabilitation: A guide to practice (2nd ed.). New York: SLACK
415
Incorporated.
doi: 10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice Hall.
Barbuto, J. E., & Bugenhagen, M. J. (2009). The emotional intelligence of leaders as
antecedent to leader‒member exchanges: A field study. Journal of Leadership
http://www.journalofleadershiped.org/attachments/article/180/Barbuto%20and%
20Bugenhagen.pdf
doi: 10.1177/1548051814531826
300–326. doi: 10.1177/1059601106287091
Review, 12(1), 21–25. doi: 10.1108/14754391311282450
doi: 10.1177/107179190000700302
416
doi: 10.1177/1548051814529993
Bickerton, G. R., Miner, M. H., Dowson, M., & Griffin, B. (2014). Spiritual resources
in the Job Demands‒Resources Model. Journal of Management, Spirituality,
and Religion, 11(3), 245–268. doi: 10.1037/rel0000012
Blanchard, K., Hodges, P., & Hendry, P. (2014). Lead like Jesus encounter: Follow
the leader. Augusta, GA: The Centre for Faithwalk Leadership.
Blanchard, K., Hodges, P., Pike, B., & McGuire, K. (2009). Lead like Jesus
417
encounter: Facilitator guide. Augusta, GA: The Centre for Faithwalk Leadership.
Blomme, R. J., Kodden, B., & Beasley-Suffolk, A. (2015). Leadership theories and
the concept of work engagement: Creating a conceptual framework for
management implications and research. Journal of Management &
Organization, 21(2), 125–144. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2014.71
doi: 10.1177/1742715012441176
Boudrias, J., Desrumaux, P., Gaudreau, P., Nelson, K., Brunet, L., & Savoie, A.
(2011). Modeling the experience of psychological health at work: The role of
personal resources, social-organizational resources, and job demands.
International Journal of Stress Management, 18(4), 372–395.
doi: 10.1037/a0025353
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Retrieved from EBSCO Host database
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Hetland, J. (2012). The measurement
of state work engagement: A multilevel factor analytic study. European Journal
of Psychological Assessment, 28(4), 305–312. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000111
418
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R.
(2014). Daily transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee
engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1),
138–157. doi: 10.1111/joop.12041
Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future
directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004
Butt, F. S., Waseem, M., Rafiq, T., Nawab, S., Khilji, B. A., & Cantt, W. (2014). The
impact of leadership on the productivity of employees: An evidence from
Pakistan. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology,
7(24), 5221–5226. doi: 10.19026/rjaset.7.917
doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1882-0
Catalfamo, H. (2010). An examination of leadership development in colleges.
Educational Planning, 19(4), 8–31. Retrieved from EBSCO Host database
CEB. (2015). Are your leaders driving “one-company” results? [Online]. Retrieved
from http://www.executiveboard.com/exbd-resources/pdf/top-
insights/leadership/Transform-Leadership-Article.pdf
Chan, S. (2002). Factors influencing nursing leadership effectiveness in Hong Kong.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 38(6), 615–623. Retrieved from EBSCO Host
419
Charan, R., Drotter, S., & Noel, J. (2011). The leadership pipeline: How to build the
leadership powered company (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and
Sons.
011-9479-3
Psychology, 100(2), 511–521. doi: 10.1037/a0038036
doi: 10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n14p405
Chirico, F. (2016). Spiritual well-being in the 21st century: It’s time to review the
current WHO’s health definition? Journal of Health and Social Sciences, 1(1),
11–16. doi: 10.19204/2016/sprt2
420
Chiu, T. S., Huang, H. J., & Hung, Y. (2012). The influence of humility on leadership:
A Chinese and Western review. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Economics, Business and Marketing Management, 29, 129–133. Retrieved from
http://www.ipedr.com/vol29/24-CEBMM2012-Q00050.pdf
Christensen, L. J., Mackey, A., & Whetten, D. (2014). Taking responsibility for
corporate social responsibility: The role of leaders in creating responsible firm
behaviors. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 164–178.
doi: 10.5465/amp.2012.0047
from http://0-
resolve
Macmillian.
Construction Industry Development Board. (2015a). Construction monitor:
421
Employment [Online]. Retrieved from
http://www.cidb.org.za/publications/Documents/Construction Monitor ‒ October
2015.pdf
Construction Industry Development Board. (2015b). Labour and work conditions in
the South African construction industry: Status and recommendations [Online].
Retrieved from http://www.cidb.org.za/publications/Documents/Labour and Work
Conditions in the South African Construction Industry; Status and
Recommendations.pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Education, 18(5), 11–16. doi: 10.1177/089202060501800503
Danna, K., & Griffen, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review
and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management, 25(3), 357–384.
doi: 10.1177/014920639902500305
Dannhauser, Z., & Boshoff, A. B. (2007a). Structural equivalence of the Barbuto and
Wheeler (2006) Servant Leadership Questionnaire on North American and
South African samples. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(2), 148–
168. Retrieved from
https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/ijls/new/vol2iss2/dannhauserbo
shoff/DannhauserBoshoffV2Is2.pdf
Dannhauser, Z., & Boshoff, A. B. (2007b). The relationship between servant
422
De Beer, L. T., Pienaar, J., & Rothmann, S. (2016). Job burnout, work engagement
and self-reported treatment for health conditions in South Africa. Stress and
Health, 32, 36–46. doi: 10.1002/smi.2576
De Beer, L. T., Rothmann, S., & Pienaar, J. (2012). A confirmatory investigation of a
job demands‒resources model using a categorical estimator. Psychological
Reports: Human Resources and Marketing, 111(2), 528–544.
doi: 10.2466/01.03.10.PR0.111.5.528-544
De Braine, R., & Roodt, G. (2011). The Job Demands‒Resources Model as predictor
of work identity and work engagement: A comparative analysis. SA Journal of
Industrial Psychology, 37(2), 1–11. doi: 10.4102/sajip.v37i2.889
doi: 10.1002/hrdq.21185
423
107(1), 35–47. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1296-4
600–615. doi: 10.1108/01437730510633692
2013-0133
De Villiers, J. R., & Stander, M. W. (2011). Psychological empowerment, work
engagement and turnover intention: The role of leader relations and role clarity
in a financial institution. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 21(3), 405–412.
doi: 10.1080/14330237.2011.10820474
De Waal, A., Sivro, M., & Mirna, S. (2012). The relation between servant leadership,
organizational performance, and the high-performance organization framework.
doi: 10.1177/1548051812439892
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being:
Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and
424
implications for research and practice. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(4), 611–628. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611
Dodge, R., Daly, A. P., Huyton, J., & Sanders, L. D. (2012). The challenge of
defining well-being. International Journal of Well-being, 2, 222–235.
doi: 10.5502/ijw.v2i3.4
Duff, A. J. (2013). Performance management coaching: Servant leadership and
gender implications. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34(3),
204–221. doi: 10.1108/01437731311326657
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012).
A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader‒member
exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of
Management, 38(6), 1715–1759. doi: 10.1177/0149206311415280
94. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02484.x
Eicher-Catt, D. (2005). The myth of servant-leadership: A feminist perspective.
Women and Language, 28(1), 17‒25. Retrieved from EBSCO Host database
Epstein, R. M., & Hundert, E. M. (2002). Defining and assessing professional
competence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(2), 226–235.
425
doi: 10.1504/IJHTM.2002.001137
Field, L. K., & Buitendach, J. H. (2012). Work engagement, organisational
commitment, job resources and job demands of teachers working within
disadvantaged high schools in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Journal of
Psychology in Africa, 27(2), 87–95. Retrieved from EBSCO Host database
3660(2013)0000020004
Flynn, C. B., Smither, J. W., & Walker, A. G. (2016). Exploring the relationship
between leaders' core self-evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of servant
leadership: A field study. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(3),
260–271. doi: 10.1177/1548051815621257
Foster, B. A. (2000). Barriers to servant leadership: Perceived organisational
elements that impede servant leader effectiveness (Doctoral dissertation). The
Fielding Institute, Santa Barbara, California. Retrieved from
http://www.proquest.com/products-services/dissertations/ProQuest-Most-
Accessed-Dissertations-and-Theses-April-2015.html
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,
14(6), 693–727. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.001
426
Gallo, F. T. (2012). How Chinese managers can become effective global leaders.
People & Strategy, 35(2), 24–29. Retrieved from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/sd.2013.05629aaa.006?journal
Code=sd
Gallup. (2013). State of the global workplace: Employee engagement insights for
business leaders worldwide [Online]. Retrieved from
http://www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/164735/state-global-workplace.aspx
Garavan, T. N., McGuire, D., & Lee, M. (2015). Reclaiming the “D” in HRD: A
typology of development conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes.
doi: 10.1177/1534484315607053
Garavan, T. N., Watson, S., & O’Brien, F. (2016). The antecedents of leadership
development practices in SMEs: The influence of HRM strategy and practice.
International Small Business Journal, 34(6), 870–890.
doi: 10.1177/0266242615594215
Garber, J. S., Madigan, E. A., Click, E. R., & Fitzpatrick, J. J. (2009). Attitudes
towards collaboration and servant leadership among nurses, physicians and
residents. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 23(4), 331–340. doi:
10.1080/13561820902886253
Gentry, W. A., Eckert, R. H., Munusamy, V. P., Stawiski, S. A., & Martin, J. L. (2013).
The needs of participants in leadership development programs: A qualitative
and quantitative cross-country investigation. Journal of Leadership &
427
2011-0110
Gonçalves, S. P., & Neves, J. (2011). Factorial validation of Warr’s (1990) well-being
measure: A sample study on police officers. Psychology, 2(7), 706–712.
doi: 10.4236/psych.2011.27108
ementfacpub
Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. (2016). The Greenleaf academy certificate
program [Brochure]. Retrieved from https://www.greenleaf.org/academy/
Guerin, D. W., Oliver, P. H., Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Reichard, R. J., &
Riggio, R. E. (2011). Childhood and adolescent antecedents of social skills and
leadership potential in adulthood: Temperamental approach/withdrawal and
extraversion. Leadership Quarterly, 22(3), 482–494.
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.006
Guest, G., Namey, E. E., & Mitchell, M. L. (2013). Collecting qualitative data: A field
manual for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
428
Gupta, S. (2013). Serving the bottom of the pyramid: A servant leadership
perspective. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 10(3), 98–107.
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2005). How dentists cope with their
job demands and stay engaged: The moderating role of job resources.
European Journal of Oral Sciences, 113(6), 479–487. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-
0722.2005.00250.x
Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., & Ahola, K. (2008). The Job Demands‒Resources
Model: A three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment,
and work engagement. Work & Stress, 22(3), 224–241.
doi: 10.1080/02678370802379432
doi: 10.1177/1742715007082964
Hamidifar, F., & Ebrahimi, M. (2016). Academic leadership in a private university: An
Iranian case study. International Education Studies, 9(5), 193–203.
doi: 10.5539/ies.v9n5p193
doi: 10.1111/jonm.12304
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
429
Review, 9(3), 11–17. doi: 10.1108/14754391011040028
Hetland, H., Sandal, G. M., & Johnsen, T. B. (2007). Burnout in the information
technology sector: Does leadership matter? European Journal of Work and
Hoefer, R., & Sliva, S. M. (2014). Assessing and augmenting administration skills in
nonprofits: An exploratory mixed methods study. Human Service Organizations:
Management, Leadership & Governance, 38(3), 246–257.
doi: 10.1080/23303131.2014.892049
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling:
Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business
Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. Retrieved from http://www.ejbrm.com/vol6/v6-
i1/v6-i1-papers.htm
Howard, C. S., & Irving, J. A. (2013). The impact of obstacles defined by
developmental antecedents on resilience in leadership formation. Proceedings
of the ASBBS Annual Conference, 20(1), 679‒687. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2013-0072
Hox, J. J., & Bechger, T. M. (1998). An introduction to structural equation modeling.
Family Science Review, 11, 354–373. Retrieved from
http://joophox.net/publist/semfamre.pdf
Hsieh, C., & Wang, D. (2015). Does supervisor-perceived authentic leadership
influence employee work engagement through employee-perceived authentic
leadership and employee trust? The International Journal of Human Resource
430
Management, 26(18), 2329–2348. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2015.1025234
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
1431. doi: 10.1108/00251740510634949
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.12.001
Huynh, J. Y., Xanthopoulou, D., & Winefield, A. H. (2014). The Job Demands‒
Resources Model in emergency service volunteers: Examining the mediating
roles of exhaustion, work engagement and organizational connectedness. Work
& Stress, 28(3), 305–322. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2014.936922
431
doi: 10.1177/0734371X04263323
Institute for Public Health Sciences. (2002). 11 questions to help you make sense of
descriptive/cross-sectional studies [Online]. Retrieved from
https://reache.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/cross-sectional-appraisal-tool.pdf.
Jackson, L., & Rothmann, S. (2005). Work-related well-being of educators in a
district of the North-West Province. Perspectives in Education, 23(3), 107–122.
Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=EJ718600
Leadership, 4(1), 73–94. doi: 10.1177/1742715007085770
doi: 10.1080/08853134.2015.1010539
3134290404
432
doi: 10.2753/PSS0885-3134290404
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
Kanste, O. (2008). The association between leadership behaviour and burnout
among nursing personnel in health care. Nordic Journal of Nursing Research
and Clinical Studies, 28(3), 4–8. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cin20&AN=2010071277
&site=ehost-live
Kanste, O. (2011). Work engagement, work commitment and their association with
well-being in health care. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 25(4), 754–
761. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2011.00888.x
Kaplan, R. S. (2005). How the balanced scorecard complements the McKinsey 7-S
Model. Strategy and Leadership, 33(3), 41–46.
doi: 10.1108/10878570510594442
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive
performance. Harvard Business Review, 72(1), 71–79. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dcca/93c621f618e511a94e15384e52ff893be3c
7.pdf
433
Karanja, D. N. (2013). Inspirational servant leadership: Nurturing youth leadership for
sustainable peace in Africa. Collective Efficacy: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on
International Leadership, 20, 89–104. Retrieved from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/S1479-
3660%282013%290000020006
014-0152-6
Kazdin, A. E. (Ed.). (2000). Encyclopedia of Psychology. Washington, DC: Oxford
University Press.
Khan, K. E., Khan, S. E., & Chaudhry, A. G. (2015). Impact of servant leadership on
workplace spirituality: Moderating role of involvement culture. Pakistan Journal
of Science, 67(1), 109–113. Retrieved from EBSCO Host database http://0-
Khan, K., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., & Antes, G. (2011). Systematic reviews to support
evidence-based medicine (2nd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
Khan, K. S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., & Antes, G. (2003). Five steps to conducting a
systematic review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 96(3), 118–121.
doi: 10.1258/jrsm.96.3.118
Retrieved from
434
Konczak, L. J., Stelly, D. J., & Trusty, M. L. (2000). Defining and measuring
empowering leader behaviors: Development of an upward feedback instrument.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(2), 301–313.
doi: 10.1177/00131640021970420
Kopperud, K., Martinsen, O., & Humborstad, S. (2014). Engaging leaders in the eyes
of the beholder: On the relationship between transformational leadership, work
engagement, service climate, and self-other agreement. Journal of Leadership &
Korunka, C., Kubicek, B., Schaufeli, W. B., & Hoonakker, P. (2009). Work
engagement and burnout: Testing the robustness of the Job Demands‒
Resources Model. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(3), 243–255.
doi: 10.1080/17439760902879976
Kotze, M., & Nel, P. (2015). The influence of trait-emotional intelligence on authentic
leadership. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(1), 1–10. doi:
10.4102/sajhrm.v13i1.716
Krummaker, S., & Vogel, B. (2012). An in-depth view of the facets, antecedents, and
effects of leaders’ change competency: Lessons from a case study. The Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(3), 279–307.
doi: 10.1177/0021886312469442
Kuria, L. K., Namusonge, G. S., & Iravo, M. (2016). Effect of leadership on
organizational performance in the health sector in Kenya. International Journal
435
of Scientific and Research Publications, 6(7), 658–663. Retrieved from
www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-0716.php?rp=P555655
doi: 10.1108/JWL-08-2014-0061
Laschinger, H. K. S., Borgogni, L., Consiglio, C., & Read, E. (2015). The effects of
authentic leadership, six areas of worklife, and occupational coping self-efficacy
on new graduate nurses’ burnout and mental health: A cross-sectional study.
International Journal of Nursing Studies, 52(6), 1080–1089.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.03.002
Laschinger, H. K. S., & Fida, R. (2014). A time-lagged analysis of the effect of
authentic leadership on workplace bullying, burnout, and occupational turnover
intentions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(5),
739–753. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2013.804646
Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. (2001). Impact of structural
and psychological empowerment on job strain in nursing work settings:
Expanding Kanter’s model. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 31(5), 260–
272. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11388162
Laschinger, H. K. S., Wong, C. A., & Grau, A. L. (2012). The influence of authentic
leadership on newly graduated nurses’ experiences of workplace bullying,
burnout and retention outcomes: A cross-sectional study. International Journal
of Nursing Studies, 49(10), 1266–1276. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.05.012
Laschinger, H. K. S., Wong, C. A., & Grau, A. L. (2013). Authentic leadership,
empowerment and burnout: A comparison in new graduates and experienced
nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 21(3), 541–552. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
436
2834.2012.01375.x
Leaf, C. (2013). Switch on your brain: The key to peak happiness, thinking, and
health. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group.
Leaf, C. M., Louw, B., & Uys, I. (1997). The development of a model for geodesic
learning: The geodesic information processing model. The South African Journal
of Communication Disorders, 44, 53–70. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9819969
8535.2008.00909.x
Leslie, J. B. (2009). The leadership gap: What you need, and don’t have, when it
comes to leadership talent [Online]. Retrieved from
http://www.hreonline.com/pdfs/02012010Extra_CLCStudy.pdf
Li, F., Jiang, L., Yao, X., & Li, Y. (2013). Job demands, job resources and safety
outcomes: The roles of emotional exhaustion and safety compliance. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 51, 243–251. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2012.11.029
437
Lillard, A. S., & Erisir, A. (2011). Old dogs learning new tricks: Neuroplasticity
beyond the juvenile period. Development Review, 31(4), 207–239.
doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2011.07.008
Lingard, H. (2003). The impact of individual and job characteristics on “burnout”
among civil engineers in Australia and the implications for employee turnover.
Construction Management and Economics, 21(1), 69–80.
doi: 10.1080/0144619032000065126
Lingard, H., & Sublet, A. (2002). The impact of job and organizational demands on
marital or relationship satisfaction and conflict among Australian civil engineers.
Construction Managment and Economics, 20, 507–521.
doi: 10.1080/01446190210156073
Liphadzi, M., Aigbavboa, C., & Thwala, W. (2015). An investigation of leadership
characteristics of project and construction managers in the South African
construction industry. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on
Construction in the 21st Century. Retrieved from
https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Repository/uj:18432
Liu, B., Hu, W., & Cheng, Y. (2015). From the west to the east: Validating servant
leadership in the Chinese public sector. Public Personnel Management, 44(1),
25–45. doi: 10.1177/0091026014555995
438
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-
9434.2007.0002.x
Mackey, J., & Sisodia, R. (2014). Conscious capitalism: Liberating the heroic spirit of
business. New York, USA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.
Mahembe, B., & Engelbrecht, A. S. (2013). A confirmatory factor analytical study of a
servant leadership measure in South Africa. SA Journal of Industrial
Mahembe, B., & Engelbrecht, A. S. (2014). The relationship between servant
leadership, organisational citizenship behaviour and team effectiveness. SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40(1), 1–10. doi: 10.4102/sajip.v40i1.1107
Mallon, D., Atamanik, C., Chakrabarti, M., Choudhury, V. D., Clarey, J., Derler, A.,
Erickson, R., Sherman, S., Johnson, D., Manning, C., Mike, J., & Moulton, D.
(2017). Rewriting the rules for the digital age [Online]. Retrieved from
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/HumanCapita
l/hc-2017-global-human-capital-trends-gx.pdf
Maranzan, K. A., Sabourin, A., & Simard-Chicago, C. (2013). A community-based
leadership development program for first nations women: Revaluing and
honoring women’s strengths. The International Indigenous Policy Journal Article,
4(2), 1–12. doi: 10.18584/iipj.2013.4.2.5
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout.
Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 2, 99–113. Retrieved from
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations
439
cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do’s, don’ts, and how-
to’s. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97–110.
doi: 10.4090/juee.2008.v2n2.033040
McCormick, M. J., Tanguma, J., & Lopez-Forment, A. S. (2002). Extending self-
efficacy theory to leadership: A review and empirical test. Journal of Leadership
McMahan, E. A., & Estes, D. (2011). Hedonic versus eudaimonic conceptions of
well-being: Evidence of differential associations with self-reported well-being.
Social Indicators Research, 103(1), 93–108. doi: 10.1007/s11205-010-9698-0
Retrieved from
&oi=p
440
doi: 10.1108/ICT-02-2015-0013
Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129–152.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083427?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
Naidoo, D., Brand, A., Harrison, A., Raghuber, B., Botes, D., Deysel, D., Coetzee, J.,
Swanepoel, J., Makhetha, N., Ramawtar, S., Mphuthi, T., & Nkosi, T. (2015). SA
construction: Highligting trends in the South African construction industry
[Online]. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.co.za/en/assets/pdf/sa-construction-
2015.pdf
Naidoo, D., Brand, A., Raghuber, B., Suburaman, F., Beukes, S., & Serepong, T.
(2016). SA construction: Highligting trends in the South African construction
industry [Online]. Retrieved from https://www.pwc.co.za/en/assets/pdf/sa-
441
construction-2016.pdf
Naude, J. L. P., & Rothmann, S. (2004). The validation of the Maslach Burnout
Inventory: Human services survey for emergency medical technicians in
Gauteng. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 30(3), 21–28. Retrieved from
http://www.sajip.co.za/index.php/sajip/article/view/167
doi: 10.1177/1534484312439196
1220–1233. doi: 10.1037/a0012695
doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2827-6
Oliver, P. H., Gottfried, A. W., Guerin, D. W., Gottfried, A. E., Reichard, R. J., &
Riggio, R. E. (2011). Adolescent family environmental antecedents to
transformational leadership potential: A longitudinal mediational analysis.
442
11(1), 10–21. doi: 10.1108/09604520110362443
doi: 10.1017/jmo.2014.80
675. doi: 10.1007/s10869-014-9388-z
Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2012). Building a legacy of volunteers through
servant leadership: A cause-related sporting event. Nonprofit Management and
Leadership, 23(2), 259–276. doi: 10.1002/nml.21047
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. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6
443
doi: 10.1080/09585191003658920
Peltzer, J. N., Ford, D. J., Shen, Q., Fischgrund, A., Teel, C. S., Pierce, J., Jamison,
M., & Waldon, T. (2015). Exploring leadership roles, goals, and barriers among
Kansas registered nurses: A descriptive cross-sectional study. Nursing Outlook,
63(2), 117–123. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2015.01.003
Research, 27(1), 508–526. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2014.974340
Peters, T., & Waterman, R. H. (2004). In search of excellence: Lessons from
America’s best run companies (2nd ed.). London: Profile Books.
Petrie, N. (2014). Future trends in leadership development [Online]. Retrieved from
http://www.ccl.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/futureTrends.pdf
Polleys, M. S. (2002). One university’s response to the anti-leadership vaccine:
Developing servant leaders. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(3), 117–130.
doi: 10.1177/107179190200800310
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). The big idea: Creating shared value. Harvard
Business Review, 89(2), 62–77. Retrieved from EBSCO Host database http://0-
444
Pyrczak, F. (1999). Evaluating research in academic journals. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak
Publishing.
doi: 10.1002/jls.21238
010-0729-1
Revelle, W., & Zinbarg, R. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb:
Commets on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145–154. doi: 10.1007/s11336-
008-9102-z
Ringleb, A. H., & Rock, D. (2008). The emerging field of neuroleadership.
Neuroleadership Journal, (1), 1–17. Retrieved from
https://neuroleadership.com/wp-content/uploads/groups-file-access/The-
emerging-field-of-NL.pdf
Rock, D. (2009). Your brain at work: Strategies for overcoming distraction, regaining
focus, and working smarter all day long. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Rodríguez-Carvajal, R., De Rivas, S., Herrero, M., Moreno-Jiménez, B., & Van
Dierendonck, D. (2014). Leading people positively: Cross-cultural validation of
the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS). The Spanish Journal of Psychology,
17(63), 1–13. doi: 10.1017/sjp.2014.73
Rodriguez-Rubio, A., & Kiser, A. I. T. (2013). An examination of servant leadership
in the United States and Mexico: Do age and gender make a difference? The
445
Global Studies Journal, 5(2), 127–149. Retrieved from EBSCO Host database
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal
of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. Retrieved from
http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/
Rothman, N., & Boschmans, M. (2015). Employee wellness: Impact on an
organisation [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.sara.co.za/sara/file
storage/Documents/presentations/Employee wellness ‒ SARA ‒ Sept 2015.pdf
Rothmann, I., De Beer, L. T., & Rothmann, I. (2014). The psychometric properties of
the organisational human factor benchmark (OHFB): A multi-national validation.
Potchefstroom, South Africa: Afriforte.
Rothmann, S., & Essenko, N. (2007). Job characteristics, optimism, burnout, and ill
health of support staff in a higher edication institution in South Africa. South
African Journal of Psychology, 37(1), 135–152. Retrieved from
Rothmann, S., & Joubert, J. H. M. (2007). Job demands, job resources, burnout and
work engagement of managers at a platinum mine in the North West Province.
South African Journal of Business Management, 38(3), 49–61. Retrieved from
http://www.ianrothmann.com/pub/busman_v38_n3_a5.pdf
446
Rubio-Sanchez, A., Bosco, S. M., & Melchar, D. E. (2013). Servant leadership and
world values. The Global Studies Journal, 5(3), 19–33. Retrieved from EBSCO
Ruíz, P., Martínez, R., & Rodrigo, J. (2010). Intra-organizational social capital in
business organizations: A theoretical model with a focus on servant leadership
as antecedent. Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics, 1, 43–59. Retrieved from
Journal, 23(3), 145–157. doi: 10.1108/01437730210424084
Russell, R. F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 22(2), 76–84.
doi: 10.1108/01437730110382631
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potential: A review of
research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology,
52, 141–166. Retrieved from http://condor.depaul.edu/hstein/NYAR.pdf
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being
revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A
eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies,
9(1), 13–39. doi: 10.1007/s10902-006-9019-0
Retrieved from https://www.safcec.org.za/resource/collection/AAB7C9E5-B817-
466E-84AB-370620F4ACA6/StateOfTheIndustry_2014Q2.pdf
447
Retrieved from https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/safcec.site-
ym.com/resource/resmgr/State_of_the_Industry/StateOfTheIndustry_2015Q3.pd
SAFCEC. (2017). State of the South African Civil Engineering Contracting Industry:
1st Quarter [Online]. Retrieved from
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.safcec.org.za/resource/collection/3D9AA5BC-
2F21-4AD7-9D10-
229296640C5D/2017_Q1_SAFCEC_StateOfTheCivilEngineeringIndustry.pdf
Saidu, H. (2013). Barriers and obstacles to the implementation and practice of
servant leadership among pastors and lay leaders of evangelical church winning
all (ECWA), Nigeria (Doctoral dissertation). Asbury Theological Seminary,
Wilmore, KY. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/openview/fce4f6a086cd8aa358b5ec82246d2b3b/1?
pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
doi: 10.1108/02683940610690169
Salem, I. (2015). Transformational leadership: Relationship to job stress and job
burnout in five-star hotels. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 15(4), 240–253.
doi: 10.1177/1467358415581445
448
Schafer, J. A. (2010). Effective leaders and leadership in policing: Traits,
assessment, development, and expansion. Policing: An International Journal of
Police Strategies & Management, 33(4), 644–663.
doi: 10.1108/13639511011085060
trends-2015.pdf
Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Past performance and future perspectives of burnout
research. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(4), 1–15. Retrieved from
www.sajip.co.za/index.php/sajip/article/download/127/123
doi: 10.1108/02683940010305270
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). Utrecht Work Engagement Scale:
Preliminary manual. Utrecht, Netherlands: Utrecht University.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work
engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The
measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor
analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. Retrieved from
449
http://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/publications/Schaufeli/178.pdf
Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the Job Demands‒
Resources Model: Implications for improving work and health. In G. F. Bauer &
O. Hamming (Eds.), Bridging occupational, organizational and public health: A
transdisciplinary approach, 43–68. Dordrecht: Springer Science and Business
Media.
Schuitema, E. (2004). Leadership: The Care and Growth Model (2nd ed.). Cape
Town: Ampersand Press.
Schulte, P., & Vainio, H. (2010). Well-being at work: Overview and perspective.
Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment Health, 36(5), 422–429.
doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3076
doi: 10.1080/08853134.2015.1010537
107–117. doi: 10.1177/1548051810383863
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness
and well-being. New York: Free Press.
450
Studies, 9(2), 57–64. doi: 10.1177/107179190200900205
402–424. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00761.x
Shippmann, J. S., Ash, R. A., Battista, M., Carr, L., Eyde, L. D., Hesketh, B., Kehoe,
J., Pearlman, K., Prien, E. P., & Sanchez, J. I. (2000). The practice of
competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 53, 703–740. Retrieved from
http://knjiznica.ffzg.unizg.hr/uploads/c9t4znOYcRKMayBUb2mtAQ/Shippmann2
000.pdf
Shu, C. (2015). The impact of intrinsic motivation on the effectiveness of leadership
style on work engagement. Contemporary Management Research, 11(4), 327–
350. doi: 10.7903/cmr.14043
304–328. doi: 10.1177/1534484311410840
451
doi: 10.1177/1534484312438211
Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of
Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107–120. doi: 10.1007/s11336-008-
9101-0
doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.05.003
Singh, A. (2013). A study of role of McKinsey’s 7S framework in achieving
organizational excellence. Organizational Development Journal, 31(3), 39–50.
Skeepers, N. C., & Mbohwa, C. (2015). A study on the leadership behaviour, safety
leadership and safety performance in the construction industry in South Africa.
Procedia Manufacturing, 4, 10–16. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2015.11.008
Sonnentag, S. (2011). Research on work engagement is well and alive. European
doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2010.510639
452
Retrieved from
Stein, S. J., & Book, H. E. (2011). The EQ edge: Emotional intelligence and your
success (3rd ed.). Mississauga, Canada: Jossey-Bass.
Stout-Rostron, S., Cunningham, W., & Crous, W. (2013). Leadership development:
Survey Report 2013. Randburg, South Africa: Knowres Publishing.
188–207. doi: 10.1108/13620431211241054
doi: 10.1108/S1535-1203(2009)0000005017
453
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.03.008
The Greenleaf Centre for Servant Leadership. (2017a). Implementing servant
leadership [Brochure]. Retrieved from https://www.greenleaf.org/implementing-
servant-leadership/
The Greenleaf Centre for Servant Leadership. (2017b). The foundations of servant
leadership [Brochure]. Retrieved from https://www.greenleaf.org/foundations-
servant-leadership/
The Greenleaf Centre for Servant Leadership. (2017c). The key practices of servant
leadership [Brochure]. Retrieved from https://www.greenleaf.org/key-practices-
servant-leadership/
The Servant Leadership Institute. (2017a). Let’s get started: Servant leadership
overview [Brochure]. Retrieved from
5016e1c664650c39/1483478379286/Let%27s+get+started.pdf
The Servant Leadership Institute. (2017b). Results-driven servant leadership
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5852ba8f440243b02de213ba/t/58742bf58
419c2e22d0c666f/1484008441577/Results-driven_UPDATED.pdf
The Servant Leadership Institute. (2017c). Servant leadership 101: The road less
travelled [Brochure]. Retrieved from
454
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5852ba8f440243b02de213ba/t/5865b3ae
8419c2fbf057b8c7/1483060180315/The+road+best+traveled+v.1.pdf
The Servant Leadership Institute. (2017d). Servant leadership coaching program
3e00bec12e7cb57d/1483478548563/SL+Coaching.pdf
Thompson, K. N. N., Gottwald, W. D., Barrow, L., & Pomfret, T. (2010). Servant-
leadership: An effective model for project management (Doctoral dissertation).
Capella University, Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Trompenaars, F., & Voerman, E. (2010). Servant-leadership across cultures:
Harnessing the strength of the world’s most powerful management philosophy.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tuckey, M. R., Bakker, A. B., & Dollard, M. F. (2012). Empowering leaders optimize
working conditions for engagement: A multilevel study. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 17(1), 15–27. doi: 10.1037/a0025942
Van Den Broeck, A., Van Ruysseveldt, J., Smulders, P., & De Witte, H. (2011). Does
an intrinsic work value orientation strengthen the impact of job resources? A
perspective from the Job Demands–Resources Model. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(5), 581–609.
doi: 10.1080/13594321003669053
Management, 37(4), 1228–1261. doi: 10.1177/0149206310380462
Van Dierendonck, D., & Heeren, I. (2006). Toward a research model of servant
leadership. International Journal of Servant Leadership, 2(1), 147–164.
455
Retrieved from
http://www.spearscenter.org/docs2010/InternationalJournalofServantLeadership
2006.pdf
Vera, M., Salanova, M., & Lorente, L. (2012). The predicting role of self-efficacy in
the Job Demands‒Resources Model: A longitudinal study. Studies in
Psychology, 33(2), 167–178. doi: 10.1174/021093912800676439
Vincent-Höper, S., Muser, C., & Janneck, M. (2012). Transformational leadership,
work engagement, and occupational success. Career Development
International, 17(7), 663–682. doi: 10.1108/13620431211283805
Psychology, 95(3), 517–529. doi: 10.1037/a0018867
Wang, F., Chich-Jen, S., & Mei-Ling, T. (2010). Effect of leadership style on
organizational performance as viewed from human resource management
strategy. African Journal of Business Management, 4(18), 3924–3936.
Retrieved from
www.academicjournals.org/article/article1380534513_Wang%20et%20al%2022
22.pdf
456
Warne, L. (2010). Leadership in the construction industry [Online]. Retrieved from
https://www.ciob.org/sites/default/files/CIOB research - Leadership in the
Construction Industry 2008.pdf
Warr, P. (1990). The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 193–210. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00521.x/abstract
Washington, R. R., Sutton, C. D., & Feild, H. S. (2006). Individual differences in
servant leadership: The roles of values and personality. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 27(8), 700–716. doi:
10.1108/01437730610709309
Waterman, H. (2011). Principles of servant leadership and how they can enhance
practice. Nursing Management, 17(9), 24–26. doi:
10.7748/nm2011.02.17.9.24.c8299
Weinstein, R. B. (2013). Servant leadership and public administration: Solving the
public sector financial problems through service. Journal of Management Policy
& Practice, 14(3), 84–92. Retrieved from EBSCO Host database http://0-
Wilson, K., & Bird, S. (2014). Doctor who? The barriers and enablers to developing
medical leadership talent [Online]. Retrieved from
http://www.haygroup.com/downloads/uk/doctor who-the barriers and enablers to
developing medical leadership talent.pdf
Winston, B., & Fields, D. (2015). Seeking and measuring the essential behaviours of
servant leadership. Leadership & Organizational Development, 36(4), 413–434.
doi: 10.1108/LODJ-10-2013-0135
Winston, B. E., & Hartsfield, M. (2004). Similarities between emotional intelligence
457
and servant leadership. Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research
Roundtable. Retrieved from
https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2004/winston_e
motional_intelligence.pdf.
World Health Organization. (2006). Constitution of the World Health Organization.
Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
World Health Organization. (2014). Global Status Report on Noncommunicable
Diseases 2014 [Online]. Retrieved from https://doi.org/ISBN 9789241564854
World Health Organization. (2015). Assessing national capacity for the prevention
and control of noncommunicable diseases [Online]. Retrieved from
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/246223/1/9789241565363-eng.pdf?ua=1
54(4), 383–395. doi: 10.1177/1938965513482519
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role
of personal resources in the Job Demands‒Resources Model. International
Journal of Stress Management, 14(2), 121–141. doi: 10.1037/1072-
5245.14.2.121
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). A diary
study on the happy worker: How job resources relate to positive emotions and
personal resources. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
458
21(4), 489–517. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2011.584386
doi: 10.1080/09585192.2013.763844
747–768. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21498
Zhou, Y., & Miao, Q. (2014). Servant leadership and affective commitment in the
Chinese public sector: The mediating role of perceived organizational support.
Psychological Reports, 115(2), 381–395. doi: 10.2466/01.21.PR0.115c23z4
Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., & Walumba, F. O. (2009). Moderating role of follower
characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement.
doi: 10.1177/1059601108331242
Zigarmi, D., Nimon, K., Houson, D., Witt, D., & Diehl, J. (2009). Beyond engagement:
Toward a framework and operational definition for employee work passion.
doi: 10.1177/1534484309338171
Zinbarg, R. E., Yovel, I., Revelle, W., & McDonald, R. P. (2006). Estimating
generalizability to a latent variable common to all of a scale’s indicators: A
comparison of estimators for ωh. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30(2),
121–144. doi: 10.1177/0146621605278814
Zohar, D. (1997). Rewiring the corporate brain: Using the new science to rethink how
459
we structure and lead organizations. San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler
Publishers.
Zopiatis, A., & Constanti, P. (2010). Leadership styles and burnout: Is there an
association? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
22(3), 300–320. doi: 10.1108/09596111011035927
460

The Impact of A Servant Leadership Intervention On Work Engagement and Burnout PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Impact of A Servant Leadership Intervention On Work Engagement and Burnout PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COPYRIGHT AND CITATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS THESIS/ DISSERTATION

How to cite this thesis

engagement and burnout

MICHIEL FREDERICK COETZER

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of

Philosophiae Doctor in Leadership in Performance and Change

College of Business and Economics:

Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management

Supervisor: Prof. Mark Bussin

Co-Supervisor: Dr. Madelyn Geldenhuys

Leadership in Performance and Change at the University of Johannesburg is

my independent work and has not been submitted by me for a degree at

Michiel Frederick Coetzer

me to continue in difficult times. My sincere appreciation goes to my wife Chanéll for

to complete this study.

Background: Low employee engagement, ineffective organisational cultures,

be global human capital issues that influence organisational performance negatively.

development. A potential solution might be to apply a more philanthropic leadership

secondarily on producing the best returns for multiple stakeholders. However,

research on the application of servant leadership is scarce.

A framework to implement servant leadership in organisations is not yet available.

Empirical evidence on the relationships between servant leadership, job demands,

effectiveness of a servant leadership intervention, and to explore the impact of

servant leadership on work engagement and burnout in the construction industry.

The objectives of this study were (1) to establish a framework to operationalise

developing servant leaders, and (6) to evaluate the effectiveness of a servant

study. First, a systematic literature review was conducted, to establish a framework

a new servant leadership intervention. Thereafter, an embedded experimental

design was applied.

Two non-probability samples were drawn from a construction company in South

Africa. Sample 1 (n = 44) consisted of managers nominated by the company as

high-performance managers. Sample 2 (n = 186) consisted of the direct reports of

those managers and other employees.

Regarding the quantitative aspect, a one-group pre-test post-test experimental

managers had completed a servant leadership intervention. Sample 1 (nominated

barriers to and antecedents of developing servant leaders (Study 3).

Main Findings: The results of Study 1 revealed that servant leadership is

characterised by authenticity, humility, integrity, listening, compassion,

accountability, courage, and altruism. The competencies of servant leadership are:

building relationships, empowerment, stewardship, and creating a compelling vision.

The outcomes of servant leadership are: higher work engagement, organisational

citizenship behaviour, creativity and innovation, organisational commitment, trust,

self-efficacy, job satisfaction, person‒job fit, person‒organisation fit, leader‒member

exchange, work‒life balance, group organisational citizenship behaviour, group

identification, service culture or climate, procedural justice climate, customer service,

conceptualise a framework to operational servant leadership in an organisation. The

conceptual framework summarises the functions of a servant leader into strategic

between servant leadership and work engagement and a negative relationship

attributes, competence, life experiences, and commitment levels, promote the

development of servant leaders. Organisational antecedents for servant leadership

development are: development opportunities, leadership support, performance

management, 360˚ surveys, communication, strategic alignment, and organisational

personal attributes and life experiences. Organisational barriers are: organisational

demands, lack of leadership support, and constant organisational changes. The

results of Study 3 were used to conceptualise a framework to develop servant

leaders effectively in organisations.

The results of Study 4 revealed that the servant leadership intervention

significantly enhanced servant leadership behaviour, particularly in terms of

empowerment, stewardship, and forgiveness. The managers, after having

participated in the servant leadership intervention, showed more servant leadership

behaviour in terms of empowerment, stewardship, and forgiving behaviour.

Managerial Implications: Management can use servant leadership as a viable

solution to enhance work engagement and to decrease burnout in the construction