The purpose of this article is multi-layered. First, we focus on gaining a comprehensive insight into a research area which just recently received more recognition in management literature: servant leadership. Second, we identify antecedent and outcomes of servant leadership within the existing research body. Third, we synthesize and develop a comprehensive servant leadership model. It assists academics and practitioners in keeping pace with the increasing servant leadership literature. The systematic literature review provides explanations as to why managers practice servant leadership. The study also contributes to a better understanding of the outcomes of servant leadership and brings clarity to a discombobulated group of studies.

No abstract

Taylor Reloaded: The Organization as the Perfect Machine? Today at the beginning of the 2030s, we can see the problems that arise from the development of more and more capable and independent algorithms. Here, digital leaders in business are challenged, and it is not clear how things will play out. Adding algorithms to all levels of work will clearly make work streams more efficient, but as machines start making decisions, the criteria for good and bad decisions, as well as loyalty (to the firm, to the stakeholders, to humanity), may lead to unexpected results. CEOs back in the early years of the Internet economy may have thought their management positions were safe from the rise of the machines. Still, Alibaba founder Jack Ma had already stated in 2017 that he believed that companies could be run by better robotic chief executives than by human beings. Speaking at a China Entrepreneur Club event, Ma explained why he thinks machines will be able to do what humans cannot and how a lack of emotion will help robo-chief executives get things done. "30 years later, the Time Magazine cover for the best CEO of the year very likely will be a robot. It remembers better than you, it counts faster than you, and it won't be angry with competitors" (Morgan 2017), Ma said at the event, according to the New York Post. A few years later, the Chinese People's Party announced that their future party leader might be an artificial intelligence: "We have learned our own lessons from the political disasters in the past. Look at the United States or what used to be the United Kingdom. Human narcissistic leaders have divided the population and countries. We don't want to have the same happen with China."

Purpose Management literature commonly suggests authoritarian leadership (AL) as the ideal leadership style during crises and extreme situations. This study aims to question this view, exploring servant leadership (SL) as an alternative. Design/methodology/approach In the field of leadership research, surveys and interviews are the most dominant research methods. In light of this dominance, this paper draws on a rather unorthodox research approach: a historical examination. Findings The elaborations in this paper suggest that SL exerts a higher influence on followers than AL, when organizational structures are absent or disregarded. Consequently, the higher influence of SL implies a lower need for regulations and directives within organizations. Practical implications Bureaucracy and red tape can be reduced. Particularly in situations of crises, SL’s relatively reduced reliance on formalized organizational structures can be advantageous to leaders. Originality/value The relationship among leadership (SL and AL) and formalized organizational structures is elaborated and illustrated in a historical examination.

People have always dreamed of a selfless servant, a machine that serves humans (Domaine, 2008; Mayor, 2020), a helper who frees people from heavy labor. This dream has inspired the common notion and understanding of the role which robots take in our society: The robot is humans’ servant. The origin of the English word robot lies in the Czech word robota, which can be translated as “servitude” or “compulsory labor”, describing the compulsory service in the context of a feudal system (Launius & McCurdy, 2012). Technological change progressed rapidly in the last few decades (Avadikyan et al., 2016). We have become accustomed to the role of the robot as a loyal servant (Helper et al., 2018). Today, machines autonomously mow our lawns, construct cars or even transport people in self-driving trains or buses. In order to regulate the coexistence between robots and humans, Isaac Asimov (2004) established three basic rules. Rule number 2 of his catalog corresponds to the notion of the robot as a servant of humans, “A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings.” But is Asimov’s principle still universally valid today? Now, in an ever-increasing number of cases, the principle seems to be reversed. Our research objective is to explore the theoretical feasibility of servant-leadership through machines. We deliberately choose the term robot leadership because we not only analyze AI Leadership, but also conventionally programmed Leadership software/programs. In other words, we examine whether machines may completely replace humans as servant-leaders. To summarize we can say that the core question of our paper is whether robots/machines can be programmed to lead not only transactionally but also in an inspirational and servant-led way.