Servant leadership: A meta‐analytic examination of incremental contribution, moderation, and mediation

Abstract

Research suggests that when leaders, as servant leaders, focus on their followers’ needs, this can have a positive effect on organizational functioning. Yet results are inconsistent in establishing the strength of the relationships, limiting understanding of the theoretical impact and practical reach of the servant leadership (SL) construct. Using a quantitative meta‐analysis based on 130 independent studies, the current research provides evidence that SL has incremental predictive validity over transformational, authentic, and ethical leadership. Further, the link between SL and a range of individual‐ and team‐level behavioural outcomes can be partially explained by trust in the leader, procedural justice, and leader–member exchange. The paper also explores moderators to better establish SL's criterion‐related validity and to clarify the magnitude of effects across boundary conditions, such as research design, national culture, and industry. Practitioner points Servant leadership has predictive validity over other leadership approaches, and therefore, organizations would benefit by developing their current leaders into SLs. Organizations should aim to select SLs into influential positions: Training programmes and selection profiles and processes would need to be aligned and developed to capture attitudes and behaviours associated with SL inside and outside the organization. Servant leaderships should seek to create a culture that positively promotes the development of trust, fairness, and high‐quality leader–follower relationships, as these conditions collectively enable the effects of SL to be transmitted onto desirable follower outcomes.

How Servant Leadership Leads to Employees’ Customer-Oriented Behavior in the Service Industry? A Dual-Mechanism Model

“…Because a leader is the proximal influencer in social environments, how leader behavior is a model that influences employees' behaviors is important to understand [3]. Along this line of research, a growing number of studies have suggested the benefits of servant leadership as a useful leadership approach to stimulate employees producing such desirable outcomes as service quality and organizational citizen behaviors [4]. Referring to "developing employees to their fullest potential in the area of task effectiveness, community stewardship, self-motivation, and future leadership capabilities" [5] (p. 162), servant leadership is a people-centered leadership style that prioritizes serving both internal employees and external clients [6].…”

Servant Leadership in Japan: A Validation Study of the Japanese Version of the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS-J)

“…Previous empirical research has shown that SL behavior is positively linked to subordinates’ attitudinal outcomes, such as work engagement ( De Clercq et al, 2014 ; van Dierendonck et al, 2014 ), job satisfaction ( Mayer et al, 2008 ), and organizational commitment ( Walumbwa et al, 2018 ), and behavioral outcomes, such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Walumbwa et al, 2010 ; Bavik et al, 2017 ), voice behavior ( Chughtai, 2016 ), and helping behavior ( Zou et al, 2015 ), as well as performance outcomes, such as job performance ( Schwarz et al, 2016 ) and team performance ( Hu and Liden, 2011 ). Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis based on 130 independent studies has shown that SL has incremental predictive validity over other representative leadership approaches (i.e., transformational, authentic, and ethical leadership) for performance outcomes such as individual-level task performance, team-level task performance, and OCB ( Lee et al, 2019 ).…”

“…Work engagement is “a positive, fulfilling work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” ( Schaufeli et al, 2002 ) related to low levels of anxiety and depression ( Hakanen and Schaufeli, 2012 ; Innstrand et al, 2012 ) and absence due to illness ( Rongen et al, 2014 ). Servant leaders are assumed to promote work engagement among followers by satisfying their followers’ needs and empowering them ( de Sousa and van Dierendonck, 2014 ; van Dierendonck et al, 2014 ; Lee et al, 2019 ). Also, empirical studies have shown that SL causes affective commitment ( Lapointe and Vandenberghe, 2018 ; Lee et al, 2019 ).…”

“…Servant leaders are assumed to promote work engagement among followers by satisfying their followers’ needs and empowering them ( de Sousa and van Dierendonck, 2014 ; van Dierendonck et al, 2014 ; Lee et al, 2019 ). Also, empirical studies have shown that SL causes affective commitment ( Lapointe and Vandenberghe, 2018 ; Lee et al, 2019 ). Affective commitment is defined as “the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization” and motivation to stay with the organization ( Meyer and Allen, 1991 ), which is linked to high job performance, a low rate of turnover cognition, and low voluntary absenteeism ( Luchak and Gellatly, 2007 ).…”

“…As the impact of cultural factors on the relationship between SL and its consequences has been pointed out ( Liden, 2012 ; Mittal and Dorfman, 2012 ; Lee et al, 2019 ; Zhang et al, 2019 ), it is essential to validate the SLS also in a different cultural context, outside of Europe. In terms of cultural context ( Hofstede et al, 2010 ), the relationship between SL and outcomes has been more explicitly shown in low power distance ( Mittal and Dorfman, 2012 ; Lee et al, 2019 ; Zhang et al, 2019 ), individualistic cultures ( Lee et al, 2019 ), low masculinity ( Zhang et al, 2019 ), and low uncertainty avoidance ( Mittal and Dorfman, 2012 ). Little is known about the impact of SL on personal and organizational outcomes in Japanese society, with its high masculinity, high uncertainty avoidance, moderately high power-distance, and collectivistic cultural context.…”