Expert answer:Skill Builder 12
Solved by verified expert:After reading the articles and completing Skill Builder 12, prepare a paper that presents an annotated bibliography for each required article. Follow these steps to complete your assignment, along with the Guidelines presented in Skill Builder 12:Begin with an introduction. State the purpose of the paper and explain why writing annotated bibliographies is an important skill.Prepare an annotated bibliography for each of the two articles presented in this week’s readings. Be sure to address the required elements in each annotated bibliography. Use the guidelines in Skill Builder 12 to organize your annotated bibliographies. Note: Please use only the two articles found in the Resources section; do not write an annotated bibliography on any external articles.Finish the paper with a conclusion or summary that links to the introduction.Be sure to include the references page since this is a requirement for annotated bibliographies.Total Length: 3-4 pages, not including title and reference pages. Each annotated bibliography should not exceed one page.
contentserver__1_.pdf
servant_leadership_and_serving_culture.docx
transformational.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
娀 Academy of Management Journal
2014, Vol. 57, No. 5, 1434–1452.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0034
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND SERVING CULTURE: INFLUENCE
ON INDIVIDUAL AND UNIT PERFORMANCE
ROBERT C. LIDEN
SANDY J. WAYNE
University of Illinois at Chicago
CHENWEI LIAO
Michigan State University
JEREMY D. MEUSER
University of Illinois at Chicago
In a sample of 961 employees working in 71 restaurants of a moderately sized
restaurant chain, we investigated a key tenet of servant leadership theory—that servant leaders guide followers to emulate the leader’s behavior by prioritizing the needs
of others above their own. We developed and tested a model contending that servant
leaders propagate servant leadership behaviors among followers by creating a serving
culture, which directly influences unit (i.e., restaurant/store) performance and enhances individual attitudes and behaviors directly and through the mediating influence of individuals’ identification with the unit. As hypothesized, serving culture was
positively related both to restaurant performance and employee job performance,
creativity, and customer service behaviors, and negatively related to turnover intentions, both directly and through employee identification with the restaurant. Samesource common method bias was reduced by employing five sources of data: employees, restaurant managers, customers, internal audits by headquarters staff, and
external audits by a consulting firm.
Servant leadership is based on the premise that
leaders who are best able to motivate followers are
those who focus least on satisfying their own personal needs and most on prioritizing the fulfillment
of followers’ needs (Greenleaf, 1970). Leaders who
are more concerned about others than themselves
are humble, and their humility stimulates strong
relationships with followers and encourages followers to become fully engaged in their work (Owens & Hekman, 2012). Given its focus on leader
behaviors that help followers to realize their full
potential, servant leadership represents a positive
approach to organizational behavior (Cameron &
Spreitzer, 2012), the study of which refers to the
“application of positively oriented human resource
strengths and psychological capacities that can be
measured, developed, and effectively managed for
performance improvement in today’s workplace”
(Luthans, 2002: 59). Servant leadership consists of
seven dimensions (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008), including emotional healing or being
sensitive to the personal setbacks of followers, creating value for the community, such as encouraging
followers to engage in volunteer activities that benefit local communities, conceptual skills, or the
problem-solving abilities and task knowledge that
are prerequisites for providing help to followers,
empowering, helping subordinates grow and suc-
This study was funded by a grant from the SHRM
Foundation. However, the interpretations, conclusions
and recommendations are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the views of the SHRM Foundation.
We are grateful for the cooperation of the employees,
managers, and Director of HR of the participating organization and the support of its CEO. In addition, we thank
members of the Society for Organizational Behavior, particularly Maureen Ambrose, Jeff Edwards, Dan Ganster,
Marshall Schminke, Jeffrey Vancouver, and Larry Williams, who provided valuable comments that helped us
to frame the model and analyze the data. We are also
thankful to Xiaoyun Cao, Turah Flowers, Anahi Kelly,
Gretchen Kemner, Hae Sang Park, and Shu Wang for their
assistance with data entry. Chenwei Liao worked on this
research while he was a doctoral student at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
1434
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
2014
Liden, Wayne, Liao, and Meuser
ceed, putting subordinates first, and behaving ethically. Although other approaches to leadership include supporting followers, the strong emphasis on
leading by serving followers, captured in the name,
servant leadership, is unique among leadership approaches. It is thought that when leaders place a
priority on providing tangible and emotional support to followers and assisting followers in reaching their full potential, followers in turn see the
leader as a role model and engage in appropriate
behaviors, not through coercion, but because they
want to do so (Greenleaf, 1970).
Research has demonstrated that servant leadership is related to follower outcomes, including job
attitudes, organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB), and performance (Liden, Panaccio, Meuser,
Hu, & Wayne, 2014; van Dierendonck, 2011) as well
as outcomes at the team (Ehrhart, 2004; Hu & Liden,
2011; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng, 2011) and organizational (Peterson, Galvin, & Lange, 2012) levels,
even when controlling for two dominant leadership
approaches (Dinh, Lord, Gardner, Meuser, Liden, &
Hu, 2014), namely transformational leader behaviors and leader–member exchange (LMX) (Liden et
al., 2008; Peterson et al., 2012; Schaubroeck et al.,
2011). This explanation of important outcomes beyond the two prevailing leadership approaches
begs an explanation for how servant leadership influences employee behaviors. Our main purpose is
to continue the momentum on servant leadership
research by enhancing our understanding of how it
promotes positive outcomes.
Initial research on the processes through which
servant leadership relates to outcomes has revealed
that procedural justice climate (Ehrhart, 2004),
team potency (Hu & Liden, 2011), and trust (Schaubroeck et al., 2011) mediate relationships between
team/unit-level servant leadership and team/unit performance and/or team/unit OCB. In a cross-level
study, Walumbwa, Hartnell, and Oke (2010) showed
that team-level procedural justice and service climates and individual-level self-efficacy and commitment to the supervisor mediated the relationship between team-level servant leadership and
individual-level OCBs. Hunter et al. (2013) also
found support for the role of service climate as
mediating the relationship between team-level servant leadership and subjectively rated team performance. These studies have provided evidence concerning how servant leadership influences outcomes
at the team level. The purpose of the current investigation was to extend theory development on the
processes underlying relationships between ser-
1435
vant leadership and outcomes at the work unit
levels, as well to contribute to the sparse research
on the cross-level effects that unit-level variables
have on individual responses. Although Greenleaf
(1970) provided a general philosophy for how serving others influences outcomes, and Graham (1991)
delineated differences between servant leadership
and transformational leadership, theory enhancements capable of supporting refined testable hypotheses are needed.
Consistent with Greenleaf’s (1970) contention
that servant leaders instill in followers a desire to
serve others, we introduce serving culture as a key
mechanism through which servant leadership behavior affects individual and unit outcomes. Culture is defined as “a pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its
problems of external adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new
members as the correct way to perceive, think, and
feel in relation to those problems” (Schein, 2010:
18). More specifically, serving culture resides in
the current investigation at the unit level and refers
to the “behavioral norms and shared expectations”
of placing a priority on helping others (Cooke &
Rousseau, 1988: 255). Engagement in these behaviors, which are thought to be relevant to all members of the unit, can be substantially influenced by
upper-level leadership (Gelfand, Leslie, Keller, &
de Dreu, 2012; Schein, 1990). Underlying behavioral expectations are values upon which these expectations are based (Rousseau, 1990). Cultural values serve to solidify the behavioral norms and
expectations. We contend that leaders may influence the culture by directly encouraging follower
engagement in serving behaviors and indirectly by
modeling desired behaviors, which then are adopted by followers, as explained by social learning
theory (Bandura, 1977). We propose that because
servant leaders tend to be respected and admired
by followers, they become motivated to emulate
their leaders’ behaviors. Follower modeling of the
helping and supportive behaviors displayed by servant leaders are further strengthened as followers
solidify their identification with the group. As they
begin to view and project themselves to others as a
proud member of the group, their positive work
behaviors become part of how they see themselves
as individuals (Ashforth, 2001). We thus rely on
social learning and social identity theories in explaining the emergence of a serving culture and the
1436
Academy of Management Journal
positive effects this culture has on key individual
and unit outcomes.
In the current investigation, we contribute to the
leadership literature in three ways. First, we assess
the critical premise of servant leadership theory
that servant leaders strive to develop a serving
culture that is based on behavioral norms and expectations that place a priority on helping others.
Second, we explore the influence of servant leadership behavior via the mediating effect of serving
culture on both individual job behaviors and unitlevel performance. Third, we develop and test
cross-level hypotheses based on social identity theory (Tajfel, 1972; Tajfel & Turner, 1986), proposing
that a serving culture that is based on prioritizing
the needs of others above one’s own needs enhances followers’ identification with the unit.
Through this process we expect servant leadership
to indirectly impact individual behaviors and
attitudes, including performance, creativity, orientation toward serving others, and turnover intentions. We test our hypotheses with a large sample of
employees and managers working in 71 restaurants/stores of a moderately sized restaurant chain.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
One of the central tenets of the servant leadership
philosophy extolled by Greenleaf (1970) is that
serving others includes grooming some followers
so that they too can become servant leaders. Follower emulation of leader behavior has been identified as a key attribute of servant leadership (Graham, 1991). Whereas other leadership approaches,
such as ethical and transformational leadership,
include the notion of follower imitation of leader
behavior, the cultivation of servant leadership
among followers is central to servant leadership
(Greenleaf, 1970). Servant leaders may consciously
or unconsciously encourage follower behaviors
through role modeling (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999), a
process explained by social learning theory (Bandura, 1977). Social learning theory represents a departure from reinforcement theories of learning by
arguing that people can learn simply by observing
and replicating the behavior of others. Consistent
support for modeling behavior as outlined in social
learning theory has been found in laboratory experiments (Sy, Côté, & Saavedra, 2005) as well as field
examinations (Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes,
& Salvador, 2009) of the “contagion” or “trickledown” effects of leadership through follower modeling of leader behavior.
October
Leaders are often viewed as role models given
their formal status, position power, and referent
power (Yukl, 2010), which results in followers imitating the behaviors of their immediate superiors
(Weiss, 1977; Yaffe & Kark, 2011). Follower modeling of leader behavior may also be prevalent because leaders often serve as mentors to their followers (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000) and protégés often
learn by imitating the behaviors of their mentors
(Lankau & Scandura, 2002). Followers are especially inclined to model leader behaviors when
they perceive the leader as possessing desirable
qualities (Hannah, Walumbwa, & Fry, 2011; Lankau
& Scandura, 2002; Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum, &
Kuenzi, 2012; Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, &
Roberts, 2008), and servant leaders possess many
attractive characteristics. Servant leaders’ integrity
and concern for others enhance their attractiveness,
as does the trust that servant leaders inspire in
others (Schaubroeck et al., 2011). In addition, their
expertise, as reflected in the conceptual skills dimension of servant leadership identified by Liden
et al. (2008), likely translates into followers perceiving that the leader is credible (Brown &
Treviño, 2006; Walumbwa et al., 2010). When followers perceive the leader as possessing desirable
qualities, they aspire to be like the leader and thus
model their leaders’ behavior (Mayer et al., 2012).
Indeed, it has been empirically demonstrated that
although there is variance in individuals’ reactions
to servant leadership behaviors, most individuals
express a preference for leaders who engage in
these behaviors (Meuser, Liden, Wayne, & Henderson, 2011). We therefore contend that engagement
in servant leadership behaviors propagates from
leaders to followers.
Empathy and behaving ethically are aspects of
servant leadership behavior that increase the attractiveness of servant leaders in the eyes of their followers. Schaubroeck et al. (2011) found empirical
support for Greenleaf’s (1970) key proposition that
servant leaders’ empathy, ethical behavior, and prioritization of follower needs develop mutual trust
between leaders and followers over time. Indeed,
good leaders are trusted more by their followers
than poor leaders (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). This trust
in leaders primes followers’ receptivity to leader
initiatives designed to encourage them to engage in
serving behaviors (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007).
Reciprocation represents one way that followers
may model the servant leader behaviors of the
leader, because “Imitation is the sincerest [form] of
flattery” (Colton, 1824: 114). By openly prioritizing
2014
Liden, Wayne, Liao, and Meuser
the personal and professional growth of followers,
servant leaders provide guidance and direction in
assisting follower modeling of servant leader behaviors. Modeling that involves both a demonstration of the behaviors as well as the guidance of
followers through activities that illustrate the behavior has been shown to be especially effective in
evoking behavior and attitude change in followers
(Bandura, Blanchard, & Ritter, 1969).
When multiple followers engage in serving behaviors, either as the result of direct grooming by
the leader or indirectly through the modeling of
leader behavior, a unique serving culture ensues.
Serving culture offers a way to theoretically integrate servant leadership with the social context
(Glisson & James, 2002; Schneider, Ehrhart, &
Macey, 2011). We define “serving culture” as the
extent to which all members of the work unit engage in servant leadership behaviors and operationalize it as aggregated individual employee reports
of perceived collective unit behavior. Serving culture is characterized as a work environment in
which participants share the understanding that
the behavioral norms and expectations are to prioritize the needs of others above their own and to
provide help and support to others. We stress that
serving culture includes the behaviors of all members of the collective of interest (e.g., group, unit),
not only the formal leaders. Defining serving culture in this way achieves consistency with servant
leadership theory, which stresses that servant leaders cultivate serving behaviors among those around
them, including their followers (Graham, 1991;
Greenleaf, 1970; Liden et al., 2014).
We argue that for a serving culture to germinate,
grow, and eventually propagate within the collective, it is critical for the highest-level formal leader
of that entity to engage in servant leadership behaviors. This is because top leaders set the tone for the
behaviors expected of employees (Peterson et al.,
2012). This appears to occur through processes described by social learning theory in which the leader’s behaviors “trickle down” to subordinates
(Mayer et al., 2009, 2012; Sy et al., 2005). Servant
leadership, an approach to leading that is consistent with positive organizational scholarship (Bono
& Ilies, 2006), represents a positive force that
spreads to followers through “contagion” processes. Indeed, servant leaders as positive role
models stimulate employees’ personal change in
efforts to emulate the desired qualities and behaviors of that role model (Lord & Brown, 2004).
Through the direct developmental activities of the
1437
servant leader and through follower modeling of
servant leader behaviors, a serving culture emerges.
But this culture does not surface unless those in
formal positions of authority embrace servant leadership (Schein, 1990). We therefore contend that
the extent to which a serving culture exists is determined by the degree to which the formal leader
of the entity engages in servant leader behaviors. In
the current investigation, the restaurant/store manager is the highest-level formal leader within each
unit and thus fulfills this role of cultivating a serving culture.
Hypothesis 1. Store Manager servant leadership is positively related to serving culture.
We propose that serving culture drives the effectiveness of the entity as a whole. When the majority
of members of an entity are aligned in terms of what
behaviors are appropriate in the collective environment, the behavioral norms that make up the serving culture provide a roadmap that individuals use
in order to evaluate how best to respond to different
situations that they encounter at work. When multiple people in the work unit are engaged in serving
behaviors, the culture is perceived by participants
as one defined by putting the needs of others first,
behaving with integrity, and developing conceptual skills associated with thoroughly understanding the tasks and overall business (Liden et al.,
2008). When serving others is seen as a defining
characteristic of the work unit, we contend that
members of the collective engage in behaviors that
benefit the unit and are willing to help each other,
such as freely sharing one’s task knowledge. Thus,
although the focus of servant leadership is on meeting the needs of individual followers, we propose,
based on servant leadership philosophy espoused
by Greenleaf (1970), that servant leadership also
provides substantial benefits to the collective
through the culture cultivated by servant leaders.
Specifically, serving cultures are characterized by a
focus on understanding the needs of others and
helping others, both within and outside of the unit.
Help and support can range from disseminating
technical advice to providing emotional support to
assisting those in need of personal healing. Help
and support from others tends to motivate participants in the system to engage in behaviors that
benefit the whole (Cameron & Spreitzer, 2012).
Whereas some cultures are destructive and
linked to ineffective performance (Gelfand et al.,
2012), we contend that serving cultures are positive
and encourage participant behaviors that enhance
1438
Academy of Management Journal
work unit performance (Cameron & Spreitzer,
2012). Peterson et al. (2012) proposed that this occurs because followers who are empowered, encouraged to reach their highest potential, and provided with clarity of focus, strive to perform at the
highest level. Expanding on this, we argue that the
norms for behavior that provide the basis for a
ser …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades