The paradox of serving: Can genuine servant leadership gain followers’ respect for the leader? Evidence from Germany and Lithuania

Abstract

A growing body of research shows that servant leadership is related to important organizational outcomes. Yet far less attention has been given to the mechanisms of servant leadership. This is particularly true for those dimensions of servant leadership that are inherently paradoxical and run counter to the common notion of leaders as strong influencers. In an effort to contribute to servant leadership research, this study investigated the relation between perceived genuine servant leadership behaviours (i.e. standing back, humility, authenticity) and respect for the leader, reflecting followers’ acceptance of their leader’s influence. Survey data were collected from 438 employees from various organizations in Germany and Lithuania and analysed via multi-group structural equation modelling. Results showed that the positive relation between perceived genuine servant leadership and respect for the leader was sequentially mediated by followers’ perceptions of alignment with ideal leader prototype and personal identification with the leader. Overall, this study elucidates the interplay between leadership and service, enhancing the understanding of how perceived genuine servant leadership has positive effects on followers. By drawing on two samples from different cultural clusters, this study strengthens the validity of the results and thus also contributes more generally to the cross-cultural applicability of servant leadership.

Keywords

Genuine servant leadership ideal leader prototype identification influence respect

Introduction

The notion of servant leadership, although rooted in ancient philosophy and traditional spiritual approaches, was introduced in a now classic essay by Robert Greenleaf (1970, 1977). According to Greenleaf (1970, 1977), servant leadership is inherently about follower development and prioritizing the good of followers over self-interest. While it initially received little attention from leadership scholars, there has been a steady increase in scientific research on servant leadership over the past 15 years. Researchers have examined the theoretical underpinnings of servant leadership, developed psychometrically sound measures, and established evidence for its positive effects on individual and organizational outcomes (for overviews see Liden et al., 2014; Parris and Peachey, 2013; Van Dierendonck, 2011). Overall, research has consistently demonstrated that servant leadership is unique among leadership approaches in that it posits humility and serving others as the central components of the leadership process (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Support for the conceptual distinctiveness of servant leadership also comes from a recent meta-analysis of different forms of ethically positive leadership (Hoch et al., 2018).

Usually, servant leadership is characterized as a multidimensional construct (see Van Dierendonck, 2011, for a detailed overview), comprising different leader behaviours. Whereas some of them reflect common leadership qualities such as conceptual skills (Erhart, 2004; Liden et al., 2008) as well as empowering followers and giving direction (Van Dierendonck and Nuijten, 2011), other dimensions clearly refer to the unique features captured in the name servant leadership. Notably, in their developmental study, Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) compared different servant leadership dimensions via factor analysis and found that three dimensions, namely standing back, humility and authenticity, build up what they called the ‘servant-side’ of servant leadership, referring to the ‘willingness to support, to listen to and to serve others. It is about being able to be authentic and stand back, thereby allowing the employees to flourish’ (Van Dierendonck and Nuijten, 2011: 261). Since this represents the essence of servant leadership, the pertinent literature also speaks of it as ‘genuine servant leadership’ (Pircher Verdorfer, 2016). As such, the term ‘genuine’ does not mean ‘true’ or ‘real’ as opposed to ‘fake’ or ‘devious’ servant leadership, but rather, it describes what is genuinely captured in the notion of servant leadership, constituting the core of the construct.

As mentioned above, genuine servant leadership is reflected in three key behaviours. First, standing back refers to the degree to which a leader puts followers first. As such, a servant leader is not seeking rewards or benefits with the leadership role but gives support and credit to others, especially when tasks have been successfully accomplished. Second, related to standing back is humility. This dimension describes a leader who has a realistic perspective of him/herself, including understanding his/her limitations and weaknesses. Thus, a servant leader actively seeks feedback from others and learns from criticism in order to overcome these limitations. The third dimension is authenticity, which is about being true to oneself. This means that a servant leader acts in accordance with internalized values and expresses his/her true intentions and motivations to others. In line with the notion of humility, this includes openness about one’s limitations and weaknesses. This dimension partially overlaps with authentic leadership development theory (Avolio and Gardner, 2005), with its inherent focus on leaders being authentic in their interactions with followers. However, recent research has shown that leaders can score high on both authentic leadership and Machiavellianism (Sendjaya et al., 2016). In contrast, a servant leader is uniquely concerned with follower development, precluding manipulative or self-interested behaviours.

In light of these characteristics, several authors have stressed the paradoxical nature of genuine servant leadership. Specifically, the paradox is that service and voluntary subordination imply followership, whereas leadership is inherently about influencing others (Northouse, 2013; Sendjaya, 2015). In fact, through its emphasis on humility and putting followers first, genuine servant leadership seems to even reduce direct and intentional influence. Yet since leadership is explicitly defined as an influence process (Northouse, 2013), genuine servant leadership begs an explanation for whether and how its influence process is successful. Whereas past research indicates that trust is an essential mechanism through which genuine servant leadership fosters positive follower outcomes (Schaubroeck et al., 2011), there is still a dearth of empirical evidence for the influence effectiveness of genuine servant leadership. In fact, the notion that providing service and being humble effectuate influence over followers represents an implicit but rarely explicitly and empirically considered assumption in the literature on servant leadership (Sendjaya, 2015). This is unfortunate from both a theoretical and a practical perspective. From a theoretical viewpoint, our understanding of whether and, even more importantly, how genuine servant leadership can align followers remains underdeveloped. From a practical perspective, serving is usually viewed as the opposite of leading and thus, leaders and practitioners may remain reluctant or even entirely refuse the idea of genuine servant leadership because they perceive it as whimsical, passive and, eventually, inefficient.

Against this background, the main goal of the present article is to investigate the relationship between genuine servant leadership behaviours and followers’ openness to the leader’s influence, which is regarded as the essence of leadership effectiveness (Yukl, 2010). In the pertinent literature, this openness to the leader’s influence is captured by the notion of appraisal respect (Van Quaquebeke et al., 2007). Appraisal respect (hereafter ‘respect’) refers to ‘the degree of influence one allows an object to exert on oneself’ (Van Quaquebeke et al., 2007: 193). As such, respect for the leader represents a proxy for perceived ‘worthiness of influence’ (Liborius, 2014) and signifies the degree to which followers voluntarily and consciously accept the influence (i.e. leadership) of their leader. Simply put, this means that followers generally go along with the leadership in that they seek advice from and willingly accept the requests of their leader, instead of resisting, ignoring or even undermining them (Van Quaquebeke et al., 2007). This conscious acceptance of influence can be regarded as the essence of leadership effectiveness (Yukl, 2010), and therefore followers’ respect for the leader represents a pivotal criterion for the effectiveness of genuine servant leadership.

The intended contribution of this research is twofold. First, this article seeks to shed light on the psychological mechanisms by which genuine servant leadership affects followers. Leadership scholars (e.g. Yukl, 2010) have consistently stressed the importance of studying explanatory processes of leadership influence on followers in more detail. Servant leadership, in general, is still at an early stage of theoretical development (Liden et al., 2014) and thus this is particularly true for processes pertaining to genuine servant leadership. The theoretical model draws on leader categorization theory (Lord, 1985) as well as follower self-conception (Aron et al., 2004; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). It posits that genuine servant leader behaviours considerably match followers’ conception of an ideal leader (i.e. ideal leader prototype) and promote followers’ respect for the leader through personal identification with the leader.

A second contribution of this study is to test this link in an international context. Specifically, the proposed relations are investigated using data from Germany and Lithuania. Internationalization and globalization have long become a fact of organizational life, especially in Europe, where the European Union has particularly triggered economic interdependency and cultural exchange among countries (Starren et al., 2013). Thus, the cross-cultural validity of servant leadership increasingly becomes of interest. Yet despite Irving’s (2010) call for research in more culturally diverse settings, the bulk of servant leadership research emanates from the United States (US). In Europe, most empirical studies on servant leadership have been conducted in the Netherlands (e.g. Kool and Van Dierendonck, 2012; Van Dierendonck and Nuijten, 2011; Van Dierendonck et al., 2014), while research on servant leadership is still in its infancy in other parts of Europe. Only a few studies have explored servant leadership in Germany (e.g. Pircher Verdorfer, 2016; Pircher Verdorfer and Peus, 2014; Rivkin et al., 2014) and formerly socialist countries such as Lithuania (Alonderiene and Majauskaite, 2016). This is a potentially meaningful oversight given that existing evidence from Global Leadership and Organizational Behaviour Effectiveness (GLOBE) research (House et al., 2004) suggests that the features of genuine servant leadership may be universally endorsed, while other cross-cultural research (Hofstede et al., 2010) points to some potentially limiting cultural characteristics (i.e. individualism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity) that, to some degree, vary across these countries. Thus, it is important to examine whether and to what degree genuine servant leadership is an effective form of leadership in Germany and Lithuania.

Taken together, by elucidating whether and how genuine servant leadership facilitates followers’ respect for leaders within these contexts, this study informs the existing leadership literature, which remains divided about genuine servant leadership’s effectiveness and cross-cultural applicability.

Theoretical background and hypotheses

Since leadership generally entails influence, status and high degrees of visibility, leaders are likely deemed ‘prestigeful models’ (Bandura, 1977: 88) and thus likely to become sources of respect.

This fits well with Van Quaquebeke et al.’s (2007) notion that respect is domain-specific, meaning that individuals generally owe respect to individuals in domains that they can relate to. That said, the argument here is that genuine servant leadership considerably matches followers’ conception of an ideal leader (i.e. ideal leader prototype), thus enhancing the attractiveness and credibility of a leader as a source of respect.

Empirical support for the notion that genuine servant leadership may enhance followers’ respect for their leader comes from research conducted by Liborius (2014). In a series of scenario experiments, he found that leader characteristics of integrity, humility, forgiveness and a genuine caring attitude towards followers positively influenced followers’ willingness to follow leaders. Notably, these characteristics echo the core behaviours of genuine servant leadership.

However, I propose that this relationship is not appropriately conceptualized as a direct effect, but some intervening factors are needed to describe this process. The proposed model is depicted in Figure 1. In what follows, I provide a theoretical rationale for the various links in the model.

Figure 1.

Hypothesized model.

Within leadership research, a well-established notion is that followers compare leaders’ characteristics and behaviours with their implicit conception of an ideal leader. This process is called leader categorization (Lord, 1985). The pertinent literature provides considerable support for the assumption that the features of genuine servant leadership (i.e. humility, standing back, authenticity) match implicit expectations regarding good leadership across various countries and cultures. For instance, Eisenbeiss (2012) reviewed and integrated the normative underpinnings of ethically positive leadership and found ‘temperance and humility and balanced leader behaviour’ (Eisenbeiss, 2012: 797) are central principles of ethical leadership in all major Western and Eastern moral philosophy and religious traditions. Accordingly, the features of genuine servant leadership appear to be reflected in specific culturally endorsed implicit leadership dimensions as identified in the GLOBE study, which examined attributes of effective leadership in 62 cultures (House et al., 2004). Specifically, humility and standing back are akin to the GLOBE leadership prototype scales of self-sacrificial leader behaviours and modesty, both of which were generally reported as contributing to good leadership in the GLOBE study. In contrast, self-protective leadership, referring to self- and status-centred behaviours as well as the avoidance or suppression of criticism, was generally reported to undermine good leadership. Finally, authenticity is akin to GLOBE characteristics such as trustworthiness, honesty and sincerity, which are also associated with desired leadership qualities. This is in line with recent research findings reported by Nichols and Cottrell (2014), who adopted a trait desirability perspective and found that in addition to intelligence, trustworthiness is the most important desired trait of an ideal leader. Against this backdrop, it is plausible that followers’ perceptions of genuine servant leadership correspond with their ideal leader prototype. In other words, the more genuine servant leadership behaviours followers perceive, the more they will come to view the leader as representing their ideal leader prototype. Thus, the following prediction is specified:

Hypothesis 1: Perceived genuine servant leadership is positively related to followers’ perceived alignment with ideal leader prototype.

Leader categorization theory argues that the perceived degree of congruence between the ideal leader prototype and the characteristics of the actual leader has a significant impact on overall impressions and evaluations of the leader (Lord, 1985). For instance, in their field study, Epitropaki and Martin (2005) found that the match between leader prototype and the actual leader was a strong predictor for the quality of leader–member exchanges (LMX), which was positively associated with followers’ organizational commitment, job satisfaction and well-being. In a similar vein, previous research shows that followers strongly rely on their conception of an ideal leader to determine whether and to what degree they go along with and accept the leadership of their current leader. Accordingly, several studies found that the degree to which followers respect their leader can be seen as a function of perceived congruence between an actual leader and an ideal leader prototype (Eckloff and Van Quaquebeke, 2008; Van Quaquebeke et al., 2011a, 2011b). At the same time, these studies found that the relation between perceived alignment with ideal leader prototype and followers’ respect for the leader is not adequately captured as a sole direct effect, identifying personal identification with the leader as an important intervening variable in this link (Eckloff and Van Quaquebeke, 2008). In fact, it is well established in social identity research that self-expansion-seeking is a central human motivation (Aron et al., 2004). Notably, such an extended self-conception can also include significant others, such as one’s leader. The more leaders’ behaviours are congruent with desired behaviours, the more the leaders will become objects of identification (Aron et al., 2004). This leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Followers’ perceived alignment with the ideal leader prototype is positively related to followers’ personal identification with the leader.

In turn, as personal identification with the leader reflects the perceived degree of unity in values and interests (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004), a high level of personal identification will naturally facilitate followers’ respect for their leaders. This fully corresponds with the notion that personal identification with the leader can be regarded as openness to influence that takes place on a more unconscious level (Eckloff and Van Quaquebeke, 2008; Van Quaquebeke and Eckloff, 2010) that precedes the conscious choice to be open to one’s leader’s influence (i.e. respect for the leader). Thus, the following prediction is specified:

Hypothesis 3: Followers’ personal identification with the leader is positively related to followers’ respect for the leader.

Implicit here are three mediation hypotheses: first, perceived genuine servant leadership predicts followers’ personal identification through the mediating effect of perceived alignment with ideal leader prototype. Second, personal identification mediates the relationship between perceived alignment with ideal leader prototype and respect for the leader. Third, taken together, the above predictions result in a serial mediation model, emanating from perceived genuine servant leadership and culminating in respect for the leader through perceived alignment with ideal leader prototype and personal identification with the leader:

Hypothesis 4: The relationship between perceived genuine servant leadership and followers’ personal identification with the leader is mediated by perceived alignment with ideal leader prototype.

Hypothesis 5: The relationship between perceived alignment with ideal leader prototype and followers’ respect for the leader is mediated by personal identification with the leader.

Hypothesis 6: The relationship between perceived genuine servant leadership and followers’ respect for the leader is sequentially mediated by perceived alignment with ideal leader prototype and personal identification with the leader.

An intended contribution of the present research is to examine whether the proposed relationships hold in a cross-cultural context (i.e. Germany and Lithuania). However, as previously mentioned, relevant theoretical propositions derived from different streams of cross-cultural research provide conflicting predictions about genuine servant leaderships’ validity and applicability across cultures. Indeed, the existing literature does not provide sufficient evidence to specify concrete hypotheses or predict the relative strength of the proposed relations in each country (i.e. Germany and Lithuania). This is explained across the dimensions of power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism and masculinity (Hofstede et al., 2010).

First, based on Hofstede et al. (2010), both Germany and Lithuania are low power distance cultures (i.e. have a generalized preference for equality and distribution of power). In such cultures, humble and authentic leader behaviours may be particularly appreciated by followers (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Both countries also rank relatively high on uncertainty avoidance (i.e. an aversion to unstructured situations and ambiguity) and individualism (i.e. a generalized preference for autonomy; Hofstede et al., 2010), obscuring the connection with genuine servant leadership. For example, genuine servant leadership involves some relinquishing of control, which requires more autonomy and initiative from followers. This is usually seen positively in individualistic cultures (Hale and Fields, 2007). Alternatively, individualistic cultures also show greater acceptance for more ego-driven motives than more collectivistic cultures (Jung and Avolio, 1999). Thus, a genuine servant leader may appear as rather unconventional in such contexts. Similarly, employees with low uncertainty tolerance are expected to desire clear rules and guidance (Hofstede et al., 2010) and may thus prefer more directive forms of leadership. Hence, followers in such cultural contexts may come to view humble and authentic leaders as somewhat weak. Yet it is also plausible that servant leaders enhance predictability because they actively seek others’ contributions and are authentic with regard to their intentions (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Finally, whereas Germany and Lithuania score similarly on the dimensions of power distance, individualism and uncertainty avoidance, Germany ranks higher than Lithuania on masculinity (i.e. the value placed on assertiveness and the need to excel; Hofstede et al., 2010). Since masculinity opposes modest behaviour (Hofstede et al., 2010), Lithuania may be a better fit for genuine servant leadership than Germany. However, Greenleaf (1970, 1977) argued that servant leaders can express humility and still be seen as confident and assertive.

In summary, it seems plausible that the qualities of genuine servant leadership are well received in both Germany and Lithuania. Yet given the paucity of directly relevant empirical foundations, it did not seem appropriate to formulate specific hypotheses regarding the relative differences between the countries. Thus, the following research question is proposed:

Research Question 1: Are the relations among the study variables (i.e. perceived genuine servant leadership, perceived alignment with ideal leader prototype, follower personal identification with and respect for the leader) as proposed in the study hypotheses similar across the German and the Lithuanian contexts?

Method

Sample and procedures

Two samples were used to test the hypotheses under investigation. The first sample was collected in Germany, the second sample was collected in Lithuania. Snowball sampling starting with the author’s personal and professional network of contacts (including the networks of three graduate students involved in data collection) was used. Potential participants were contacted online and asked to forward the survey to people in their networks.

In Germany, 348 employees from various organizations accessed the survey; 224 employees provided valid responses (response rate: 64.37%). Of the participants in this sample, 25% worked for non-profit organizations or in the public sector; 43% of the respondents were male. The mean age was 36.6 years (standard deviation (SD) = 11.9) and the average tenure with the leader was 4.9 years (SD = 5.4). With regard to education, 44% of the respondents had a university degree, 22% had a high school education, 20% had vocational school education, and 14% had finished secondary school or other schooling without a high school diploma.

In Lithuania, out of 300 employees from various organizations who accessed the survey, 214 provided valid responses (response rate: 71.33%); 31% of the participants in this sample worked for non-profit organizations or in the public sector; 25% of the respondents were male. The mean age was 28.2 years (SD = 6.8) and the average tenure with the leader was 2.5 years (SD = 2.7). In terms of education, 24% of the respondents held a university degree; 23% had a high school education, whereas the majority (i.e. 45%) had vocational school education; 8% finished secondary school or other schooling without a high school diploma.

Measures

Followers’ perceptions of genuine servant leadership behaviours were measured with three subscales (i.e. humility, standing back and authenticity) taken from Van Dierendonck and Nuijten’s (2011) Servant Leadership Survey (SLS). A German version of the SLS was developed by Pircher Verdorfer and Peus (2014). By drawing on Van Dierendonck et al. (2017), each dimension was assessed with three items (e.g. standing back: ‘My leader keeps him/herself in the background and gives credit to others’; humility: ‘My leader learns from the different views and opinions of others’; authenticity: ‘My leader is open about his/her limitations and weaknesses’), answered on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree).

In order to assess the perceived alignment with ideal leader prototype, a single item graphic measure taken from Van Quaquebeke et al. (2011a) was used. Respondents were asked to answer the following question: ‘To what degree does your current leader represent your ideal picture of a good leader?’ The graphic response scale was constructed as two circles with seven degrees of overlap, representing the fit between the current and the ideal leader (1 = no overlap to 7 = complete overlap).

Followers’ respect for their leader was measured with a 6-item scale, developed by Van Quaquebeke and Brodbeck (2008), who has used it in several studies (e.g. Van Quaquebeke et al., 2011a). Sample items were: ‘For me, my leader represents a positive role model at the workplace’ and ‘In a lot of matters concerning work, I gladly seek advice from my leader’. Items were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

Followers’ personal identification with the leader was measured with an adapted German version (Eckloff and Van Quaquebeke, 2008) of Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) 6-item Organizational Identification Questionnaire. The items were adapted to the current leader as the target focus of identification. Sample items were: ‘When I talk about my leader, I usually say “we” rather than “he/she”’ and ‘My leader’s successes are my successes’. The items were each anchored on a 5-point continuum (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). For data collection in the Lithuanian-speaking sample, all instruments applied in this study were translated into Lithuanian using the standard method of back-translation (Brislin, 1980).

Results

Measurement invariance

Since data for the present research were obtained from two different countries, it is important to ensure that the measurement of the relevant constructs is invariant across the two samples (Davidov et al., 2011). Thus, measurement invariance was examined by conducting multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) in AMOS. First, the author tested for configural invariance for each measure (i.e. genuine servant leadership, personal identification and respect). Configural invariance is the most basic form of measurement invariance, requiring that the same item is a manifest indicator of the same latent factor in each group (Vandenberg and Lance, 2000). Results of this multi-group model testing are reported in Table 1, showing that the hypothesized factor structure holds across groups.

Table 1.

Results of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (configural invariance).

Measure	Number of items	χ²_(df)	χ²/df	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR
Genuine servant leadership	9	91.38₍₄₈₎***	1.90	.97	.05	.04
Identification	6	69.10₍₁₈₎***	3.83	.93	.08	.05
Respect	6	69.84₍₁₈₎***	3.90	.96	.08	.05

Genuine servant leadership is represented as a first-order factor model (with the three correlated subdimensions ‘humility’, ‘standing back’ and ‘authenticity’). CFI: comparative fit index; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; SRMR: standardized root mean square residual; df: degree of freedom.

***

p < .001.

Next, metric and scalar invariance were tested. Whereas metric invariance refers to the invariance of factor loadings (i.e. the unit of measurement), scalar invariance also requires that the item intercepts (i.e. the origin of the scale) are equal across groups (Vandenberg and Lance, 2000).

Accordingly, for each measure, a model in which the factor loadings and intercepts were constrained to be equal was compared with a model in which the parameters were freely estimated. For model comparison, I followed the recommendations of Meade et al. (2008), suggesting that a change of ⩽.002 in comparative fit index (CFI) indicates invariance among groups. With regard to factor loadings, no full invariance could be established (genuine servant leadership: ΔCFI = .01, personal identification: ΔCFI = .01, respect: ΔCFI = .009). For scalar invariance, a similar pattern was found (genuine servant leadership: ΔCFI = .06, personal identification: ΔCFI = .06, respect: ΔCFI = .07). On this basis, I tested for partial invariance (Baumgartner and Steenkamp, 1998; Byrne et al., 1989) to determine which factor loadings and intercepts were different across groups. Specifically, separate models for each item were created, in which the target parameters (i.e. factor loadings and intercepts) were constrained to be equal across the two subsamples, while the parameters of the other items were freely estimated. Each constrained model was then compared with the non-constrained model, in which all parameters were allowed to vary. This procedure revealed that in each target construct (i.e. genuine servant leadership, personal identification and respect) five items showed metric invariance. Furthermore, in line with established conditions of measurement equivalence (Baumgartner and Steenkamp, 1998; Byrne et al., 1989), at least two items per construct were found to also show scalar invariance, thus allowing valid group comparisons. Technically, for the purpose of this study, this form of measurement invariance is a particularly stringent basis. In fact, to compare relations between the factors under investigation, partial invariance of the factor loadings is enough because one unit of change in one group equals one unit of change in the other group. Invariance of intercepts, in addition, permits the comparison of latent means, which is not the primary purpose in the present research. In summary, this pattern indicates that it was statistically appropriate to compare structural relations among the study variables across the two subsamples by using multi-group structural equation modelling (MGSEM). Notably, the use of SEM has been explicitly suggested under the condition of partial measurement invariance (Steinmetz, 2013).

Measurement model

Prior to testing the proposed structural relations, MGCFA in AMOS was used to see whether the measurement model had good fit across the two samples. For all latent variables, items rather than item parcels were used as indicators. This is in line with established recommendations in the literature arguing that multidimensional constructs are best treated as a latent variable in SEM (Edwards, 2001) and that the use of items as indicators results in more robust and accurate structural parameter estimates (Little et al., 2002), especially if the number of parameters is reasonable relative to sample size. For model comparison, I again followed Meade et al. (2008) and used the change in CFI (i.e. ΔCFI > .002) as the main cut-off criterion for model selection. Results showed that a three-factor model with genuine servant leadership, personal identification as well as respect for the leader as separate factors fit the data reasonably well across the two samples (χ² = 748.86, degree of freedom (df) = 372, p < .001, χ²/df = 2.01, CFI = .92, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .04, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .07). This model was preferable to a model in which all items were allowed to load onto one factor (χ² = 1461.93, df = 378, p < .001, χ²/df = 3.86, CFI = .76, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .09, Δχ²₍₆₎ = 714.07, p < 0.001, ΔCFI = .16) and a two-factor model in which personal identification with and respect for the leader were merged into a single factor (χ² = 1029.61, df = 376, p < .001, χ²/df = 2.73, CFI = .85, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .08, Δχ²₍₄₎ = 432.32, p < .001, ΔCFI = .07). These results indicate that the measures captured distinct constructs versus common source effects and thus represent valid tools for assessing the variables under investigation (Conway and Lance, 2010).

Hypotheses tests

Tables 2 and 3 report the descriptive statistics and the correlations among the study variables.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics and correlations (German sample).

		M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1.	Age	36.60	11.90
2.	Gender	–	–	.05
3.	Tenure with the leader	4.90	5.40	.39***	.02
4.	Education	–	–	−.08	.10	−.19***
5.	Humility	4.05	1.07	.03	.16*	−.14*	.12	(.90)
6.	Standing back	3.66	.97	.00	−.01	−.05	.04	.58***	(.65)
7.	Authenticity	3.57	1.06	.14*	−.03	−.07	−.01	.62***	.49***	(.73)
8.	Perceived alignment with ideal leader prototype	4.32	1.43	−.02	.04	−.06	.06	.65***	.64***	.57***	–
9.	Personal identification with the leader	2.84	.80	.03	.09	.06	.01	.41***	.37***	.40***	.47***	(.77)
10.	Respect for the leader	3.74	.87	−.13*	−.01	−.14*	.09	.62***	.56***	.46***	.72***	.52***	(.88)

N = 224; sex is coded 1 = female, 2 = male; means (M) and standard deviations (SD) are reported for metric variables only; Cronbach’s alphas appear on the diagonal; ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics and correlations (Lithuanian sample).

		M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1.	Age	28.20	6.80
2.	Gender	–	–	.08
3.	Tenure with the leader	2.50	2.70	.37***	–.03
4.	Education	–	–	.10	.09	−.05
5.	Humility	3.68	1.37	−.06	−.08	−.04	−.01	(.82)
6.	Standing back	3.41	1.31	−.04	−.14*	.04	−.03	.67***	(.68)
7.	Authenticity	3.77	1.16	−.10	.02	.05	.00	.63***	.51***	(.60)
8.	Perceived alignment with ideal leader prototype	3.41	1.64	−.08	−.03	−.06	−.07	.50***	.53***	.42***	–
9.	Personal identification with the leader	2.94	.83	.04	−.01	−.04	.04	.43***	.51***	.46***	.57***	(.80)
10.	Respect for the leader	3.44	.92	−.04	−.08	.00	−.09	.62***	.70***	.50***	.71***	.57***	(.87)

N = 214; gender is coded 1 = female, 2 = male; means (M) and standard deviations (SD) are reported for metric variables only; Cronbach’s alphas appear on the diagonal; ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.

In order to test the proposed hypotheses in more detail, MGSEM in AMOS was used. Again, items rather than item parcels were used as indicators for all latent variables. Importantly, since a common latent genuine servant leadership factor is expected to account for the relation between the three subdimensions (i.e., humility, standing back, and authenticity), perceived genuine servant leadership was conceptualized as a single latent variable in the MGSEM model (Edwards, 2001). The mediation model and the path coefficients for each sample are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Test of the hypothesized model.

As predicted, perceived genuine servant leadership predicted followers’ perceptions of alignment with ideal leader prototype, which in turn was positively related to personal identification with the leader. Therefore, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported. Furthermore, Hypothesis 3 was confirmed in that personal identification with the leader was positively related to follower ratings of respect for the leader. Next, the proposed mediation effects were tested. Following the recommendations of James et al. (2006), the fit of a full mediation model was compared with that of an alternative partial mediation model to test these predictions. The full mediation model included three paths, linking perceived genuine servant leadership to respect for the leader through followers’ perceptions of alignment with ideal leader prototype and personal identification with the leader. The partial mediation model added three direct paths: one from perceived genuine servant leadership to personal identification with the leader (Hypothesis 4), one from perceptions of alignment with ideal leader prototype to respect for the leader (Hypothesis 5), and finally, a direct path connecting perceived genuine servant leadership to respect for the leader (Hypothesis 6). The MGSEM analysis revealed a relatively poor model fit for the full mediation model across the two samples (χ² = 1019.14, df = 414, p < .001, χ²/df = 2.46, CFI = .88, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .11), whereas the partial mediation model fitted the data significantly better (χ² = 806.69, df = 408, p < .001, χ²/df = 1.97, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .07, Δχ²₍₆₎ = 212.45, p < .001, ΔCFI = .04). To test the indirect effects, bootstrap confidence intervals were created. Table 4 shows the results of this procedure, indicating that all proposed indirect effects were in the expected direction and significantly different from zero. Hence, Hypotheses 4, 5 and 6 were confirmed.

Table 4.

Test of the indirect effects.

Hypothesis		Indirect effect	95% CI
			LL	UL
4	GSL→ ILPT→ ID	.34 [.16]	.18 [.08]	.54 [.26]
5	ILPT→ ID→ RES	.08 [.06]	.04 [02]	.15 [.11]
6	GSL→ ILPT → ID→ RES	.70 [.34]	.49 [.23]	1.02 [.48]

All coefficients are unstandardized; the coefficients in brackets refer to the Lithuanian sample; the coefficients with no brackets refer to the German sample; GSL: perceived genuine servant leadership; ILPT: perceived alignment with ideal leader prototype; ID: personal identification with the leader; RES: respect for the leader; CI: confidence interval; LL: lower limit; UL: upper limit.

At this point, a brief comment on the use of control variables is warranted. Although follower gender, age, education and tenure with the leader (see Tables 2 and 3) were captured in the survey, these variables were not included in the main analysis. Following the recommendations of Aguinis and Vandenberg (2014) as well as Becker et al. (2016), there was no solid conceptual framework justifying the institution of these variables as controls. Specifically, the present study was not designed to consider systematic age effects (e.g. Kearney, 2008) or effects pertaining to gender (e.g. Eagly et al., 1995) or education (e.g. Ng and Feldman, 2009). The same is true for tenure with the leader. Studies from adjacent research in the field of LMX provides mixed results on the relationship between demographic similarity, including leader–follower tenure, and relationship quality (Martin et al., 2010). Therefore it was not included in the main analysis, since ‘unless there is a sound reason for including a control variable, adding it can obfuscate rather than clarify relationships among the variables of interest’ (Becker et al., 2016: 159).¹

Regarding Research Question 1, results showed that the obtained effects were rather similar across the two samples in both direction and magnitude. To investigate whether the path coefficients were invariant across the two samples, a model was tested in which the path coefficients were required to be identical for both groups. The fit of a model in which the path coefficients were freely estimated was then examined. Whereas the chi-square difference test revealed a small, yet statistically significant difference (Δχ²₍₆₎ = 12.66, p < .05), the difference in CFI was 0 and thus clearly below the .002 cut-off point recommend by Meade et al. (2008), indicating structural invariance (Byrne, 2010).

Discussion

This study examined the relationship between perceived genuine servant leadership and followers’ respect for their leader, which reflects openness to leadership at an explicit and conscious level. Specifically, it was predicted that perceptions of genuine servant leadership would progress to respect through the intermediate links of perceived alignment with ideal leader prototype and personal identification with the leader. Drawing on an international sample (i.e. data from Germany and Lithuania), results provide clear support for these hypotheses.

Theoretical implications

From a theoretical viewpoint, an important contribution of this study is that genuine servant leadership behaviours match followers’ implicit representations of ideal leadership to a considerable extent. The more followers perceive their leader to show genuine servant leader behaviours, the more leadership ratings correspond with perceptions of alignment with ideal leader prototype. Furthermore, the study sheds light on how genuine servant leadership works and on the mechanisms through which it may translate into positive follower outcomes. This echoes recent efforts to extend research on genuine servant leadership beyond the investigation of outcomes, and to devote more attention to uncovering the underlying mechanisms (Bryant and Brown, 2014; Liden et al., 2014).

The general pattern that emerged from the data supports the notion that genuine servant leadership behaviours are not associated with weakness or even a loss of power. Rather, by showing authenticity and humility and by stepping out of the spotlight to let others shine, servant leaders can gain their followers’ respect. Along with findings of previous research on other leadership constructs such as transformational leadership (Kark et al., 2003), the findings presented herein suggest that personal identification with the leader may be a critical intervening variable in this link. In turn, followers’ personal identification with and respect for their leader is highly likely to facilitate subsequent, more direct and intentional influence attempts by the leader. Stated differently, servanthood appears to be a promising means to enhance influence (Sendjaya, 2015), thus reconciling the paradoxical and counterintuitive nature of genuine servant leadership. A recent field study by Sousa and Van Dierendonck (2017) also supports this idea. The authors found that leader humility and the ability to stand back increased the impact of more ‘action-oriented’ leadership behaviours, such as acting as role models and empowering their followers, as well as holding followers accountable for their performance. Furthermore, personal identification with and respect for the leader have been shown to play an important role in the prediction of important organizational outcomes such as followers’ job satisfaction, performance, affective organizational commitment and reduced turnover intention (Hobman et al., 2011; Van Quaquebeke and Eckloff, 2010; Zhu et al., 2013).

A notable empirical contribution of the current research is its testing of the proposed model across two countries: Germany and Lithuania. Although the samples were not representative of each country’s population and not explicitly intended to provide a comprehensive cross-cultural comparison, it is noteworthy that the obtained effects were invariant across the two samples. This strengthens the validity of the results and also contributes more generally to the cross-cultural applicability of genuine servant leadership. As Van Dierendonck et al. (2017: 2) point out, this is especially relevant for leadership research and practice in Europe, ‘where each country has developed its own habits, norms, and values and where several different cultural clusters can be distinguished’.

Specifically, the results support the notion that low power cultures are conducive to genuine servant leadership (Van Dierendonck, 2011), although future research should explicitly compare higher power distance cultures – especially in light of evidence suggesting that servant leadership can have counterproductive effects on followers who do not desire the benevolent qualities of a servant leader (e.g. Meuser et al., 2011). Thus, it would not only be particularly interesting in such studies to capture cultural values at the individual level (Yoo et al., 2011), but furthermore to explicitly assess whether followers desire this particular type of leadership.

Additionally, the present results indicate that genuine servant leadership is compatible with cultural contexts that emphasize individualism and uncertainty avoidance. Interestingly, even masculinity with its strong focus on assertiveness and performance orientation seems insufficient to hinder genuine servant leadership and its positive effects, as suggested by the results from the German sample where cultural masculinity is particularly high. This implies that conceptions of servant leadership as passivity or meekness are inaccurate and misleading.

Practical implications

In addition to these theoretical implications, the results of this study also have implications for practice. Previous research indicates that leaders who show qualities akin to genuine servant leadership, such as acknowledging their own limitations and appreciating and seeking others’ contributions, are an important success factor in team-based environments (Owens et al., 2013). Accordingly, although it is not a general trend yet, leading companies in their field – such as Google and Rockwell Automation – are increasingly acknowledging the strategic importance of such qualities when it comes to effective leadership (Prime and Salib, 2014). Thus, a field that can strongly benefit from considering the features of genuine servant leadership is leader selection and development. Selection procedures may focus on the one hand on humility as a desirable personality quality, or on the other hand on excessive self-interest (i.e. narcissism and Machiavellianism) as a particularly undesirable trait. Moreover, indicators of genuine servant leadership may be included in 360-degree feedback. Here, it is worth pointing out that this study offers the first psychometrically sound measure of genuine servant leadership, explicitly adopted for use in Lithuania. On this basis, training can be developed, enabling leaders to engage in self-reflexive practices (Nesbit, 2012) and putting themselves in a proper perspective. Yet by their very nature, the qualities of genuine servant leadership (i.e. humility, standing back and authenticity) may come more naturally to some people than to others, and it seems difficult to develop them by simply addressing knowledge of and attitudes towards genuine servant leadership in conventional training settings. However, a particularly promising approach for developing genuine servant leadership has recently been identified in a study by Pircher Verdorfer (2016). He found that leaders’ trait of mindfulness – the capacity for non-elaborative, non-judgemental attention and awareness oriented towards the present moment (Brown et al., 2007; Shapiro et al., 2006) – was positively associated with followers’ perceptions of genuine servant leadership behaviours, but not with other dimensions of general servant leadership (such as empowerment or holding followers accountable). Since there is solid evidence in the literature that mindfulness is trainable and can be developed through formal and informal mindfulness training (for an overview see Creswell, 2017), leadership development can strongly benefit from including such mindfulness-based interventions. However, if an organization seeks to develop the qualities of genuine servant leadership, it is also important to create conditions that support leaders in serving others. This requires clarity of expectations regarding the conduct of followers (Kaptein, 2008) and visible top management commitment to the principles of a serving culture.

The results of this study may also be relevant for practitioners interested in the applicability of genuine servant leadership in Germany and Lithuania (and similar cultures). The idea of servant leadership is relatively new in these countries and thus may be met with some scepticism by the local business community. Unpacking the processes and mechanisms of genuine servant leadership through scientific means is of course critical. In the same way, however, we must describe what we mean when we assert that genuine servant leadership works. Thus, evidencing that genuine servant leadership is a viable tool for leaders to gain the respect of their followers may serve as a valuable talking point for practitioners who strive to advance servant leadership. Furthermore, the respondents in this study were relatively young, especially in the Lithuanian sample, with a mean age of 28.2 years. Thus, especially in Lithuania, genuine servant leadership may support the efforts to provide attractive working conditions in order to curtail the ongoing brain drain of young professionals (Kazlauskienė and Rinkevičius, 2006).

In a similar vein, the results may also be of interest to multinational companies operating in Germany and Lithuania. Here, it is helpful to know that Lithuania, as a very recent member of the Euro area, has strong business relations with Germany. In fact, over recent years, Germany has become the third-largest direct investor in Lithuania after Sweden and the Netherlands (Statistics Lithuania, 2016). Although the present study cannot unpack the entire complexity and nuances of cross-cultural leadership in Germany and Lithuania, leadership development programmes aimed at enhancing intercultural competences in these countries may nonetheless benefit from incorporating training in genuine servant leadership skills.

Limitations and future research

Of course, the present research is not without its limitations. Most notably, the cross-sectional nature of this study does not permit the inference of causation. Thus, potential causal interpretations are based on the evidence of covariation and confidence in the theoretical connections proposed. Furthermore, two aspects regarding the measurement strategy warrant attention. First, some scales used herein showed low reliabilities (i.e. below .80; Lance et al., 2006). This issue, however, was mitigated by the use of SEM, which accounts for measurement error (Edwards, 2001). Second, since the focus was on leadership perceptions and individual attitudes, a common data source (i.e. self-reports) for all focal variables was used. However, as Conway and Lance (2010) showed, self-report measures should not generally be suspected to be affected by common method bias (CMB) since potential inflationary effects of CMB are offset by the attenuating effects of measurement error (Lance et al., 2010). That said, the use of self-reports per se is not problematic, especially when the nature of the desired inference requires self-reports. In this study, I was interested in individual perceptions and attitudes of followers that can be reasonably addressed with monomethod self-reports. In addition, several steps were taken to reduce the likelihood of CMB. Most notably, CMB was minimized through psychological and methodological separation of measures. Specifically, where text measures were used, the items for different constructs were separated, and within constructs, items were randomized. For perceived alignment with ideal leader prototype, a pictorial measure was used. Moreover, ‘one way to rule out substantial method effects is to demonstrate construct validity of the measures used’ (Conway and Lance, 2010: 329). Items for different constructs did not overlap, and in line with this, results of the MGCFA provide sufficient evidence that the measures captured distinct constructs versus common source effects and represented valid tools for assessing the target constructs. Nonetheless, future studies would certainly benefit from further reducing the risk of CMB, for instance by employing even more diverse response formats and by using a time lag between the measurement of perceived leadership and the focal outcomes (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Importantly, other potential sources of common variance not related to genuine CMB deserve attention. For instance, if followers perceive themselves as similar to the leader, their responses – in particular those referring to personal identification with and respect for the leader – could be positively biased (Hansbrough et al., 2015). Thus, future research should control for perceived similarity and related factors, such as relationship quality between leaders and followers. Related to this, there is also the possibility that followers who strongly identify with and respect their leader may generally form more positive assessments of leader behaviours, pointing to the issue of reverse causality. In a similar vein, it is conceivable that followers who signal high levels of identification with and respect for their leader are treated differently by him/her, leading to more favorable ratings in terms of ideal leader prototype and genuine servant leadership. At the same time, however, it is plausible that the proposed effects actually emanate from the leader. On the one hand, leaders tend to surround themselves with individuals who are similar to themselves (Giberson et al., 2005), and on the other hand it is plausible that followers use the perceived leader behaviours as a benchmark for determining whether and to what degree the leader fits their conception of an ideal leader. This in turn seems to be an important condition that has to be fulfilled before followers can identify with their leader and proactively open themselves to the leader’s influence. Yet the cross-sectional study design of the present study offers support but not causal proof for the hypothesized effects of genuine servant leadership. As such, the results presented herein remain preliminary and future research should try to replicate and expand them, including a more thorough consideration of issues pertaining to endogeneity (Antonakis et al., 2014). Specifically, it would be particularly fruitful to use longitudinal designs, preferably including data from newcomers, to investigate how followers’ personal identification with and respect for their leader develop over time and to rule out reverse causality. Such studies should also consider additional leadership behaviours to test for the unique predictive validity of genuine servant leadership over other features contained in aggregate servant leadership measures, such as conceptual skills (Ehrhart, 2004; Liden et al., 2008) or empowerment (Liden et al., 2008; Van Dierendonck and Nuijten, 2011) as well as related leadership measures, most notably ethical, authentic or spiritual leadership (see Cropanzano and Walumbwa, 2010, for an overview). Furthermore, future longitudinal studies should also consider the relative importance of multiple intervening variables. For example, followers’ respect for their leader may not exclusively depend on their personal identification with the leader. Most notably, multiple mediation models should consider the role of mutual trust, empowerment (Liden et al., 2014) and core self-evaluations (Lacroix and Pircher Verdorfer, 2017). In addition, the leader’s expert knowledge or his/her status within a relevant network may also have an impact.

In terms of methodology, such studies would also benefit from including leader self-ratings of genuine servant leadership (cf. Pfrombeck and Pircher Verdorfer, 2018) and comparing them with multiple follower ratings. There is some evidence that self–other rating agreement in leadership has a positive impact on various leadership–performance relationships (Fleenor et al., 2010). Specifically, it would be interesting to see whether and how genuine servant leadership self-ratings of overestimators, underestimators and in-agreement raters may contribute to the influence effectiveness of genuine servant leadership in a distinct way. Furthermore, future studies in this area would also benefit from including interviews with followers. Qualitative data can provide deeper insights into how and under which specific conditions genuine servant leadership promotes followers’ respect for their leader. For instance, it is possible that a follower may consciously disagree with genuine servant leadership behaviours but still rate such a leader as effective and successful. Related to this, future research should examine how genuine servant leadership behaviours interact with other more task-oriented or transactional leadership behaviours. For instance, in line with Sun (2013), followers may rate a leader as less ideal and effective if the leader displays servant attributes in a rather undifferentiated way, especially when faced with difficult dilemmas or when important organizational goals are jeopardized. Accordingly, it would be interesting to examine the effects of genuine servant leadership on followers’ respect for their leader during times of uncertainty or change, when followers may be more likely to look for strong line leadership.

Conclusion

Genuine servant leadership, that is, standing back as well as being humble and authentic, runs counter to what is commonly viewed as effective leadership. Yet the scientific study of such paradoxical leadership behaviours is important and promises exciting implications for both the theory and practice of leadership. The theoretical connections and empirical findings presented herein support that the qualities of genuine servant leadership are generally well received by followers and positively related to their personal identification with and respect for the leader. Hence, genuine servant leadership, while sounding counterintuitive and provocative, does not subvert leader effectiveness but rather seems to increase it. This is fully in line with Burke’s (2006: 94) summary of the literature on why leaders fail or succeed: it is not about leaders’ knowledge or how bright they are, but rather ‘how well they work with others, and how well they understand themselves’. The insights presented here may serve as the basis for further research interest and empirical attention leading to a better understanding of the processes and contingencies of genuine servant leadership effectiveness, at best using strong methods for causal inference.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

References

Aguinis

Vandenberg

(2014) An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure: Improving research quality before data collection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 1(1): 569–595.

Alonderiene

Majauskaite

(2016) Leadership style and job satisfaction in higher education institutions. International Journal of Educational Management 30(1): 140–164.

Antonakis

Bendahan

Jacquart

et al . (2014). Causality and endogeneity: Problems and solutions. In: Day

(ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 93–117.

Aron

McLaughlin-Volpe

Mashek

et al . (2004) Including others in the self. European Review of Social Psychology 15(1): 101–132.

Avolio

Gardner

(2005) Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 16(3): 315–338.

Bandura

(1977) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenctice Hall.

Baumgartner

Steenkamp

J-BEM

(1998) Multi-group latent variable models for varying numbers of items and factors with cross-national and longitudinal applications. Marketing Letters 9(1): 21–35.

Becker

Atinc

Breaugh

et al . (2016) Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior 37(2): 157–167.

Brislin

(1980) Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In: Triandis

Berry

(eds) Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, pp. 389–444.

10.

Brown

Ryan

Creswell

(2007) Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry 18(4): 211–237.

11.

Bryant

Brown

(2014) Enthusiastic skepticism: The role of SLTP in advancing servant leadership. Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice 1(1):7–1.

12.

Burke

(2006) Why leaders fail: Exploring the darkside. International Journal of Manpower 27(1): 91–100.

13.

Byrne

(2010) Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. New York: Taylor & Francis.

14.

Byrne

Shavelson

Muthén

(1989) Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin 105(3): 456–466.

15.

Conway

Lance

(2010) What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology 25(3): 325–334.

16.

Creswell

(2017) Mindfulness interventions. Annual Review of Psychology 68(1): 491–516.

17.

Cropanzano

Walumbwa

(2010) Moral leadership: A short primer on competing perspectives. In: Schminke

(ed.) Managerial Ethics: Managing the Psychology of Morality. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 21–52.

18.

Davidov

Schmidt

Billiet

(2011) Cross-cultural Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: Routledge.

19.

Eagly

Karau

Makhijani

(1995) Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 117(1): 125–145.

20.

Eckloff

Van Quaquebeke

(2008) “Ich folge Dir, wenn Du in meinen Augen eine gute Führungskraft bist, denn dann kann ich mich auch mit Dir identifizieren.” Wie Einflussoffenheit von Untergebenen über Identifikationsprozesse vermittelt wird wird [“I follow you if you are a good leader in my eyes, because then I can identify with you” How subordinates’ openness towards influence is mediated by identification processes]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie A&O 52(4): 169–181.

21.

Edwards

(2001) Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods 4(2): 144–192.

22.

Ehrhart

(2004) Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology 57(1): 61–94.

23.

Eisenbeiss

(2012) Re-thinking ethical leadership: An interdisciplinary integrative approach. Leadership Quarterly 23(5): 791–808.

24.

Epitropaki

Martin

(2005) From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader–member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 90(4): 659–676.

25.

Fleenor

Smither

Atwater

et al. (2010) Self–other rating agreement in leadership: A review. The Leadership Quarterly 21(6): 1005–1034.

26.

Giberson

Resick

Dickson

(2005) Embedding leader characteristics: An examination of homogeneity of personality and values in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology 90(5): 1002–1010.

27.

Greenleaf

(1970) The Servant as Leader. Westfield, IN: The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.

28.

Greenleaf

(1977) Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. New York: Paulist Press.

29.

Hale

Fields

(2007) Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A study of followers in Ghana and the USA. Leadership 3(4): 397–417.

30.

Hansbrough

Lord

Schyns

(2015) Reconsidering the accuracy of follower leadership ratings. The Leadership Quarterly 26(2): 220–237.

31.

Hobman

Jackson

Jimmieson

et al . (2011) The effects of transformational leadership behaviours on follower outcomes: An identity-based analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 20 (4): 553–580.

32.

Hoch

Bommer

Dulebohn

et al . (2018) Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management 44(2): 501–529.

33.

Hofstede

Minkov

(2010) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.

34.

House

Hanges

Javidan

et al . (2004) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

35.

Irving

(2010) Cross-cultural perspectives on servant leadership. In: Van Dierendonck

Patterson

(eds) Servant Leadership: Developments in Theory and Research. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 118–129.

36.

James

Mulaik

Brett

(2006) A tale of two methods. Organizational Research Methods 9(2): 233–244.

37.

Jung

Avolio

(1999) Effects of leadership style and followers’ cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management Journal 42(2): 208–218.

38.

Kaptein

(2008) Developing and testing a measure for the ethical culture of organizations: the corporate ethical virtues model. Journal of Organizational Behavior 29(7): 923–947.

39.

Kark

Shamir

Chen

(2003) The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. The Journal of Applied Psychology 88(2): 246–255.

40.

Kazlauskienė

Rinkevičius

(2006) Lithuanian ‘brain drain’ causes: Push and pull factors. Engineering Economics 46(1): 27–37.

41.

Kearney

(2008) Age differences between leader and followers as a moderator of the relationship between transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 81(4): 803–811.

42.

Kool

Van Dierendonck

(2012) Servant leadership and commitment to change, the mediating role of justice and optimism. Journal of Organizational Change Management 25(3): 422–433.

43.

Lacroix

Pircher Verdorfer

(2017) Can servant leaders fuel the leadership fire? The relationship between servant leadership and followers’ leadership avoidance. Administrative Sciences 7(1): 6.

44.

Lance

Butts

Michels

(2006) The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods 9(2): 202–220.

45.

Lance

Dawson

Birkelbach

et al . (2010) Method effects, measurement error, and substantive conclusions. Organizational Research Methods 13(3): 435–455.

46.

Liborius

(2014) Who is worthy of being followed? The impact of leaders’ character and the moderating role of followers’ personality. The Journal of Psychology 148(3): 347–385.

47.

Liden

Panaccio

et al . (2014) Servant leadership: Antecedents, consequences, and contextual moderators. In: Day

(ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 357–379.

48.

Liden

Wayne

Zhao

et al . (2008) Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly 19(2): 161–177.

49.

Little

Cunningham

Shahar

et al . (2002) To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 9(2): 151–173.

50.

Lord

(1985) An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership perceptions and behavioral measurement in organizational settings. In: Staw

Cummings

(eds) Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 85–128.

51.

Mael

Ashforth

(1992) Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior 13(2): 103–123.

52.

Martin

Epitropaki

Thomas

et al . (2010) A review of leader–member exchange research: Future prospects and directions. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 25(1): 35–89.

53.

Meade

Johnson

Braddy

(2008) Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3): 568.

54.

Meuser

Liden

Wayne

et al . (2011) Is servant leadership always a good thing? The moderating influence of servant leadership prototype. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Academy of Management, presentation, San Antonio, TX.

55.

Nesbit

(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.

56.

Feldman

(2009) How broadly does education contribute to job performance? Personnel Psychology 62(1): 89–134.

57.

Nichols

Cottrell

(2014) What do people desire in their leaders? The role of leadership level on trait desirability. The Leadership Quarterly 25(4): 711–729.

58.

Northouse

(2013) Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

59.

Owens

Johnson

Mitchell

(2013) Expressed humility in organizations: Implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organization Science 24(5): 1517–1538.

60.

Parris

Peachey

(2013) A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics 113(3): 377–393.

61.

Pfrombeck

Pircher Verdorfer

(2018) How psychological capital and sense of coherence enhance servant leadership and buffer leader stress: Preliminary insights from an empirical study. Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice 25(1): 25–48.

62.

Pircher Verdorfer

(2016) Examining mindfulness and its relations to humility, motivation to lead, and actual servant leadership behaviors. Mindfulness 7(4): 950–961.

63.

Pircher Verdorfer

Peus

(2014) The measurement of servant leadership: Validation of a German version of the servant leadership survey (SLS). Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie A&O [German Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology] 58(1): 1–16.

64.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Lee

et al . (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5): 879–903.

65.

Prime

Salib

(2014) The best leaders are humble leaders. Harvard Business Review, 12 May 2014. Available at: www.hbr.org/2014/05/the-best-leaders-are-humble-leaders (accessed 15 May 2016).

66.

Rivkin

Diestel

Schmidt

K-H

(2014) The positive relationship between servant leadership and employees’ psychological health: A multi-method approach. German Journal of Human Resource Management 28(1–2): 52–72.

67.

Schaubroeck

Lam

SSK

Peng

(2011) Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 96(4): 863–871.

68.

Sendjaya

(2015) Personal and Organizational Excellence through Servant Leadership. Cham: Springer International.

69.

Sendjaya

Pekerti

Härtel

et al . (2016) Are authentic leaders always moral? The role of Machiavellianism in the relationship between authentic leadership and morality. Journal of Business Ethics 133(1): 125–139.

70.

Shapiro

Carlson

Astin

et al . (2006) Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology 62(3): 373–386.

71.

Sousa

Van Dierendonck

(2017) Servant leadership and the effect of the interaction between humility, action, and hierarchical power on follower engagement. Journal of Business Ethics 141(1): 13–25.

72.

Starren

Luijters

Drupsteen

et al . (2013) Diverse cultures at work: Ensuring safety and health through leadership and participation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: http://dx.publications.europa.eu/10.2802/14394 (accessed 9 April 2018).

73.

Statistics Lithuania (2016) Foreign direct investment at the end of the year. Available at: http://osp.stat.gov.lt/en (accessed 5 December 2016).

74.

Steinmetz

(2013) Analyzing observed composite differences across groups: Is partial measurement invariance enough? Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 9(1): 1–12.

75.

Sun

PYT

(2013) The servant identity: Influences on the cognition and behavior of servant leaders. The Leadership Quarterly 24(4): 544–557.

76.

Van Dierendonck

(2011) Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management 37(4): 1228–1261.

77.

Van Dierendonck

Nuijten

(2011) The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology 26(3): 249–267.

78.

Van Dierendonck

Sousa

Gunnarsdóttir

et al . (2017) The cross-cultural invariance of the servant leadership survey: A comparative study across eight countries. Administrative Sciences 7(2): 1–11.

79.

Van Dierendonck

Stam

Boersma

et al . (2014) Same difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformational leadership to follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly 25(3): 544–562.

80.

Van Knippenberg

De Cremer

et al . (2004) Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly 15(6): 825–856.

81.

Van Quaquebeke

Brodbeck

(2008) Entwicklung und erste Validierungzweier Instrumente zur Erfassungvon Führungskräfte-Kategorisierung im deutschsprachigen Raum [Development and first validation of two scales to measure leader categorization in German-speaking countries]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits-und Organisationspsychologie A&O 52(2): 70–80.

82.

Van Quaquebeke

Eckloff

(2010) Defining respectful leadership: What it is, how it can be measured, and another glimpse at what it is related to. Journal of Business Ethics 91(3): 343–358.

83.

Van Quaquebeke

Henrich

Eckloff

(2007) ‘It’s not tolerance I’m asking for, it’s respect!’ A conceptual framework to differentiate between tolerance, acceptance and (two types of) respect. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO) 38(2): 185–200.

84.

Van Quaquebeke

Van Knippenberg

Brodbeck

(2011a) More than meets the eye: The role of subordinates’ self-perceptions in leader categorization processes. The Leadership Quarterly 22(2): 367–382.

85.

Van Quaquebeke

Van Knippenberg

Eckloff

(2011b) Individual differences in the leader categorization to openness to influence relationship: The role of followers’ self-perception and social comparison orientation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 14(5): 605–622.

86.

Vandenberg

Lance

(2000) A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods 3(1): 4–70.

87.

Yoo

Donthu

Lenartowicz

(2011) Measuring Hofstede’s five dimensions of cultural values at the individual level: Development and validation of CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 23(3): 193–210.

88.

Yukl

(2010) Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

89.

Zhu

Wang

Zheng

et al . (2013) Examining the role of personal identification with the leader in leadership effectiveness: A partial nomological network. Group & Organization Management 38(1): 36–67.