The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Supportive leadership is related to organizational citizenship behavior.

“Previous studies have shown that supportive leadership is related to organizational citizenship behavior (e.g., Euwema et al. 2007).”

• cites Euwema et al. 2007 sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

The final Servant Leadership Survey is an eight-dimensional measure of 30 items, with dimensions standing back, forgiveness, courage, empowerment, accountability, authenticity, humility, and stewardship.

“The final result is an eight-dimensional measure of 30 items: the eight dimensions being: standing back, forgiveness, courage, empowerment, accountability, authenticity, humility, and stewardship.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Based on the master students' opinions, from the original item pool of 110 items, 20 items were removed and 9 new items were added, reaching a total of 99 items.

“Based on their opinions, from the original item pool of 110 items, 20 items were removed, and 9 new items were added, reaching a total of 99 items.”

May combine two claims.

Finally 28 items remained, and the six factors explained 65% of the variance.

“Finally 28 items remained, whereby the six factors explained 65% of the variance.”

May combine two claims.

For the interpersonal acceptance dimension, only the items explicitly focusing on forgiveness stayed as a separate factor; therefore the dimension was renamed forgiveness, and the empathy items loaded on several other dimensions and were removed.

“For the interpersonal acceptance dimension, only the items explicitly focusing on forgiveness stayed as a separate factor; therefore we decided to rename this dimension forgiveness. The empathy items loaded on several other dimensions and were removed.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The proposed instrument focuses on both the 'people' and the 'leader' aspects of servant leadership.

“The instrument we propose focuses on both the ‘people’ and the ‘leader’ aspects of servant leadership.”

May combine two claims.

The fit of the seven-factor model with humility and standing back items one-factor was reasonable, but still significantly less compared to the eight-factor model in Study 3 (χ2 = 619.4, df = 384, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, SRMR = .06, AIC = 17193.4, RMSEA = .05; Δχ2 = 57.2, df = 7, p < .001).

“The fit of the seven-factor model with humility and standing back items one-factor was reasonable, but still significantly less compared to the eight-factor model (χ2 = 619.4, df = 384, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, SRMR = .06, AIC = 17193.4, RMSEA = .05; Δχ2 = 57.2, df = 7, p < .001).”

May combine two claims.

The internal consistency reliability was good for all SLS scales in Study 4, with Cronbach's alphas of .94 for empowerment (7 items), .93 for accountability (3 items), .92 for standing back (3 items), .95 for humility (5 items), .76 for authenticity (4 items), .91 for courage (2 items), .90 for forgiveness (3 items), and .87 for stewardship (3 items).

“Cronbach’s alpha’s were .94 for empowerment (7 items), .93 for accountability (3 items), .92 for standing back (3 items), .95 for humility (5 items), .76 for authenticity (4 items), .91 for courage (2 items), .90 for forgiveness (3 items), and .87 for stewardship (3 items).”

May combine two claims.

All items loaded significantly on their respective factors with standardized factor loadings between .46 and .86.

“It turned out that all items loaded significantly on their respective factors with standardized factor loadings between .46 and .86.”

May combine two claims.

In Study 2, the eight-factor model had chi-square 1488.7, df = 674, p < .001, CFI = .87, TLI = .86, SRMR = .06, AIC = 26576.3, and RMSEA = .07.

“The chi-square was 1488.7, df = 674, p < .001, CFI = .87, TLI = .86, SRMR = .06, AIC = 26576.3, RMSEA = .07.”

May combine two claims.

Although there is significant evidence for a four-factor model, the factor structure of that model showed that on one-factor, only one leadership scale loaded higher than .40.

“Although there is significant evidence for a four-factor model, the factor structure of that model showed that on one-factor, only one leadership scale loaded higher than .40.”

May combine two claims.

For the three-factor model in the Dutch composite sample, the chi-square was 186.0, df = 102, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, SRMR = .05, AIC = 23503.9, RMSEA = .04.

“For the three-factor model it was 186.0, df = 102, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, SRMR = .05, AIC = 23503.9, RMSEA = .04.”

May combine two claims.

The eight-factor model was confirmed in Study 3, with a chi-square of 562.5, df = 377, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, SRMR = .05, AIC = 17150.5, RMSEA = .05.

“The eight-factor model was confirmed in this study, with a chi-square of 562.5, df = 377, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, SRMR = .05, AIC = 17150.5, RMSEA = .05.”

May combine two claims.

The eight-factor model was confirmed in Study 4 (UK sample), with a chi-square of 1197.7, df = 377, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, SRMR = .07, AIC = 29733.1, RMSEA = .05.

“The eight-factor model was confirmed in this study, with a chi-square of 1197.7, df = 377, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, SRMR = .07, AIC = 29733.1, RMSEA = .05.”

May combine two claims.

The second-order exploratory factor analysis for the UK sample suggested two factors with Eigenvalue larger than 1 (9.380 and 1.128) that were also easy to interpret; factor one being servant leadership and factor two the accountability factor.

“The second-order exploratory factor analysis suggested two factors with an Eigenvalue larger than 1 (9.380 and 1.128) that were also easy to interpret (see Table 5); factor one being the servant leadership and factor two the accountability factor.”

May combine two claims.

After removing nine items, the eight-factor model fit increased to chi-square 623.5, df = 377, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, SRMR = .05, AIC = 19354.6, and RMSEA = .05.

“This increased the fit of this model to a chi-square of 623.5, df = 377, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, SRMR = .05, AIC = 19354.6, RMSEA = .05.”

May combine two claims.

In Study 2, the one-factor model had chi-square 2934.7, df = 702, p < .001, CFI = .65, TLI = .63, SRMR = .09, AIC = 27966.4, and RMSEA = .11.

“The chi-square was 2934.7, df = 702, p < .001, CFI = .65, TLI = .63, SRMR = .09, AIC = 27966.4, RMSEA = .11.”

May combine two claims.

In Study 3, the standardized factor loadings of the latent factors on the second-order servant leadership factor were .92 for empowerment, .40 for accountability, .84 for standing back, .82 for humility, .71 for authenticity, .53 for courage, .19 for forgiveness, and .92 for stewardship.

“The standardized factor loadings of the latent factors on this second-order servant leadership factor were .92 for empowerment, .40 for accountability, .84 for standing back, .82 for humility, .71 for authenticity, .53 for courage, .19 for forgiveness, and .92 for stewardship.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The SLS now counted 39 items representing eight hypothesized dimensions.

“The SLS now counted 39 items representing eight hypothesized dimensions.”

May combine two claims.

The lowest correlations were generally found with accountability, courage, and forgiveness, confirming their unique character.

“The lowest correlations were generally found with accountability, courage, and forgiveness, confirming their unique character.”

May combine two claims.

The internal consistency reliability was good for all SLS scales in the combined sample of all three studies, with Cronbach's alphas of .89 for empowerment (7 items), .81 for accountability (3 items), .76 for standing back (3 items), .91 for humility (5 items), .82 for authenticity (4 items), .69 for courage (2 items), .72 for forgiveness (3 items), and .74 for stewardship (3 items).

“The combined sample of all three studies showed Cronbach’s alpha’s of .89 for empowerment (7 items), .81 for accountability (3 items), .76 for standing back (3 items), .91 for humility (5 items), .82 for authenticity (4 items), .69 for courage (2 items), .72 for forgiveness (3 items), and .74 for stewardship (3 items).”

May combine two claims.

The items removed were three empowerment items, two stewardship items, one standing back item, one courage item, one humility item, and one authenticity item.

“Three items from the empowerment scale, two stewardship items, one standing back item, one courage item, one humility item, and one item from the authenticity scale—were consequently removed.”

May combine two claims.

Self-assessed performance was related to five of the eight servant leadership dimensions, with significant correlations between .14 and .32.

“Self-assessed performance was related to five of the eight dimensions, with significant correlations between .14 and .32 (Table 6).”

May combine two claims.

Humility was related to civic virtue, altruism, and taking charge.

“Accountability was related to civic virtue; and humility to civic virtue, altruism, and taking charge.”

May combine two claims.

Two beta-coefficients were negative: authenticity in relation to organizational commitment, and creating value for the community in relation to leadership clarity.

“Intriguingly, two beta-coefficients are negative, authenticity in relation to organizational commitment, and “creating value for the community” in relation to leadership clarity.”

May combine two claims.

Empowerment, standing back, humility, and stewardship are strongly related to organizational commitment.

“In particular empowerment, standing back, humility, and stewardship are strongly related to commitment.”

May combine two claims.

The SLS consists of eight dimensions that have proven stable over several samples in two countries.

“The SLS consists of eight dimensions which have proven stable over several samples in two countries.”

May combine two claims.

The seven servant leadership dimensions other than stewardship are positively related to both engagement and job satisfaction.

“Nevertheless, the other seven dimensions are positively related to both engagement and job satisfaction.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

At the moment, there is no generally agreed upon definition of what servant leadership is in terms of leader behavior.

“At the moment, there is no generally agreed upon definition of what servant leadership is in terms of leader behavior.”

May combine two claims.

The SLS is a valid and reliable instrument to measure the essential elements of servant leadership.

“With this survey, a valid and reliable instrument to measure the essential elements of servant leadership has been introduced.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Different measures of servant leadership exist because there is no generally agreed upon definition of servant leadership in terms of leader behavior.

“That is an important reason why different measures exist.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Dennis and Winston reduced the factor structure of the Servant Leadership Profile to a three-dimensional structure.

“In an attempt to replicate this factor structure, Dennis and Winston (2003) even brought it back to a three-dimensional structure.”

• cites Dennis and Winston (2003) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

A one-dimensional scale does not do justice to the concept of servant leadership.

“However, a one-dimensional scale does not do justice to the concept of servant leadership.”

May combine two claims.

Based on an analysis of the servant leadership literature and interviews with servant leaders, eight aspects were selected as the best indicators of servant leadership and included in the empirical design.

“In conclusion, based on an analysis of the servant leadership literature and interviews with servant leaders, these eight aspects were selected as the best indicators of servant leadership and were therefore included in the empirical design.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

According to Greenleaf, courage is an important characteristic that distinguishes the servant leader from other leaders.

“According to Greenleaf (1991) courage is an important characteristic that distinguishes the servant leader from other leaders.”

• cites Greenleaf (1991)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Most, if not all, scales of servant leadership mainly deal with the 'people' side of servant leadership and do not cover the whole concept.

“Apart from the above mentioned problems, most—if not all—scales of servant leadership mainly deal with what we would call the ‘people’ side of servant leadership.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

There is a need for a concise scale representing the essential characteristics of servant leadership within a multi-dimensional framework directly linked to Greenleaf's ideas.

“Despite previous attempts to construct a valid and reliable instrument, there still is a need for a concise scale representing the essential characteristics of servant leadership within a multi-dimensional framework directly linked to Greenleaf’s ideas.”

May combine two claims.

Liden et al. touch upon stewardship with their concepts 'creating value for the community' and 'conceptual skills', but ignore accountability and courage.

“Liden et al. (2008) touch upon stewardship with their concepts ‘creating value for the community’ and ‘conceptual skills’, but ignore the important aspects of accountability and courage.”

• cites Liden et al. (2008) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The items were subjected to a critical review by three master students who had extensively studied the servant leadership literature.

“These items were subjected to a critical review by three master students who had extensively studied the literature on servant leadership as part of their thesis project.”

May combine two claims.

Barbuto and Wheeler introduced a 23-item five-dimensional instrument that would match the 10 characteristics described by Spears.

“Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) introduced a 23-item five-dimensional instrument that would match the 10 characteristics described by Spears.”

• cites Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The correlation matrix was appropriate to produce a factor structure not found by chance, with Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test of .980 and a significant Bartlett's test of sphericity.

“The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test was .980, well above the required minimum value of .5. The approximate chi-square of the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (51094.251, df = 4851, p < .001), indicating that a discoverable factor structure exists in the data.”

May combine two claims.

The intercorrelations between Sendjaya et al.'s dimensions ranged between .66 and .87, which is a matter of concern for the proposed multi-dimensional structure.

“The intercorrelations between the dimensions ranged between .66 and .87, which is a matter of concern for the proposed multi-dimensional structure.”

• cites Sendjaya et al. (2008) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Liden et al. validated a 28-item seven-dimensional servant leadership scale in two samples, one of 298 students and one of 182 individuals working for a production and distribution company.

“They validated a 28-item seven-dimensional servant leadership scale in two samples, one consisting of 298 students, the other consisting of 182 individuals working for a production and distribution company.”

• cites Liden et al. (2008) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The Study 1 items were sufficiently multivariate normally distributed: no items fell outside the skewness range of ±2.0, and only 6 out of 99 items (6%) fell outside the kurtosis range.

“With respect to skewness, no items fell outside this range. With respect to kurtosis, only 6 out of 99 (6%) fell outside the range.”

May combine two claims.

A comparison of the original varimax rotated component matrix with the oblimin pattern matrix showed that both matrices were comparable, lending support to the 28-item selection.

“It should be noted that a comparison of the original varimax rotated component matrix with the oblimin pattern matrix showed that both matrices were comparable, lending support to this 28-item selection.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Page and Wong's Servant Leadership Profile was initially eight dimensions and was later reduced via seven to five dimensions.

“Building from a 12 dimensional conceptual framework, they initially distinguished eight dimensions; and later reduced them via seven to five (Wong and Davey 2007).”

• cites Wong and Davey 2007Not checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The Organizational Leadership Assessment's intercorrelations between its six areas are so high that the overall OLA score is recommended for research purposes, whereby its multidimensional nature is lost.

“Although the OLA should be credited for stimulating servant leadership research, the intercorrelations between the six areas are so high that the overall OLA score is recommended for research purposes, whereby its multidimensional nature is lost.”

• cites Laub (1999)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

A recent attempt to replicate Barbuto and Wheeler's findings failed and suggested that the instrument might actually be one-dimensional.

“However, a recent attempt to replicate their findings failed and suggested that the instrument might actually be one-dimensional (Dannhauser and Boshoff 2007).”

• cites Dannhauser and Boshoff 2007Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The composite sample of Study 1 was large enough for a stable factor structure, with 668 subjects and a subject-to-variable ratio of 6.7:1.

“With 668 subjects in our composite sample, this criterion is absolutely met.”

• Also stated in: § Study 1 · plain

  “In our sample this ratio was 6.7:1, thus higher than the generally accepted minimum ratio.”

May combine two claims.

Sendjaya et al.'s study does not provide information on the solidity of the hypothesized six-dimensional structure; they only tested the one-dimensionality of each of the six core dimensions separately.

“Regretfully, their study does not provide information on the solidity of the hypothesized six-dimensional structure. The authors only tested the one-dimensionality of each of the six core dimensions separately.”

• cites Sendjaya et al. (2008) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Accountability has often been neglected by scholars and has never been incorporated in any of the other measures of servant leadership.

“Although popular literature on servant leadership emphasizes accountability as very relevant, it has often been neglected by scholars and has never been incorporated in any of the other measures of servant leadership.”

May combine two claims.

Transactional leaders do not individualize the needs of followers or focus on their personal development.

“Transactional leaders do not individualize the needs of followers or focus on their personal development.”

• cites Howell and Avolio 1993 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Forgiveness deviates because it only applies in situations where something has gone wrong, as opposed to the other factors that focus on more generally applicable behaviors.

“For forgiveness this could be explained in that it only applies in situations where something has gone wrong as opposed to the other factors that focus on more generally applicable behaviors.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Research has shown that trust, satisfaction and work group cohesion are greater for transformational leaders than for transactional leaders.

“Research has shown that trust, satisfaction and work group cohesion are greater for transformational leaders than for transactional leaders (Hoyt and Blascovich 2003).”

• cites Hoyt and Blascovich 2003 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

LMX theory emphasizes how leaders work with their followers on a one-to-one basis to develop high-quality relationships with each of them.

“More particularly, LMX theory emphasizes how leaders work with their followers on a one-to-one basis to develop high-quality relationships with each of them (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995).”

• cites Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Factor three, the forgiveness factor, indicates that errors are part of the job, that mistakes can enhance learning, and that grudges are dysfunctional.

“Factor three, the forgiveness factor indicates that errors are part of the job, that mistakes can enhance learning, and that grudges are dysfunctional.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Transactional leadership is most likely found in well-ordered societies, and probably most effective when quantitative performance is required.

“Transactional leadership is most likely found in well-ordered societies (Bass et al. 2003), and probably most effective when quantitative performance is required (Hoyt and Blascovich 2003).”

• cites Bass et al. 2003 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Hoyt and Blascovich 2003 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Although servant leadership has overlap with other leadership styles, it also adds unique elements to the leadership field.

“Although servant leadership has overlap with other leadership styles,—most notably due to its multi-dimensional nature—it also adds unique elements to the leadership field.”

May combine two claims.

A servant leader is genuinely concerned with serving followers, while transformational leaders have a greater concern for the strategic use of followers to reach organizational goals.

“More particularly, a servant leader is genuinely concerned with serving followers (Greenleaf 1977), while transformational leaders have a greater concern for the strategic use of followers to reach organizational goals (Stone et al. 2004).”

• cites Greenleaf 1977Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Stone et al. 2004 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Servant leadership has many parallels with transformational leadership, but moves beyond transformational leadership with its alignment of leaders' and followers' motives.

“Servant leadership has many parallels with transformational leadership, but moves beyond transformational leadership with its alignment of leaders’ and followers’ motives (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006).”

• cites Barbuto and Wheeler 2006 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

In ethical leadership, the emphasis is more on directive and normative behavior, whereas servant leadership has a stronger focus on the developmental aspect of the followers.

“In ethical leadership, however, the emphasis is more on directive and normative behavior, whereas servant leadership has a stronger focus on the developmental aspect of the followers.”

• cites Brown et al. 2005 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

At this stage of development, the survey consisted of eight factors captured by 30 items which could empirically be differentiated and conceptually interpreted.

“In conclusion, at this stage of the development of the instrument, our survey consisted of eight factors captured by 30 items which could empirically be differentiated and conceptually interpreted.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Leadership is an increasingly acknowledged factor for follower well-being.

“Moreover, leadership is an increasingly acknowledged factor for follower well-being (Ilies et al. 2005).”

• cites Ilies et al. 2005 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

LMX theory describes the relation between leader and follower as an exchange relationship.

“Another theory of leadership is the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory (Dansereau et al. 1975); it describes the relation between and follower as an exchange relationship.”

• cites Dansereau et al. 1975 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The SLS is a valid and reliable instrument to measure servant leadership.

“Considering the above, we may safely conclude that the SLS is a valid and reliable instrument to measure servant leadership.”

May combine two claims.

The sample size of 48 employees gave low power and made regression or multilevel analyses impossible.

“Given the small sample size (48 employees), the power was low and it was impossible to perform regression or multilevel analyses.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

A supportive environment provides positive affect, a sense of predictability, and recognition of self-worth.

“A supportive environment, on the other hand, provides positive affect, a sense of predictability, and recognition of self-worth (Walter and Bruch 2008).”

• cites Walter and Bruch 2008 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The SLS has discriminant validity and added value due to its conceptual breadth and inclusion of accountability and forgiveness.

“As expected, there was overlap with ethical, charismatic, and LMX leadership, but due to its conceptual breadth and by including accountability and forgiveness, the instrument definitely has discriminant validity and added value.”

May combine two claims.

The SLS showed added value for all three outcome variables: organizational commitment, self-assessed performance, and leadership clarity.

“So, for all three outcome variables, the SLS showed added value (Table 8).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Leadership clarity is related to favorable performance conditions.

“Leadership clarity, which is the followers consensual perception of clarity of and no conflict over who is the leader (West et al. 2003), is related to favorable performance conditions.”

• cites West et al. 2003 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

West et al. (2003) showed leadership clarity is related to clear team objectives, commitment to objectives, team member participation, commitment to excellence, and team innovation.

“The study by West et al. (2003) showed it is related to clear team objectives, commitment to objectives, team member participation, commitment to excellence, and team innovation.”

• cites West et al. 2003 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The primary aspects of servant leader behavior are empowerment, accountability, standing back, humility, and stewardship; authenticity, courage, and forgiveness are secondary.

“It suggests that the primary aspects of servant leader behavior are empowerment, accountability, standing back, humility, and stewardship, leaving authenticity, courage, and forgiveness as secondary aspects.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The SLS can be used to establish the effects of servant leadership on individuals and organizations.

“With the SLS, we now have an instrument that can be used to establish the effects of servant leadership on individuals and organizations.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Participation in Study 3 was voluntary.

“As in the previous studies, participation was voluntary.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The English translation of the SLS was first done by both authors separately, then compared and reconciled by a back-translation procedure, and cross-checked by a professional translator.

“The translation into English was first done by both authors separately. Following, both versions were compared and differences reconciled by a back-translation procedure. This version was cross-checked by a professional translator with an English language degree.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Missing values analysis was used to examine the overall underlying pattern because different scales were used in different samples.

“Since different scales were used in the different samples, missing values analysis was used to examine the overall underlying pattern (Muthén and Muthén 2007).”

• cites Muthén and Muthén 2007Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.