The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 102 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 41 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to describe the development and validation of a multi-dimensional instrument to measure servant leadership. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Based on an extensive literature review and expert judgment, 99 items were formulated. In three steps, using eight samples totaling 1571 persons from The Netherlands and the UK with a diverse occupational background, a combined exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis approach was used. This was followed by an analysis of the criterion-related validity. FINDINGS: 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. The internal consistency of the subscales is good. The results show that the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS) has convergent validity with other leadership measures, and also adds unique elements to the leadership field. Evidence for criterion-related validity came from studies relating the eight dimensions to well-being and performance. IMPLICATIONS: With this survey, a valid and reliable instrument to measure the essential elements of servant leadership has been introduced. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The SLS is the first measure where the underlying factor structure was developed and confirmed across several field studies in two countries. It can be used in future studies to test the underlying premises of servant leadership theory. The SLS provides a clear picture of the key servant leadership qualities and shows where improvements can be made on the individual and organizational level; as such, it may also offer a valuable starting point for training and leadership development.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper develops and validates the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS), an eight-dimensional, 30-item measure of servant leadership. Across eight samples totaling 1,571 respondents in the Netherlands and the UK, the eight-factor structure was supported and the subscales showed good internal consistency and criterion-related validity with well-being and performance outcomes.
Key findings
- The final SLS consists of 30 items measuring eight dimensions: standing back, forgiveness, courage, empowerment, accountability, authenticity, humility, and stewardship.
- Confirmatory factor analyses supported the eight-factor model in Dutch samples (Study 3: χ² = 562.5, df = 377, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .05) and a UK sample (Study 4: χ² = 1197.7, df = 377, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, SRMR = .07, RMSEA = .05).
- Internal consistency was good across the combined samples: Cronbach’s alphas were .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).
- Criterion-related validity was shown through positive relations with well-being and performance; for example, correlations with organizational commitment ranged from .14 to .60, and self-assessed performance was related to five of the eight dimensions with significant correlations between .14 and .32.
Methods
- The instrument was developed in three phases using eight samples totaling 1,571 persons from the Netherlands and the UK with diverse occupational backgrounds.
- Item generation began with 99 items based on literature review and expert judgment; exploratory factor analysis reduced items, followed by confirmatory factor analysis and further refinement to the final 30-item, eight-factor measure.
- Validity analyses included second-order exploratory factor analysis comparing the SLS with other leadership measures, and criterion-related analyses relating the eight dimensions to vitality, engagement, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, extra-role behavior, self-assessed performance, and leadership clarity.
Limitations
- The paper states that the number of SLS items, especially in early studies, prevented inclusion of other leadership scales together with outcome measures; most studies relied on convenience sampling and web-based online surveys; sufficient multilevel data could not be obtained; and the data are cross-sectional, so firm causal conclusions about predictive validity cannot be drawn.
- The paper also states that future users should avoid changing item wording or response scales, or deleting items, because this may affect validity.
- Evident from the text: the extra-role behavior analysis used only 48 employees and 38 leaders, giving low power and preventing regression or multilevel analyses; several constructs were not measured in all samples, such as stewardship not being included in the engagement and job satisfaction studies.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
57 Own result · 33 Own interpretation · 27 No full text of the sources · 14 No basis given · 9 Own method · 5 Sources not found · 2 Not checked yet · 1 Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The internal consistency of the subscales is good.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Abstract > Findings
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and also adds unique elements to the leadership field.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Abstract > Findings
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fourteen factors were found with an Eigenvalue higher than 1.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 1
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A comparison of both lists indicates that the crossing point lies between factor 6 and 7. Therefore, we may conclude that six factors probably is the most accurate number to be extracted from the data.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 1
hedgedn = 668- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on item content, we labeled six dimensions, namely empowerment, accountability, standing back, authenticity, courage, and forgiveness.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 1
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Evidence for criterion-related validity came from studies relating the eight dimensions to well-being and performance.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Abstract > Findings
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results show that the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS) has convergent validity with other leadership measures”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Abstract > Findings
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Double checking the factor structure showed that most of these items had double loadings on the dimensions Standing back and empowerment, often as high as .50 on both factors.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 1
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In comparing the six dimensions with our original conceptual model, it is striking that the items for humility had disappeared.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 1
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The SLS is the first measure where the underlying factor structure was developed and confirmed across several field studies in two countries.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Abstract > Originality/Value
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 26
- It may state two separate claims as one. 59
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Previous studies have shown that supportive leadership is related to organizational citizenship behavior (e.g., Euwema et al. 2007).”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 3: Criterion-Related Validity of the SLS
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Euwema et al. 2007 source
The paper’s “Leadership styles and GOCB” results report a positive relation between supportive leadership and group organizational citizenship behavior (page not available in our copy). This directly supports the citing sentence’s broader claim of a relationship. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Abstract > Findings
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 1
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally 28 items remained, whereby the six factors explained 65% of the variance.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 1
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 1
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The instrument we propose focuses on both the ‘people’ and the ‘leader’ aspects of servant leadership.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 3
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 4
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It turned out that all items loaded significantly on their respective factors with standardized factor loadings between .46 and .86.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 2
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The chi-square was 1488.7, df = 674, p < .001, CFI = .87, TLI = .86, SRMR = .06, AIC = 26576.3, RMSEA = .07.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 2
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 2: Content Validity of the SLS > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the three-factor model it was 186.0, df = 102, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, SRMR = .05, AIC = 23503.9, RMSEA = .04.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 2: Content Validity of the SLS > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 3
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 4
plainn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 2: Content Validity of the SLS > Results
hedgedn = 384- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 2
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The chi-square was 2934.7, df = 702, p < .001, CFI = .65, TLI = .63, SRMR = .09, AIC = 27966.4, RMSEA = .11.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 2
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 3
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The SLS now counted 39 items representing eight hypothesized dimensions.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 1
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The lowest correlations were generally found with accountability, courage, and forgiveness, confirming their unique character.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 2: Content Validity of the SLS > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 3
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 2
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Self-assessed performance was related to five of the eight dimensions, with significant correlations between .14 and .32 (Table 6).”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 3: Criterion-Related Validity of the SLS > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accountability was related to civic virtue; and humility to civic virtue, altruism, and taking charge.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 3: Criterion-Related Validity of the SLS > Results
plaincorrelationaln = 48 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Intriguingly, two beta-coefficients are negative, authenticity in relation to organizational commitment, and “creating value for the community” in relation to leadership clarity.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 3: Criterion-Related Validity of the SLS > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular empowerment, standing back, humility, and stewardship are strongly related to commitment.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 3: Criterion-Related Validity of the SLS > Results
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The SLS consists of eight dimensions which have proven stable over several samples in two countries.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Discussion
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, the other seven dimensions are positively related to both engagement and job satisfaction.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 3: Criterion-Related Validity of the SLS > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the moment, there is no generally agreed upon definition of what servant leadership is in terms of leader behavior.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Abstract > Originality/Value
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With this survey, a valid and reliable instrument to measure the essential elements of servant leadership has been introduced.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Abstract > Implications
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is an important reason why different measures exist.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Abstract > Originality/Value
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In an attempt to replicate this factor structure, Dennis and Winston (2003) even brought it back to a three-dimensional structure.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dennis and Winston (2003) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, a one-dimensional scale does not do justice to the concept of servant leadership.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to Greenleaf (1991) courage is an important characteristic that distinguishes the servant leader from other leaders.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Greenleaf (1991)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Abstract > Originality/Value
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Liden et al. (2008) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 1
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) introduced a 23-item five-dimensional instrument that would match the 10 characteristics described by Spears.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 1
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The intercorrelations between the dimensions ranged between .66 and .87, which is a matter of concern for the proposed multi-dimensional structure.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sendjaya et al. (2008) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Liden et al. (2008) source
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With respect to skewness, no items fell outside this range. With respect to kurtosis, only 6 out of 99 (6%) fell outside the range.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 1
plainn = 668- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 1
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Building from a 12 dimensional conceptual framework, they initially distinguished eight dimensions; and later reduced them via seven to five (Wong and Davey 2007).”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wong and Davey 2007
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Laub (1999)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, a recent attempt to replicate their findings failed and suggested that the instrument might actually be one-dimensional (Dannhauser and Boshoff 2007).”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Dannhauser and Boshoff 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 1
boostedn = 668- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Study 1 · plain
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sendjaya et al. (2008) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Transactional leaders do not individualize the needs of followers or focus on their personal development.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 2: Content Validity of the SLS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Howell and Avolio 1993 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 4
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Research has shown that trust, satisfaction and work group cohesion are greater for transformational leaders than for transactional leaders (Hoyt and Blascovich 2003).”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 2: Content Validity of the SLS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hoyt and Blascovich 2003 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 2: Content Validity of the SLS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Factor three, the forgiveness factor indicates that errors are part of the job, that mistakes can enhance learning, and that grudges are dysfunctional.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 2: Content Validity of the SLS > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 2: Content Validity of the SLS
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 2: Content Validity of the SLS > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 2: Content Validity of the SLS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Greenleaf 1977
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Stone et al. 2004 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“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).”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 2: Content Validity of the SLS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Barbuto and Wheeler 2006 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 2: Content Validity of the SLS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Brown et al. 2005 source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 3
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Moreover, leadership is an increasingly acknowledged factor for follower well-being (Ilies et al. 2005).”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 3: Criterion-Related Validity of the SLS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ilies et al. 2005 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 2: Content Validity of the SLS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dansereau et al. 1975 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Considering the above, we may safely conclude that the SLS is a valid and reliable instrument to measure servant leadership.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the small sample size (48 employees), the power was low and it was impossible to perform regression or multilevel analyses.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 3: Criterion-Related Validity of the SLS > Results
plaindirectn = 48- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A supportive environment, on the other hand, provides positive affect, a sense of predictability, and recognition of self-worth (Walter and Bruch 2008).”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 3: Criterion-Related Validity of the SLS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Walter and Bruch 2008 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Discussion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So, for all three outcome variables, the SLS showed added value (Table 8).”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 3: Criterion-Related Validity of the SLS > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 3: Criterion-Related Validity of the SLS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites West et al. 2003 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 3: Criterion-Related Validity of the SLS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites West et al. 2003 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the SLS, we now have an instrument that can be used to establish the effects of servant leadership on individuals and organizations.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Discussion > Limitations and Strengths
plaindirectn = 1,571- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As in the previous studies, participation was voluntary.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 3
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 4
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Since different scales were used in the different samples, missing values analysis was used to examine the overall underlying pattern (Muthén and Muthén 2007).”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 2: Content Validity of the SLS > Results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Muthén and Muthén 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
The samples used in the studies are sufficiently representative of the populations to which the SLS is intended to apply.
“The composite sample of this study consisted of four samples, including 668 persons from the Netherlands.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Servant leadership can be validly measured from the follower’s perspective.
“The SLS primarily focuses on the leader–follower relationship measured from the perspective of the follower.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Accountability is an essential element of the ‘leader’ aspect of servant leadership.
“accountability has been positioned as an essential element of the ‘leader’ aspect of servant leadership and is therefore kept within the instrument.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Dutch and UK samples are representative of their respective cultural contexts for the purpose of cross-cultural validation.
“The data of studies 1, 2, and 3 were collected within the Netherlands.”
“Respondents were recruited via a panel firm located in the United Kingdom.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Servant leadership as measured by the SLS can influence follower well-being and performance.
“Our focus was on transparent leader behavior that can influence follower well-being and performance.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“van Dierendonck and Nuijten's (2011) Servant Leadership Survey consists of 30 items that represent eight dimensions (standing back, forgiveness, courage, empowerment, accountability, authenticity, humility, and stewardship).”
From Servant Leadership: A systematic review and call for future research (2019) · cites this paper as van Dierendonck and Nuijten's (2011)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The original developmental article confirmed its construct validity (van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).”
From Servant Leadership: A systematic review and call for future research (2019) · cites this paper as van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For the shared leadership context, Sousa and Van Dierendonck (2016) constructed a 15-item shared servant leadership measure derived from van Dierendonck and Nuijten's (2011) SLS.”
From Servant Leadership: A systematic review and call for future research (2019) · cites this paper as van Dierendonck and Nuijten's (2011)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The most important principles of servant leadership are ' going beyond one ' s self-interest ' (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011, p. 1230), prioritizing the needs of immediate followers, and also serving the needs of stakeholders including followers, organizations, and the community.”
From The evolution of leadership: Past insights, present trends, and future directions (2025) · cites this paper as Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“The fit of the six-factor model was significantly lower (χ2 = 833.2, df = 390, CFI = .87, TLI = .85, SRMR = .06, AIC = 17395.1, RMSEA = .07; Δχ2 = 270.7, df = 23, p < .001).”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 3
Reported 23 · recomputed 13
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 2: Content Validity of the SLS > Results
“Forgiveness and contingent reward load high on this third factor.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 2: Content Validity of the SLS > Results
“14. Punishment behavior | .44 | | −.56 |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 1
“The Eigenvalues of the first 14 factors were averaged across these 50 datasets.”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 1
“The averaged random Eigenvalues were 1.857, 1.810, 1.773, 1.737, 1.706, 1.678, 1.625, 1.599, 1.577, 1.552, 1.533, 1.508, and 1.490.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“the chi-square of the eight-factor model is significantly better than that of the one-factor model (Δχ2 = 1466.0, df = 21, p < .001).”
§ The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure > Phase 1: Development of the Servant Leadership Survey > Study 2
Reported 21 · recomputed 28
Citations
Cites
Longshore, J. M., & Bass, B. M. (1987) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258081 · Cited by 12,424
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.424 · Cited by 12,298 · cited 2×
“The generally accepted values of good fit are close to .95 for the CFI and the TLI, and less than .08 for the SRMR and RMSEA (Fan and Sivo 2007; Hu and Bentler 1998 ).”
MethodThe measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002) · Journal of Happiness Studies · doi:10.1023/a:1015630930326 · Cited by 10,014 · cited 2×
“Engagement with work was measured with the nine-item short version of the Utrechtse Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al. 2002).”
MethodHandbook of Positive Psychology
(2001) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195135336.001.0001 · Cited by 9,155
The measurement of organizational commitment
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979) · Journal of Vocational Behavior · doi:10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1 · Cited by 8,911 · cited 2×
“Organizational commitment was measured in Study 4 with a seven-item scale based on the instrument developed by Mowday et al. (1979).”
MethodGraen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5 · Cited by 7,299 · cited 1×
“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).”
BackgroundCharacter Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification
Morrow, C. E. (2004) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.42-0624 · Cited by 6,166 · cited 2×
“These constructs all ‘‘represent a feeling of identification with and sense of obligation to a common good that includes the self but that stretches beyond one’s own self-interest’’ (Peterson and Seligman 2004, p. 370).”
BackgroundEthical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002 · Cited by 5,435 · cited 4×
“Ethical leadership. Ethical leadership was measured with the 10-item scale developed by Brown et al. (2005 ) i n samples 3 and 4 in Study 1. The internal consistency is high (alpha = .95).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialLeadership : Theory and Practice
Northouse, P. G. (2015) · Cited by 5,227
Culture, leadership, and organizations: the GLOBE study of 62 societies
(2005) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.42-4132 · Cited by 5,058 · cited 2×
“Servant leadership was measured with 30 items derived from the results of Study 2.”
BackgroundMethod
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Autry, J. A. (2004). The servant leader: How to build a creative team, develop great morale, and improve bottom-line performance. New York: Three Rivers Press.
- Froiland, P., Gordon, J., & Picard, M. (1993). In search of accountability. Training, 30, 59.
- Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the organizational leadership assessment (OLA) instrument. Doctoral dissertation, Boca Raton, Florida.
- Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2007). MPlus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 908
Rasheed, R., Rashid, A., Amirah, N. A., & Afthanorhan, A. (2023) · Quality - Access to Success · doi:10.47750/qas/24.195.08 · Cited by 69
Özyılmaz, A., & Cicek, S. S. (2015) · Journal of Management & Organization · doi:10.1017/jmo.2014.80 · Cited by 71
“…to influence psychological climate (e.g., van Dierendonck, 2011), job satisfaction (e.g., Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Gonzalez & Garazo, 2008; Mayer, Bardes, & Piccolo, 2008; van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (e.g., Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Liden, 2013).”
BackgroundLinuesa‐Langreo, J., Ruiz‐Palomino, P., & Elche-Hortelano, D. (2018) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-018-3823-4 · Cited by 75
Exploring the impact of higher management’s leadership styles on Lean management
van Assen, M. F. (2016) · Total Quality Management & Business Excellence · doi:10.1080/14783363.2016.1254543 · Cited by 81
“Servant leadership (SL) – van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011)”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialServant leadership and transformational leadership: from comparisons to farewells
Andersen, J. A. (2018) · Leadership & Organization Development Journal · doi:10.1108/lodj-01-2018-0053 · Cited by 90
Flynn, C. B., Smither, J. W., & Walker, A. G. (2016) · Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies · doi:10.1177/1548051815621257 · Cited by 63
Contextual antecedents of job crafting: review and future research agenda
Park, S., & Park, S. (2021) · European journal of training and development · doi:10.1108/ejtd-06-2021-0071 · Cited by 70
Nursing and values‐based leadership: A literature review
James, A. H., Bennett, C. L., Blanchard, D. L., & Stanley, D. J. (2021) · Journal of Nursing Management · doi:10.1111/jonm.13273 · Cited by 68
Liu, B., Hu, W., & Cheng, Y.-C. (2014) · Public Personnel Management · doi:10.1177/0091026014555995 · Cited by 70
Does leader humility matter? Effects on altruism and innovation
Broch, F. F. M., Domínguez-Escrig, E., Alcamí, R. L., & Chiva, R. (2019) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/md-11-2018-1180 · Cited by 60
A mission of service: social entrepreneur as a servant leader
Petrovskaya, I., & Григоревна, М. А. (2017) · International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research · doi:10.1108/ijebr-02-2016-0057 · Cited by 61
Servant Leadership Theory Development & Measurement
Rachmawati, A. W., & Lantu, D. C. (2014) · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.445 · Cited by 74
Servant Leadership in Sport for Development and Peace: A Way Forward
Peachey, J. W., & Burton, L. (2016) · Quest · doi:10.1080/00336297.2016.1165123 · Cited by 67
“…(Schneider & George, 2011), commitment to organizational change (Kool & van Dierendonck, 2012), decreased follower turnover intentions and disengagement (Hunter et al., 2013), greater satisfaction (Schneider & George, 2011), and positive employee work engagement (van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).”
BackgroundBambale, A. J. (2014) · Journal of Marketing Management · Cited by 57
Khan, M. M., Mubarik, M. S., Ahmed, S. S., Islam, T., Khan, E., Rehman, A., & Sohail, F. (2021) · Leadership & Organization Development Journal · doi:10.1108/lodj-08-2020-0320 · Cited by 74
Servant leadership and paternalistic leadership styles in the Turkish business context
Öner, Z. H. (2012) · Leadership & Organization Development Journal · doi:10.1108/01437731211216489 · Cited by 57
Humility, Religion, and Spirituality: An Endpiece
Davis, D. E., & Hook, J. (2014) · Journal of Psychology and Theology · doi:10.1177/009164711404200112 · Cited by 53
“Several new self-report measures have been published (e.g., Brown, Chopra, & Schiraldi, 2013; Landrum, 2011; van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).”
BackgroundHumble leadership and its outcomes: A meta-analysis
Luo, Y., Zhang, Z., Chen, Q., Zhang, K., Wang, Y., & Peng, J. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.980322 · Cited by 66
Positive Psychology at Work: Mutual Gains for Individuals and Organizations
Raquel, R.-C., Bernardo, M.-J., de Rivas, S., Álvarez-Bejarano, A., & Isabel, S.-V. A. (2010) · Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.5093/tr2010v26n3a7 · Cited by 55
Servant leadership and perceived employability: proactive career behaviours as mediators
Chughtai, A. A. (2019) · Leadership & Organization Development Journal · doi:10.1108/lodj-07-2018-0281 · Cited by 62
Latif, K. F., Mas‐Machuca, M., Marimón, F., & Sahibzada, U. F. (2020) · Applied Research in Quality of Life · doi:10.1007/s11482-019-09809-x · Cited by 58
“Van Dierendonck (2011) noted that “going beyond one’s self-interest” as a core characteristic of servant leadership.”
BackgroundInfluentialWang, Z., Guan, C., Cui, T., Cai, S., & Liu, D. (2021) · Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies · doi:10.1177/15480518211010769 · Cited by 61
“Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) argued that, for a servant leader, his/her primary intrinsic motive is the “need to serve,” which results from “compassionate love” of the leader.”
BackgroundDevelopment and validation of servant leadership scale in Spanish higher education
Latif, K. F., & Marimón, F. (2019) · Leadership & Organization Development Journal · doi:10.1108/lodj-01-2019-0041 · Cited by 59
Amah, O. E., & Oyetunde, K. (2020) · Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development · doi:10.1108/jsbed-01-2019-0009 · Cited by 65
Transformational and entrepreneurial leadership: A review of distinction and overlap
Ravet‐Brown, T., Furtner, M. R., & Kallmuenzer, A. (2023) · Review of Managerial Science · doi:10.1007/s11846-023-00649-6 · Cited by 78
“Leadership styles that were elucidated in accordance with this process include, among others, ethical leadership (Kalshoven et al. 2011 ), servant leadership (Van Dierendonck and Nuijten 2011 ), and authentic leadership (Walumbwa et al. 2008 ).”
Servant leaders, ethical followers? The effect of servant leadership on employee deviance
Paesen, H., Wouters, K., & Maesschalck, J. (2019) · Leadership & Organization Development Journal · doi:10.1108/lodj-01-2019-0013 · Cited by 60
A relational perspective to knowledge creation: Role of servant leadership
Rai, R., & Prakash, A. (2012) · Journal of Leadership Studies · doi:10.1002/jls.21238 · Cited by 52
Servant Leadership and Goal Attainment Through Meaningful Life and Vitality: A Diary Study
Rodríguez-Carvajal, R., Herrero, M., van Dierendonck, D., de Rivas, S., & Moreno-Jiménez, B. (2019) · Journal of Happiness Studies · doi:10.1007/s10902-017-9954-y · Cited by 58
Self-citationDahleez, K. A., & Aboramadan, M. (2022) · International Journal of Leadership in Education · doi:10.1080/13603124.2022.2052753 · Cited by 64
“We argue that a follower’s need for autonomy can be achieved through the servant leader’s empowering behavior (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).”
Public servant leadership: Myth or powerful reality?
Shim, D. C., Park, H. H., & Eom, T. H. (2016) · International Review of Public Administration · doi:10.1080/12294659.2016.1147753 · Cited by 53
“Several recent studies (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011) developed multi-dimensional versions of servant-leadership items, and different aspects of servant-leadership should be examined in future studies.”
BackgroundMicro-foundations for sustainable development: leadership and employee performance
Tripathi, D., Priyadarshi, P., Kumar, P., & Kumar, S. (2019) · International journal of organizational analysis · doi:10.1108/ijoa-01-2019-1622 · Cited by 57
Servant leadership: a new perspective to explore project leadership and team effectiveness
Bilal, A., Siddiquei, A. N., Asadullah, M. A., Awan, H. M., & Asmi, F. (2020) · International journal of organizational analysis · doi:10.1108/ijoa-12-2019-1975 · Cited by 63
Khan, M. M., Mubarik, M. S., Ahmed, S. S., Islam, T., & Khan, E. (2021) · Leadership & Organization Development Journal · doi:10.1108/lodj-05-2021-0236 · Cited by 56
Ellershaw, J., Fullarton, C., Rodwell, J., & McWilliams, J. (2015) · Journal of Nursing Management · doi:10.1111/jonm.12306 · Cited by 47
“Such panels are increasingly used in management research (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten 2011) as well as in nursing research (Gill et al. 2013).”
MethodPervasiveness of Dominant General Factors in Organizational Measurement
Ree, M. J., Carretta, T. R., & Teachout, M. S. (2015) · Industrial and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1017/iop.2015.16 · Cited by 49
The impact of servant leadership on employees attitudinal and behavioural outcomes
Brohi, N. A., Jantan, A. H., Qureshi, M. A., Jaffar, A. R. B., Ali, J., & Hamid, K. B. A. (2018) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2018.1542652 · Cited by 66
“In the last decade, researchers came up with several measures of various characteristics of servant leadership (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008; van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).”
BackgroundPaakkanen, M., Martela, F., Hakanen, J., Uusitalo, L., & Pessi, A. (2021) · Journal of Business and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10869-020-09723-2 · Cited by 48
“Subsequent studies have analyzed the validity of the measure (e.g., Hakanen, Harju, Seppälä, Laaksonen, & Pahkin, 2012; Rodriguez-Carvajal, De Rivas, Herrero, Moreno-Jimenez, & Van Dierendonck, 2014; Cronbach’s alpha for the whole measure was = .95 and = .94, respectively).”
BackgroundInfluentialOmanwar, S., & Agrawal, R. (2021) · International journal of organizational analysis · doi:10.1108/ijoa-08-2020-2374 · Cited by 66
Social Entrepreneur Servant Leadership and Social Venture Performance: How are They Related?
Kimakwa, S., Gonzalez, J. A., & Kaynak, H. (2021) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-021-04986-y · Cited by 58
Otto, K., Geibel, H. V., & Kleszewski, E. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.657394 · Cited by 62
“Accordingly, the postulated eightdimensional model of the SLS was confirmed with fit indices close to the original versions (see Van Dierendonck and Nuijten, 2011; Pircher Verdorfer and Peus, 2014;, for comparison), which indicates factorial validity of the adapted self-rating version.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialStein, A. M., Bell, C. M., & Min, Y. A. (2019) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2019.1703681 · Cited by 54
Personality traits and personal values of servant leaders
Sun, P. Y. T., & Shang, S. (2019) · Leadership & Organization Development Journal · doi:10.1108/lodj-11-2018-0406 · Cited by 57
Servant leadership in marketing: A critical review and a model of creativity-effects
Zarei, M., Supphellen, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2022) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.08.013 · Cited by 63
Servant leadership and the Scrum team’s effectiveness
Holtzhausen, N., & Klerk, J. J. D. (2018) · Leadership & Organization Development Journal · doi:10.1108/lodj-05-2018-0193 · Cited by 57
The Ability of Project Managers to Implement Industry 4.0-Related Projects
Marnewick, A. L., & Marnewick, C. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2961678 · Cited by 50
“The EFA reduced the 8 attributes of [45] to 5 and reduced the 30 behaviours down to 23.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialReb, J. M., Sim, S. S.-H., Chintakananda, K., & Bhave, D. P. (2015) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107587793.013 · Cited by 54
“Essentially, servant leadership places a strong emphasis on leaders’ selfless behaviors and motivation to serve others (Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011; Liden et al.).”
BackgroundUnderstanding servant leadership dimensions
Franco, M., & Antunes, A. (2020) · Nankai Business Review International · doi:10.1108/nbri-08-2019-0038 · Cited by 59
Servant leadership and family supportiveness: Looking into employees’ work and family outcomes
Rofcanın, Y., Heras, M. L., Bosch, M. J., Berber, A., Mughal, F., & Öztürk, M. B. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.052 · Cited by 51
“…focus on FSSBs aligns with the latest research on servant leadership, which suggests that serving behaviours of servant leaders demonstrate proactive willingness of such leaders who go above and beyond the formal requirements of their duties to meet follower needs (van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).”
BackgroundLeading People Positively: Cross-Cultural Validation of the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS)
Rodríguez‐Carvajal, R., de Rivas, S., Herrero, M., Jiménez, B. M., & van Dierendonck, D. (2014) · The Spanish Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1017/sjp.2014.73 · Cited by 44
Self-citationBroch, F. F. M., Domínguez-Escrig, E., Chiva-Gómez, R., & Alcamí, R. L. (2020) · Leadership & Organization Development Journal · doi:10.1108/lodj-03-2019-0127 · Cited by 33
Christian Scripture and Human Resource Management
Roberts, G. E. (2015) · Palgrave Macmillan US eBooks · doi:10.1057/9781137440679 · Cited by 42
Servant Leadership: An Ancient Style with 21st Century Relevance
Gandolfi, F., Stone, S., & Deno, F. (2017) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 42
The principled leadership scale: An integration of value-based leadership
Hendrikz, K., & Engelbrecht, A. S. (2019) · SA Journal of Industrial Psychology · doi:10.4102/sajip.v45i0.1553 · Cited by 58
Smallfield, J., Hoobler, J. M., & Kluemper, D. H. (2020) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.2450 · Cited by 47
Haq, I. U., Raja, U., Alam, I., Clercq, D. D., & Saleem, S. (2021) · Personnel Review · doi:10.1108/pr-04-2019-0172 · Cited by 49
Howladar, M. H. R., & Rahman, M. S. (2021) · South East European Journal of Economics and Business · doi:10.2478/jeb-2021-0006 · Cited by 68
“The 30-item SL scale of Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) was used to measure SL since this scale showed high reliability and validity.”
BackgroundMethodGnankob, R. I., Ansong, A., & Issau, K. (2022) · International Journal of Public Sector Management · doi:10.1108/ijpsm-04-2021-0108 · Cited by 51
Creative and innovative leadership: measurement development and validation
Khalili, A. (2017) · Management Research Review · doi:10.1108/mrr-09-2016-0213 · Cited by 52
Servant Leadership Styles: A Theoretical Approach
Thanh, N. H., & Văn, Q. N. (2021) · Emerging Science Journal · doi:10.28991/esj-2021-01273 · Cited by 63
“[32] Van Dierendonck, Dirk, Daan Stam, Pieter Boersma, Ninotchka de Windt, and Jorrit Alkema.”
InfluentialPletzer, J. L., Breevaart, K., & Bakker, A. B. (2023) · Organizational Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/20413866231197519 · Cited by 70
Creating future leaders: an examination of youth leadership development in Australia
Eva, N., & Sendjaya, S. (2013) · Education + Training · doi:10.1108/et-08-2012-0082 · Cited by 49
Leadership for sustainability: fostering organizational learning to achieve radical innovations
Domínguez-Escrig, E., & Broch, F. F. M. (2021) · European Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1108/ejim-03-2021-0151 · Cited by 39
Sick and working: Current challenges and emerging directions for future presenteeism research
Patel, C., Biron, M., Cooper, C. L., & Budhwar, P. S. (2023) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.2727 · Cited by 46
Exploring Servant Leadership and Needs Satisfaction in the Sport for Development and Peace Context
Peachey, J. W., Burton, L., Wells, J. E., & Chung, M. R. (2018) · Journal of Sport Management · doi:10.1123/jsm.2017-0153 · Cited by 46
Yagil, D., & Oren, R. (2021) · Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.5093/jwop2021a1 · Cited by 56
Examining the Effects of Servant Leadership on Life Satisfaction
Chughtai, A. A. (2017) · Applied Research in Quality of Life · doi:10.1007/s11482-017-9564-1 · Cited by 42
Verdorfer, A. P., & Peus, C. V. (2019) · Business Ethics A European Review · doi:10.1111/beer.12255 · Cited by 41
Social demands and resources predict job burnout and engagement profiles among Finnish employees
Upadyaya, K., & Salmela‐Aro, K. (2020) · Anxiety Stress & Coping · doi:10.1080/10615806.2020.1746285 · Cited by 55
Khan, M. M., Mubarik, M. S., Ahmed, S. S., Islam, T., & Khan, E. (2022) · Leadership & Organization Development Journal · doi:10.1108/lodj-06-2021-0305 · Cited by 44
The relationship between leadership and adaptive performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bonini, A., Panari, C., Caricati, L., & Mariani, M. G. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0304720 · Cited by 92
Irving, J., & Berndt, J. (2017) · Administrative Sciences · doi:10.3390/admsci7020010 · Cited by 36
“The positive effect of servant leadership on organizational commitment is also reported by Dannhauser and Boshoff [50], Liden et al. [16], Jaramillo et al. [49], Drury [63], Asag-gau and van Dierendonck [51], and van Dierendonck and Nuijten [9].”
BackgroundInfluentialAre women business owners authentic servant leaders?
Sims, C. M., & Morris, L. R. (2018) · Gender in Management An International Journal · doi:10.1108/gm-01-2018-0003 · Cited by 47
Amir, D. A. (2019) · Journal of Leadership in Organizations · doi:10.22146/jlo.42946 · Cited by 44
“Measurement SL is measured using measurement instruments from Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2010) consisting of eight dimensions.”
BackgroundMethodFaraz, N. A., Mughal, M. F., Ahmed, F., Raza, A., & Iqbal, M. K. (2019) · THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION · doi:10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.53.1002 · Cited by 48
der Hoven, A. G. V., Mahembe, B., & Hamman-Fisher, D. A. (2021) · SA Journal of Human Resource Management · doi:10.4102/sajhrm.v19i0.1395 · Cited by 44
Schowalter, A. F., & Volmer, J. (2023) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101722 · Cited by 45
McCarthy, J. M., Erdoğan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2019) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.2406 · Cited by 40
“Applied to managers, sharing credit reflects the extent to which managers acknowledge subordinates' contributions to accomplishments (van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).”
BackgroundMethodLee, Y., Hsiao, C., Chan, H.-Y., & Lee, I.-C. (2019) · International Journal of Bank Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijbm-05-2019-0166 · Cited by 45
Ren, S., Wang, Z., & Collins, N. T. (2021) · Personnel Review · doi:10.1108/pr-07-2020-0506 · Cited by 38
Liao, G., Zhou, J., & Yin, J. (2022) · Psychology Research and Behavior Management · doi:10.2147/prbm.s359773 · Cited by 50
“Servant leadership is typically characterized by modesty, sincerity, interpersonal acceptance, and authorization.(73) Leaders with these characteristics can easily generate high-quality relationships with employees, create a relaxed and pleasing working atmosphere in the organization, and convey an inclusive leadershi…”
BackgroundSims, C. M. (2018) · Advances in Developing Human Resources · doi:10.1177/1523422318778009 · Cited by 41
“As a role model, the leader sets a good example by choosing not to focus on their self-interest or control others (Block, 1993; Spears, 1995) and works toward the common good (van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).”
BackgroundMethodHİZMETKAR LİDERLİK VE PSİKOLOJİK GÜÇLENDİRME İLİŞKİSİ: ÖRGÜT KÜLTÜRÜNÜN DÜZENLEYİCİ ETKİSİ
Bolat, T., Bolat, O. İ., & Yüksel, M. (2016) · Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi · doi:10.31795/baunsobed.662160 · Cited by 35
Lemoine, G. J., Hartnell, C. A., Hora, S., & Watts, D. I. (2023) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/peps.12605 · Cited by 43
Kyambade, M., Nkurunziza, G., Sewante, L., Namatovu, A., & Tushabe, M. (2024) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2024.2418802 · Cited by 50
“By fostering psychological safety, servant leaders lay the groundwork for healthy work relationships characterized by trust, openness, and mutual respect (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).”
Servant-Leadership: A Feminist Perspective
Reynolds, K. (2014) · International Journal of Servant-Leadership · doi:10.33972/ijsl.110 · Cited by 36
Servant Leader, Spiritual Leader: The Case for Convergence
Lynch, J. A., & Friedman, H. H. (2013) · Cited by 31
Authentic leadership: boosting organisational learning capability and innovation success
Domínguez-Escrig, E., Broch, F. F. M., Chiva, R., & Alcamí, R. L. (2022) · The Learning Organization · doi:10.1108/tlo-01-2021-0007 · Cited by 33
Ellahi, A., Rehman, M., Javed, Y., Sultan, F., & Rehman, H. M. (2022) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440221122747 · Cited by 53
“Servant leaders do not employ their supremacy to get things done, instead, he uses communication and attention to their followers which helps the leader to know their needs, desires, abilities, goals, and potentials (van Dierendonck, 2011; van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).”
BackgroundTheoretical Development and Empirical Examination of a Three-Roles Model of Responsible LeadershipPreprint
Voegtlin, C., Frisch, C., Walther, A., & Schwab, P. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3368100 · Cited by 34
Insights on practicing of servant leadership in the events sector
Megheirkouni, M. (2018) · Sport Business and Management An International Journal · doi:10.1108/sbm-01-2017-0001 · Cited by 31
Moon, K.-K., & Christensen, R. K. (2021) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muab035 · Cited by 45
Unethical pro-organizational behavior as an outcome of servant leadership
Uymaz, A. O., & Arslan, S. (2021) · Journal of Management & Organization · doi:10.1017/jmo.2021.49 · Cited by 31
How Distinct is Servant Leadership Theory? Empirical Comparisons with Competing Theories
Washington, R. R., Sutton, C. D., & Sauser, W. I., Jr. (2014) · Cited by 32
Servant Leadership in Sport: A Review, Synthesis, and Applications for Sport Management Classrooms
Robinson, G. M., Neubert, M. J., & Miller, G. A. (2017) · Sport Management Education Journal · doi:10.1123/smej.2016-0023 · Cited by 37
Developing character-based leadership through guided self-reflection
Kiersch, C., & Gullekson, N. L. (2021) · The International Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100573 · Cited by 32
Enhancing and Extending the Meta-Analytic Comparison of Newer Genre Leadership Forms
Fuller, B., Bajaba, A. M., & Bajaba, S. M. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.872568 · Cited by 37
“Although Greenleaf ’s (1970) definition of SL has been consistently referenced (e.g., van Dierendonck, 2011), it defined SL in terms of its outcomes instead of its behaviors, thus, affecting its utility as a construct definition (Lemoine et al., 2019).”
BackgroundMethodServant Leadership and its Relationships with Core Self-Evaluation and Job Satisfaction
Tischler, L., Giambatista, R. C., McKeage, R., & McCormick, D. (2016) · ValpoScholar (Valparaiso University) · Cited by 30
Ghosh, K., & Khatri, N. (2017) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2017.10.012 · Cited by 36
Thelen, P. D. (2021) · International Journal of Strategic Communication · doi:10.1080/1553118x.2021.1984919 · Cited by 41
“Following this conceptualization, Van Dierendonck and Nuitjen (2011) later created a new psychometrically valid and reliable instrument, which they called the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS), which includes 30 items measuring eight dimensions: empowerment (focused on developing a pro-active and…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialDistinguishing Servant Leadership from Transactional and Transformational Leadership
Martinez, S.-A., & Leija, N. (2023) · Advances in Developing Human Resources · doi:10.1177/15234223231175845 · Cited by 63
“Furthermore, one study compared SL in the Netherlands and the UK (van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), another compared Asian and European cultures (Mittal & Dorfman, 2012), while a third investigated SL in teams from Thailand and China (Yoshida, Sendjaya et al., 2014).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I.
- Affiliations
- Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
- Corresponding author
- van Dierendonck, Dirk
- Venue
- Journal of Business and Psychology
- Published
- 2010-09-03
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 249-267
- ISSN
- 0889-3268 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-353X
- PMC
- PMC3152712
- OpenAlex
- W2034502123
- Semantic Scholar
- e45823614f20333ddf09ad6a10886ed2ecb3403f
- Cited by
- 1,096
- References
- 102
- Citations by year
- 2026: 81 · 2025: 94 · 2024: 102 · 2023: 113 · 2022: 91 · 2021: 95 · 2020: 93 · 2019: 89 · 2018: 76 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 32.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- Journal of Business and Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Leadership and Management in Organizations
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Workplace Spirituality and Leadership
- Keywords
- servant leadership, leadership assessment, scale development, factor structure, forgiveness, courage, empowerment, accountability, authenticity, humility, stewardship, criterion validity, leadership development
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
