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 201–300 of 908
The validation of the servant leadership scale
Grobler, A., & Flotman, A.-P. (2020) · SA Journal of Industrial Psychology · doi:10.4102/sajip.v46i0.1754 · Cited by 34
Zhang, Z., Lee, J. C., & Wong, P. H. (2016) · Leadership & Organization Development Journal · doi:10.1108/lodj-07-2015-0159 · Cited by 31
Khattak, S. I., Jiang, Q., Li, H., & Zhang, X. (2019) · Journal of Business Economics and Management · doi:10.3846/jbem.2019.9852 · Cited by 29
“CSR values, servant leadership, and extra effort Since Greenleaf ’s seminal work (1977), many contributions have been made over years to develop servant leadership both methodically and conceptually (e.g., Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Laub, 1999; van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).”
BackgroundThe executive mind: leader self‐talk, effectiveness and strain
Rogelberg, S. G., Justice, L. M., Braddy, P. W., Paustian‐Underdahl, S. C., Heggestad, E. D., Shanock, L. R., Baran, B. E., Beck, T. E., Long, S. D., Andrew, A. M., et al. (2013) · Journal of Managerial Psychology · doi:10.1108/02683941311300702 · Cited by 36
“…lead others, and it focuses on the importance of leader support (e.g. Baran et al., 2012), mentorship (e.g. Haggard, 2012), helpfulness (van Dierendonck and Nuijten, 2011), communication (e.g. de Vries et al., 2010), and promoting collaboration (e.g. Naidoo et al., 2011) among the…”
BackgroundSahawneh, F. G., & Benuto, L. T. (2018) · Online Learning · doi:10.24059/olj.v22i1.1066 · Cited by 28
Bernards, B. (2021) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2021.2005326 · Cited by 33
Integrating service-learning and humanitarian logistics education
Goffnett, S. P., Helferich, O. K., & Buschlen, E. L. (2013) · Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management · doi:10.1108/jhlscm-09-2012-0022 · Cited by 29
Community Leadership: A Theory-Based Model
Lamm, K. W., Carter, H. S., Lamm, A. J., et al. (2017) · Journal of Leadership Education · doi:10.12806/v16/i3/t2 · Cited by 27
“A leader’s willingness to collectively process and monitor the environment for potential changes (Van Fleet & Yukl, 1986) has been associated with loyalty of the leader to their members (Velasquez, 1992), and ultimately more acceptance and focus on accomplishing goals through a mutually agreeable strategy (Pigg, 1999).”
BackgroundInfluentialSandstrom, J., & Reynolds, D. (2019) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102399 · Cited by 31
Serving the need of people: the case for servant leadership against populism
Sousa, M., & van Dierendonck, D. (2021) · Journal of Change Management · doi:10.1080/14697017.2021.1917494 · Cited by 27
Self-citationThe Relationship between Personality Type and the Servant Leadership Characteristic of Empowerment
Greasley, P. E., & Bocârnea, M. C. (2014) · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.454 · Cited by 27
Oterkiil, C., & Ertesvåg, S. K. (2014) · Educational Management Administration & Leadership · doi:10.1177/1741143214523011 · Cited by 27
“The two most frequently used criteria are the absolute minimum number of subjects and the relative number indicated by the subject-to-variables ratio (Van Dierendonck and Nuijten, 2011).”
MethodA Validation of Servant Leadership Scale on Multinational Sample
Göçen, A., & Şen, S. (2020) · Psychological Reports · doi:10.1177/0033294120957246 · Cited by 26
“Similarly, Lapointe and Vandenberghe (2018) noted that they found high reliability for Liden et al.’s (2015) SL scale.”
BackgroundInfluentialRabiul, M. K., Yean, T. F., Patwary, A. K., & Hilman, H. (2021) · International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration · doi:10.1080/15256480.2021.1935391 · Cited by 34
“Besides, this leadership style does not respond to the individual’s immediate self-interest, and instead transforms the individual’s interests to achieve the group goals by increasing the confidence of the followers (Avolio et al., 2009; Bottomley et al., 2016; Van Dierendonck et al., 2013).”
BackgroundInfluentialWang, Z., Panaccio, A. J., Raja, U., Donia, M. B. L., Landry, G., Pereira, M. M., & Ferreira, M. C. (2022) · International Journal of Cross Cultural Management · doi:10.1177/14705958221112859 · Cited by 30
Taming the Emotional Dog: Moral Intuition and Ethically-Oriented Leader Development
Egorov, M., Verdorfer, A. P., & Peus, C. V. (2018) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-018-3876-4 · Cited by 30
Humility in Servant Leadership among Christian Student Leaders: A Longitudinal Pilot Study
Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J. (2018) · Journal of Psychology and Theology · doi:10.1177/0091647118807177 · Cited by 25
“Humility among servant leaders predicts more work engagement, vitality, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment from subordinates (Sousa & van Dierendonck, 2017; van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).”
BackgroundServant Leadership Impact on Organizational Performance: The Mediating Role of Employee Engagement
Alafeshat, R., & Aboud, F. (2019) · International Journal of Human Resource Studies · doi:10.5296/ijhrs.v9i3.15047 · Cited by 26
Qu, J.-Z., Khapova, S., Xu, S., Cai, W.-J., Zhang, Y., Zhang, L.-H., & Jiang, X. (2023) · Journal of business and psychology · doi:10.1007/s10869-023-09884-w · Cited by 24
Saleem, S., Tourigny, L., Raziq, M. M., Shaheen, S., & Goher, A. (2022) · Journal of Nursing Management · doi:10.1111/jonm.13622 · Cited by 39
The Effects of Leader Behavior on Job Satisfaction: A Research on Technology Fast50 Turkey Companies
Akdöl, B., & ARIKBOĞA, F. Ş. (2015) · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.159 · Cited by 26
Servant Leadership: A bibliometric Review
Najam, U., & Mustamil, N. M. (2020) · International Journal of Organizational Leadership · doi:10.33844/ijol.2020.60501 · Cited by 27
“The most significant work done in the field of servant leadership literature was “Servant leadership: A review and synthesis” by Van Dierendonck (2011a), the second was “A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts” by Parris (2013) and third most influential publication was “…”
BackgroundInfluentialHigh involvement work practices often lead to burnout, but thanks to humble leadership
Afshan, G., Kashif, M., Khanum, F., Khuhro, M. A., & Akram, U. (2021) · Journal of Management Development · doi:10.1108/jmd-10-2020-0311 · Cited by 24
Battaglio, R. P., & Gelgec, S. (2016) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2016.1235723 · Cited by 24
Anderson, M. H., & Sun, P. Y. T. (2023) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12922 · Cited by 29
Zhong, L., Qian, Z., & Wang, D. (2020) · Frontiers of Business Research in China · doi:10.1186/s11782-020-00079-1 · Cited by 27
“Servant leadership has been put forward as a multidimensional construct (Barbuto Jr and Wheeler 2006; Ehrhart 2004; Liden et al. 2008; van Dierendonck and Nuijten 2011).”
BackgroundResultDuan, Y., Chen, Y., Liu, S., Wong, C., Yang, M., & Mu, C. (2021) · Journal of Intellectual Capital · doi:10.1108/jic-07-2021-0183 · Cited by 25
Ekinci, A. (2015) · TED EĞİTİM VE BİLİM · doi:10.15390/eb.2015.2152 · Cited by 24
Zhou, J., & Li, Y. (2018) · Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies · doi:10.1177/1548051817750543 · Cited by 23
“Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) incorporated openness of imperfections, willingness to seek more sophisticated advices from different perspectives as an important component in their servant leadership scale.”
BackgroundThe Measurement of Servant Leadership
Verdorfer, A. P., & Peus, C. V. (2014) · Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie A&O · doi:10.1026/0932-4089/a000133 · Cited by 34
Güngör, S. K. (2016) · Universal Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.13189/ujer.2016.040531 · Cited by 23
“The scale was developed by Dirk Van Dierendonck & et al (23).”
MethodNonresponse bias in public leadership research: an empirical assessment
Vogel, D., & Jacobsen, C. B. (2021) · International Public Management Journal · doi:10.1080/10967494.2021.1906803 · Cited by 23
“Construct Operationalization Servant leadership (van Dierendonck and Nuijten 2011) (a ¼ .95) My team manager … … gives me the information I need to do my work well.”
BackgroundJin, S., Li, Y., & Xiao, S. S. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.803681 · Cited by 31
“A servant leader satisfies the members’ basic needs, particularly psychological needs, as well as those needs that determine employees’ creativity (Van Dierendonck, 2011; Sidani and Rowe, 2018).”
BackgroundRai, R., & Prakash, A. (2016) · Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.rpto.2016.02.001 · Cited by 36
“…factors crucial for the occurrence of absorptive capacity such as trust (Farling, Stone, & Winston, 1999), forgiveness (Van Dierendonck, 2010; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), empowerment (Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008), care and support (Searle & Barbuto, 2011), cooperation (Spears, 2010),…”
BackgroundInfluentialMoll, J., & Kretzschmar, L. (2017) · Journal of Leadership Education · doi:10.12806/v16/i2/t1 · Cited by 26
Cultures of Servant Leadership and Their Impact
Giambatista, R. C., McKeage, R., & Brees, J. R. (2019) · Journal of Values-Based Leadership · doi:10.22543/0733.131.1306 · Cited by 31
“The OLA was the first servant leadership instrument and has been validated in several studies, even by those who created other servant leadership instruments to find its components (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011; van Dierendonck, 2011).”
BackgroundExploring the social context of self-leadership-Self-leadership-culture
Bracht, E. M., Junker, N. M., & van Dick, R. (2018) · Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/jts5.33 · Cited by 22
Duraisingam, V., ROCHE, A. M., Kostadinov, V., Hodge, S., & Chapman, J. (2020) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.102638 · Cited by 21
Does Servant Leadership Moderate the Relationship between Job Stress and Physical Health?
Dooley, L. M., Alizadeh, A., Qiu, S., & Wu, H. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12166591 · Cited by 26
“Servant leadership is mainly manifested by humility, empowerment, courage, forgiveness, and standing back [24].”
BackgroundResearch streams, gaps and opportunities in servant leadership research
Zarei, M., Supphellen, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2023) · Leadership & Organization Development Journal · doi:10.1108/lodj-02-2023-0072 · Cited by 28
Rabiul, M. K., Karim, R. A., & Rashid, H. O. R. (2023) · Journal of Management Development · doi:10.1108/jmd-09-2023-0292 · Cited by 31
In search of clarity on servant leadership: domain specification and reconceptualization
VanMeter, R. A., Chonko, L. B., Grisaffe, D. B., & Goad, E. A. (2016) · AMS Review · doi:10.1007/s13162-016-0075-2 · Cited by 27
“…Buchen (1998); Spears (1998); Spears and Lawrence (2002); Parris and Peachey (2013) Consensus Builder McGee-Cooper and Looper (2001) Courage van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) Covenantal Relationship Sendjaya (2003) Creating Value for the Community** Ehrhart (2004); Laub (2003); Barbuto and…”
BackgroundInfluentialServant and Spiritual Leadership Theories: Are They Two Different Notions?
Contreras, F. (2016) · Journal of Human Values · doi:10.1177/0971685816650578 · Cited by 21
“…& Stone, 2002; Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002); however, further studies suggest that this model is more oriented in an empirical/analytical approach due to the interest in assessing the dimensions of the model made through reliable questionnaires (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; van Dierendonck & Nuijte, 2011).”
BackgroundServant Leadership and Its Relation to Work Performance
Gašková, J. (2020) · Central European Business Review · doi:10.18267/j.cebr.236 · Cited by 33
“Servant Leadership measure (SL-28).”
MethodInfluentialServant-Leadership and Life Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Justice, Job Control, and Burnout
Hakanen, J., & van Dierendonck, D. (2011) · International Journal of Servant-Leadership · doi:10.33972/ijsl.183 · Cited by 22
Self-citationBrouns, T., Externbrink, K., & Blesa Aledo, P. S. (2020) · Administrative Sciences · doi:10.3390/admsci10020020 · Cited by 20
“…evidence suggests its beneficial effects on follower performance and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), beyond transformational leadership and leader-member-exchange (LMX), across different jobs and cultures (e.g., Liden et al. 2008; Van Dierendonck and Nuijten 2011; Sendjaya et al. 2008).”
BackgroundMethodLammassaari, H., Hietajärvi, L., Salmela‐Aro, K., Hakkarainen, K., & Lonka, K. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.861437 · Cited by 36
The servant leader as a critical pedagogue: drawing lessons from critical pedagogy
Jeyaraj, J. J., & Gandolfi, F. (2019) · International Journal of Leadership in Education · doi:10.1080/13603124.2019.1690702 · Cited by 25
“The perception of a servant leader should be one of a courageous steward who holds people accountable for their own good (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).”
BackgroundServant leadership, team-based learning and hope and optimism: A sectoral comparative study
Grobler, A., & Flotman, A.-P. (2021) · South African Journal of Business Management · doi:10.4102/sajbm.v52i1.2444 · Cited by 24
The Leadership Ethics of Machiavelli’s Prince
Cosans, C. E., & Reina, C. S. (2017) · Business Ethics Quarterly · doi:10.1017/beq.2017.13 · Cited by 20
Generation Y’s Perception of Servant Leadership and Job Satisfaction
Bilge, H., Vîrlănuța, F. O., Züngün, D., Bărbuță‐Mișu, N., Çomuk, P., & Güven, E. T. A. (2021) · Economies · doi:10.3390/economies9010024 · Cited by 24
“Studies by Schofield and Honoré (2011) on Generation Y and by van van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) on servant leadership are based solely on theory or researchers’ opinions without being supported by empirical studies, or they stem from a limited number of empirical studies.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialServant Leadership: Influence of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment
Vrcelj, N., Bevanda, V., & Bevanda, N. (2022) · Management Journal of Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in Emerging Economies · doi:10.7595/management.fon.2022.0009 · Cited by 41
“…to measure servant leadership is a combination of constructs taken and adjusted based on questionnaires compiled by Fields and Winston (2010) and Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011), job satisfaction was measured by an adjusted questionnaire developed by Spector (1994), and organizational…”
MethodNauman, S., Basit, A. A., Munir, H., & Iqbal, M. S. (2023) · Project Management Journal · doi:10.1177/87569728231216897 · Cited by 25
“Therefore, servant leadership offers a unique approach to leadership that prioritizes the well-being and growth of followers, resulting in positive organizational outcomes (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).”
BackgroundRamli, A., & Desa, N. M. (2014) · International Journal of Management and Sustainability · Cited by 19
Legutko, B. (2020) · Journal of Leadership Studies · doi:10.1002/jls.21683 · Cited by 19
A confirmatory factor analytical study of a servant leadership measure in South Africa
Mahembe, B., & Engelbrecht, A. S. (2013) · SA Journal of Industrial Psychology · doi:10.4102/sajip.v39i2.1127 · Cited by 20
“The willingness to stand back and give space to others is missing (Van Dierendonck, 2011).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Effects of Servant Leadership on Employee’s Job Withdrawal Intention
Ng, X. L., Choi, S. L., & Soehod, K. (2016) · Asian Social Science · doi:10.5539/ass.v12n2p99 · Cited by 20
“In Western countries, servant leadership is less practiced by leaders in Italy than in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, particularly in the case of standing back, humility and authenticity (Bobbio, Van Dierendonck, & Manganelli, 2012).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSteinmann, B., Nübold, A., & Maier, G. W. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00446 · Cited by 19
“Servant leadership was measured with the short form of the Servant Leadership Survey (21 items, α = 0.95, Van Dierendonck and Nuijten, 2010; Asag-Gau and van Dierendonck, 2011), abusive leadership with the German version of the Abusive Supervision Scale (Loock and Schilling, 2010; 10 items, α =…”
MethodInfluentialKhan, M. M., Mubarik, M. S., Ahmed, S. S., et al. (2023) · Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication · doi:10.1108/gkmc-12-2022-0279 · Cited by 18
A Theory Based Model of Interpersonal Leadership: An Integration of the Literature
Lamm, K. W., Carter, H. S., & Lamm, A. J. (2016) · Journal of Leadership Education · doi:10.12806/v15/i4/t2 · Cited by 18
“Additionally, given their role, leaders must have the confidence (House, 1977; Luthans & Avolio, 2003) and courage (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011) to act.”
BackgroundInfluentialChristian sports coaches and servant leadership
Vinson, D., & Parker, A. (2020) · International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching · doi:10.1177/1747954120951768 · Cited by 22
Hutchinson, M., Jackson, D. W., Daly, J., & Usher, K. J. (2015) · Issues in Mental Health Nursing · doi:10.3109/01612840.2015.1017627 · Cited by 18
“Service to others is reflected in leader moral obligations that are not grounded in self-interest (Hernandez et al., 2011), and are instead, focussed on the common good (van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).”
BackgroundServant Leadership: The Exemplifying Behaviours
Olesia, M. S., NAMUSONGE, P. G., & Iravo, M. A. (2014) · IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science · doi:10.9790/0837-19647580 · Cited by 19
“…do not only need to be good today in order to survive, but great, and a fundamental ability in building great companies is displaying humility as well as strength. www.iosrjournals.org 77 | Page servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1970; Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011 as cited in Stefansdottir, 2013).”
BackgroundVerdorfer, A. P., & Peus, C. V. (2014) · Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie A&O · Cited by 17
Raub, S. P., Fernandez, S., & Vitalis, M. (2023) · Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism · doi:10.1080/15332845.2023.2253669 · Cited by 19
“As a consequence, interaction with a servant leader will increase their feelings of meaning, impact (Newman et al., 2017), competence (Walumbwa et al., 2010), and self-determination (Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).”
BackgroundKhattak, M. N., Al-Taie, M. Z., Ahmed, I., & Muhammad, N. (2023) · Journal of Organizational Effectiveness People and Performance · doi:10.1108/joepp-11-2022-0328 · Cited by 26
Dabdoub, J. P., Salgado, D., Bernal, A., et al. (2023) · Journal of Moral Education · doi:10.1080/03057240.2023.2254510 · Cited by 17
“A following assignment invites principals to conduct a survey (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011) with their staff assessing them on these eight virtues.”
Demissie, A. D., Alemu, A. E., & Tensay, A. T. (2024) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2024.2336653 · Cited by 25
“…concept of servant leadership (Van Dierendonck & nuijten, 2011). spears listed 10 essential traits of servant leaders, which include listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, dedication, community building and steward-ship (Van Dierendonck & nuijten, 2011).”
InfluentialVerdorfer, A. P. (2018) · German Journal of Human Resource Management Zeitschrift für Personalforschung · doi:10.1177/2397002218793840 · Cited by 20
Servant leadership, span of control, and outcomes in a municipality context
Thompson, G., Buch, R., & Glasø, L. (2019) · Journal of General Management · doi:10.1177/0306307018810584 · Cited by 21
“Van Dierendonck D and Nuijten I (2011) The servant leadership survey: development and validation of a multidimensional measure.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe Effect of Servant Leadership on Psychological Empowerment and Organizational Identification
Zorlu, Ö., Avan, A., & Baytok, A. (2019) · Journal of Business Research - Turk · doi:10.20491/isarder.2019.600 · Cited by 18
“…there are some studies addressing that empowerment is one of the most important dimensions of SL (Greasley and Bocârnea 2014; Jaiswal and Dhar, 2017; Liden et al. 2008; Page and Wong, 2000; Patterson, 2003; Russell and Stone, 2002; van Dierendonck 2011; van Dierendonck and Nuijten 2011).”
BackgroundKashyap, V., & Rangnekar, S. (2014) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2429711 · Cited by 17
Frömmer, D., Hollnagel, G., Franke-Bartholdt, L., Strobel, A., & Wegge, J. (2021) · German Journal of Human Resource Management Zeitschrift für Personalforschung · doi:10.1177/2397002220984440 · Cited by 20
A Meta-Review of Servant Leadership: Construct, Correlates, and the Process
Chaudhry, A., Cao, X., Liden, R. C., Point, S., & Vidyarthi, P. R. (2022) · Journal of Comparative International Management · doi:10.7202/1085567ar · Cited by 19
Crisis Leadership: Political Leadership during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Samad, A., Jerjawi, K. A., & Dadich, A. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15010266 · Cited by 21
Servant leadership measurement: a comparison of five instruments in China
van Dierendonck, D., Xiu, L., & Lv, F. (2023) · Leadership & Organization Development Journal · doi:10.1108/lodj-03-2022-0153 · Cited by 26
Self-citationHow teams can overcome silence: The roles of humble leadership and team commitment
Zettna, N., Nguyen, H., Restubog, S. L. D., Schilpzand, P., & Johnson, A. M. (2024) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/peps.12660 · Cited by 19
Anselmo-Witzel, S., Heitner, K. L., & Dimitroff, L. J. (2020) · JONA The Journal of Nursing Administration · doi:10.1097/nna.0000000000000926 · Cited by 16
Servant Leadership in the Last Decade : A Systematic Review
Zubairu, U. M. (2020) · Journal of Corporate Responsibility and Leadership · doi:10.12775/jcrl.2019.003 · Cited by 18
Mahon, D. (2021) · Leadership in health services · doi:10.1108/lhs-01-2021-0001 · Cited by 21
Foldøy, S., Furunes, T., Dagsland, Å. H. B., & Haver, A. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su131810298 · Cited by 17
Wang, L., Sun, Y., Li, J., Xu, Y., Chen, M.-F., Zhu, X., & Wang, D. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.862799 · Cited by 30
Priming employees’ promotion focus
Yang, F., Qian, J., & Liu, J. (2018) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/md-11-2016-0809 · Cited by 16
Ortiz-Gómez, M., Giorgi, G., Molina‐Sánchez, H., & Ariza‐Montes, A. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12093766 · Cited by 15
Swart, C. B., Pottas, L., Maree, D. J. F., & Graham, M. A. (2022) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440221096653 · Cited by 15
Mishra, S. S., & Hassen, M. H. (2023) · International Journal of Public Leadership · doi:10.1108/ijpl-05-2022-0025 · Cited by 35
Servant School Leadership and Organisational Climate in South African Private Schools
Swart, C. B., Pottas, L., & Maree, D. J. F. (2021) · Education Research International · doi:10.1155/2021/8568889 · Cited by 15
Servant leaders as underestimators: theoretical and practical implications
Sousa, M., & van Dierendonck, D. (2017) · Leadership & Organization Development Journal · doi:10.1108/lodj-10-2015-0236 · Cited by 15
Self-citationThe Motivation to Serve as a Corner Stone of Servant Leadership
Sun, P. Y. T. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75644-8_5 · Cited by 16
Coun, M. J. H., Ruiter, M. D., & Peters, P. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1183203 · Cited by 26
Innovative leadership in organizations: Dimensions, measurement, and validation
Zhu, W., Yang, H., Yang, B., & Sosik, J. J. (2023) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114445 · Cited by 31
Adigwe, C. S. (2024) · Asian Journal of Economics Business and Accounting · doi:10.9734/ajeba/2024/v24i31242 · Cited by 14
“This view democratizes the concept of leadership, suggesting that leadership potential exists within many individuals and can be developed through appropriate support, education, and opportunities [63].”
BackgroundRivera, R. G., Santos, D., & Martín-Fernández, M. (2017) · International Journal of Social Psychology Revista de Psicología Social · doi:10.1080/02134748.2017.1292701 · Cited by 15
“Asimismo, hemos encontrado un único artículo en el que se informa sobre la adaptación de una escala de liderazgo de servicio al español (Cuestionario de liderazgo de servicio o Servant Leadership Questionnaire, SLQ; RodríguezCarvajal, de Rivas, Herrero, Moreno-Jimenez, & Van Dierendonck, 2014), que incluye una evaluac…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialImproving performance through leaders' forgiveness: the mediating role of radical innovation
Domínguez-Escrig, E., Broch, F. F. M., Chiva, R., & Alcamí, R. L. (2021) · Personnel Review · doi:10.1108/pr-12-2017-0396 · Cited by 14
Cengiz Ucar, A., Alpkan, L., & Elçi, M. (2021) · International Journal of Organizational Leadership · doi:10.33844/ijol.2021.60538 · Cited by 19
“Many researchers have tried to determine the servant leadership dimensions, but recently, the dimensions determined by Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) are empowerment, standing back, courage, forgiveness, humility, accountability, and responsibility.”
BackgroundInfluentialAzila-Gbettor, E. M. (2022) · Journal of Family Business Management · doi:10.1108/jfbm-08-2021-0083 · Cited by 17
Servant Leadership Behavior: Leadership Development Implications
Roberts, G. E., & Hess-Hernandez, D. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-62163-0_14 · Cited by 14
Intellectual structure of leadership studies in hospitality and tourism
Bavik, A., & Köseoğlu, M. (2022) · International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · doi:10.1108/ijchm-10-2021-1264 · Cited by 13
Türkmen, F., & Gül, İ. (2017) · Journal of Education and Training Studies · doi:10.11114/jets.v5i12.2713 · Cited by 14
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
