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 301–400 of 908
Servant Leadership and Its Impact on Ethical Climate
Dodd, R. K., Achen, R. M., & Lumpkin, A. (2017) · Journal of Values-Based Leadership · doi:10.22543/0733.111.1209 · Cited by 14
“Humility requires a proper understanding of one’s strong and weak points (van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialKerse, G., Koçak, D., & Özdemir, Ş. (2020) · Journal of Business Research - Turk · doi:10.20491/isarder.2020.943 · Cited by 16
Leader Attentive Communication: A new Communication Concept, Validation and Scale Development
Decuypere, A., & Verdorfer, A. P. (2022) · Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies · doi:10.1177/15480518221100922 · Cited by 17
Özkan, O. S., Üzüm, B., Çakan, S., Güzel, M., & Gülbahar, Y. (2023) · European Business Review · doi:10.1108/ebr-10-2022-0218 · Cited by 15
Mission command: A self-determination theory perspective
Knevelsrud, H.-C., Sørlie, H. O., & Valaker, S. (2023) · Military Psychology · doi:10.1080/08995605.2023.2252718 · Cited by 24
“To measure Empowering Leadership, we used the same seven items as in Study 1 (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).”
Wu, F., & Zhou, Q. (2024) · International Public Management Journal · doi:10.1080/10967494.2024.2303163 · Cited by 16
“Servant leaders usually go beyond their self-interest and proactively seek opportunities to serve followers and the public (Van Dierendonck and Nuijten 2011).”
Fostering team resilience with servant leadership: A multi-level study of the construction industry
Siddiquei, A. N., Ahmad, S., & Asmi, F. (2025) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104732 · Cited by 27
Bambale, A. J., Shamsudin, F. M., & Subramaniam, C. (2015) · International Journal of Management and Sustainability · doi:10.18488/journal.11/2015.4.6./11.6.130.144 · Cited by 13
Arain, G. A. (2017) · Ethics & Behavior · doi:10.1080/10508422.2017.1336622 · Cited by 15
“Avoidance orientationwas measured by using a 4-item scale developed by VandeWalle (1997).”
BackgroundServant Leadership Across Cultures
Roberts, G. E. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-62163-0_10 · Cited by 14
Servant Leadership and Change: A Review of the Literature
Roberts, G. E. (2020) · Management for professionals · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-38129-5_3 · Cited by 13
Terosky, A. L., & Reitano, M. C. (2016) · Journal of School Leadership · doi:10.1177/105268461602600201 · Cited by 12
Irfan, M., Salameh, A. A. M., Saleem, H., Naveed, R. T., Dalain, A. F., & Shahid, R. M. (2022) · Frontiers in Environmental Science · doi:10.3389/fenvs.2022.985436 · Cited by 12
A Crisis in Leadership: Transforming Opportunistic Leaders into Leaders that can be Trusted
Ng, D., & vanDuinkerken, W. (2021) · Journal of Management & Governance · doi:10.1007/s10997-020-09549-3 · Cited by 12
“Unlike other types of leaderships, such as transformational leadership, servant hood is motivated by an “agape love” or “moral love for others” van Dierendonck and Nuijten 2011, p.1244).”
BackgroundInfluential(2023) · Quality - Access to Success · doi:10.47750/qas/24.194.08 · Cited by 13
Jabber, M. A., Sakib, M. N., & Rahman, M. M. (2022) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12782 · Cited by 13
“Other authors [7,83, 84, 85] have also attempted to explore the roles and functions of servant leaders (See Table 1).”
BackgroundBabiak, J. (2014) · Polish Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1515/pjap-2015-0008 · Cited by 12
“More recently, however, other conceptions have been introduced, which focus primarily on moral aspects of leadership, for example, ethical leadership (Brown, Trevino, & Harrison, 2005), servant leadership (van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), and authentic leadership (Neider & Schriesheim, 2011).”
BackgroundLaura-Arias, E., Villar-Guevara, M., & Millones-Liza, D. Y. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1274965 · Cited by 13
“…that seeks to influence those they lead in order to achieve business objectives (Charbonnier-Voirin et al., 2010; Miao and Cao, 2019; Purwanto, 2020; Sjamsoeddin et al., 2023), unlike the servant leadership approach that is oriented to the wellbeing of those led (van Dierendonck and Nuijten, 2011).”
BackgroundShi, X., Fan, Q.-Z., Zheng, X., Qiu, D.-F., Sindakis, S., & Showkat, S. (2024) · Journal of the Knowledge Economy · doi:10.1007/s13132-023-01697-9 · Cited by 30
Marlia, M. A., Fahmy, R., Lukito, H., & Games, D. (2025) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su17031300 · Cited by 23
Xie, L., Qiu, S., & Bian, X. (2021) · Industrial and Commercial Training · doi:10.1108/ict-12-2020-0114 · Cited by 12
Ahmad, S., Batool, A., & Abdullah, N. A. (2022) · International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management · doi:10.17583/ijelm.9169 · Cited by 16
The 100 Most-Cited Research Publications on Servant Leadership: A Bibliometric Analysis
Hu, D., Thien, L. M., Ahmi, A., & Mohamed, A. (2023) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440231194220 · Cited by 18
“Second, studies related to refining servant leadership concepts and scales (Liden et al., 2015; Sendjaya et al., 2019; van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).”
BackgroundAll the Same but Different: Understanding Family Enterprise Heterogeneity
Moores, K., Parris, D. L., Newbert, S. L., & Craig, J. B. L. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-77676-7_21 · Cited by 13
Tran, D. Q., & Spears, L. C. (2020) · Humanistic Management Journal · doi:10.1007/s41463-020-00089-4 · Cited by 12
How Servant Leadership Sparks Feedback-Seeking Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model
Qin, D., Xu, Y., Li, C., & Meng, X. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.748751 · Cited by 11
“Servant leadership contributes to followers’ perceived quality of the dyadic relationship between a leader and a member (van Dierendonck and Nuijten, 2011).”
BackgroundLatif, K. F., Ahmed, I., & Aamir, S. (2022) · International Journal of Public Leadership · doi:10.1108/ijpl-11-2021-0058 · Cited by 11
Servant Leadership: Strengths, Weaknesses, and a Path Forward
Liden, R. C., & van Knippenberg, D. (2025) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/10596011251338133 · Cited by 18
Greenleaf's 'Best Test' of Servant Leadership: A Multilevel Analysis
Hayden, R. W. (2011) · Lincoln (University of Nebraska) · Cited by 10
Kobayashi, Y., Watanabe, K., Otsuka, Y., Eguchi, H., Kawakami, N., Imamura, K., & van Dierendonck, D. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01711 · Cited by 17
Self-citationSilver, R., & Martin, M. (2021) · Leadership in health services · doi:10.1108/lhs-06-2021-0052 · Cited by 10
Turnover-Mitigating Effect of Servant Leadership on Job Performance
Bieńkowska, A., Koszela, A., Ludwikowska, K., & Tworek, K. (2022) · Engineering Management in Production and Services · doi:10.2478/emj-2022-0017 · Cited by 14
Means to improve organizational learning capability
Rupčić, N. (2023) · The Learning Organization · doi:10.1108/tlo-01-2023-289 · Cited by 10
Latif, K. F., Mas‐Machuca, M., Marimón, F., & Sahibzada, U. F. (2023) · Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment · doi:10.1080/10911359.2023.2218439 · Cited by 11
“Servant leaders as pioneers make courage their crucial characteristic (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).”
InfluentialDetermining the Hierarchical Structure and Nature of Servant Leadership
Sun, P. Y. T., Anderson, M. H., & Gang, H. (2023) · Journal of Business and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10869-023-09904-9 · Cited by 13
“Nuijten, 2011, p. 265).”
Demissie, A. D., Alemu, A. E., & Tensay, A. T. (2024) · Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal · doi:10.1007/s10672-023-09486-x · Cited by 16
Saadaoui, A., Massouti, A., & Al-Rashaida, M. A. H. (2024) · International Journal of Leadership in Education · doi:10.1080/13603124.2024.2311216 · Cited by 10
An Evaluation of Teachers’ Opinions about the Servant Leadership Behaviours of School Principals
Insley, R. G., Iaeger, P., Ekinci, A., & Sakız, H. (2016) · Educational Process International Journal · doi:10.12973/edupij.2016.53.4 · Cited by 11
“Within this framework, many studies have focused on the concept of servant leadership (Buchen, 1998; Collins, 2001; Dennis & Winston, 2003; Van Dierendonck, Nuijten, & Heeren, 2009; Page & Wong, 2000; Patterson, 2003; Russell, 2001; Russell & Stone, 2002).”
BackgroundInfluentialHİZMETKÂR LİDERLİĞİN İŞ TATMİNİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİNDE PSİKOLOJİK SAHİPLENMENİN ARACI ROLÜ
Aslan, H. (2020) · Business And Management Studies An International Journal · doi:10.15295/bmij.v8i1.1403 · Cited by 5
Leadership styles, justice and whistle-blowing intention: testing a mediation model
Gupta, S., & Bhal, K. T. (2020) · European Business Review · doi:10.1108/ebr-03-2020-0068 · Cited by 15
Dahlin, S., & Schroeder, P. (2021) · Sport Business and Management An International Journal · doi:10.1108/sbm-04-2021-0051 · Cited by 10
Alikhani, Z., & Shahriari, M. (2022) · The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation · doi:10.1177/14657503221134511 · Cited by 11
“These leaders allow their employees to develop new skills via interaction with the organization and establish a powerful team of human resources by fostering self-ef fi cacy (Van Dierendonck and Nuijten, 2011) in order to provide competitiveness in their startup.”
InfluentialThe Emerging Role of Higher Education in Educating and Assessing Future Leaders for Disaster Relief
Buschlen, E. L., & Goffnett, S. P. (2013) · Journal of Leadership Studies · doi:10.1002/jls.21301 · Cited by 10
Amah, O. E. (2015) · Cited by 10
Isebor, J. E. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.32919.47524 · Cited by 10
Foppen, A., & van Saane, J. (2023) · Pastoral Psychology · doi:10.1007/s11089-023-01113-8 · Cited by 18
“Alternatively, researchers could build on and extend work in related fields, such as the development of the Authentic Leadership Inventory (Neider & Schriesheim, 2011), Spiritual Leadership Scale (Fry et al., 2005), Identity Leadership Inventory (Steffens et al., 2014), or Servant Leadership Survey (Van Dierendonck &…”
The relationship between organizational commitment, commitment to supervisor and servant leadership
Godbersen, H., Dudek, B., & Fernández, S. R. (2024) · Frontiers in Organizational Psychology · doi:10.3389/forgp.2024.1353959 · Cited by 25
Value-Based Organisational Leadership: A Literature Review
Sumanasiri, E. A. G. (2020) · Journal of Economics Management and Trade · doi:10.9734/jemt/2020/v26i430259 · Cited by 13
“Future researchers could use the three most recommended servant leadership behavioural measures, namely those by Liden et al., [123]; Sendjaya et al., [124]; and van Dierendonck and Nuijten [125].”
BackgroundCoaching Servant Leadership: Scale Development and Validation
Takamatsu, S. (2022) · Frontiers in Sports and Active Living · doi:10.3389/fspor.2022.871495 · Cited by 13
“For the deductive approach, items were collected from previous studies (Liden et al., 2008; Sendjaya et al., 2008; Van Dierendonck and Nuijten, 2011) recommended by Eva et al. (2019) and the previous study (Hammermeister et al., 2008) that have been shown to be applicable to sport.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialTÜRKİYE’DE HİZMETKÂR LİDERLİK ÜZERİNE YAZILAN LİSANSÜSTÜ TEZLERİN BİBLİYOMETRİK ANALİZİ (2008-2021)
KÜRÜ, S. A. (2022) · Düzce Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi · doi:10.55179/dusbed.1023008 · Cited by 9
The elephant in the room: exploring the motivational antecedents of servant leadership
Paas, J., Poell, R. F., & Batistič, S. (2020) · Leadership & Organization Development Journal · doi:10.1108/lodj-01-2019-0042 · Cited by 10
The Will to Serve: An Anthropological and Spiritual Foundation for Leadership
Nullens, P. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-29936-1_1 · Cited by 10
Ng, E. C. H. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-29936-1_3 · Cited by 10
Servant Leadership Stimulates Spiritual Well-Being Through Team Trust in a Female Religious Context
Obi, I.-M., Aaldering, H., Bollen, K., & Euwema, M. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.630978 · Cited by 20
Khan, I. U., Safdar, U., & Durrani, M. Z. (2021) · Gomal University Journal of Research · doi:10.51380/gujr-37-03-05 · Cited by 9
“It helps make good decisions, leading the organization towards innovation (Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).”
BackgroundDami, Z. A., Imron, A., Burhanuddin, B., & Supriyanto, A. S. (2023) · International Journal of Christianity & Education · doi:10.1177/20569971231175133 · Cited by 13
Freeman-Hildreth, Y., Aron, D. C., Cola, P. A., Boland, R., & Wang, Y. (2024) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2024.108348 · Cited by 13
Saavedra, S., Ruiz‐Palomino, P., Pérez-Contreras, R., & Sanz, G. (2025) · Journal of Nursing Management · doi:10.1155/jonm/8825138 · Cited by 14
“As for the SL assessment tool, the studies used the 30-item SL scale by van Dierendonck and Nuijten [83, 96] ( n � 3), the seven-item SL scale by Liden et al. [40, 55] ( n � 4), the 28-item SL scale by Liden et al. [39] ( n � 3), Ehrhart’s [81] 14-item SL scale ( n � 1), Qiu and Dooley’s [82]…”
Leadership Education and Service: Exploring Transformational Learning Following a Tornado
Buschlen, E. L., Warner, C., & Goffnett, S. P. (2015) · Journal of Leadership Education · doi:10.12806/v14/i1/r3 · Cited by 8
Gonzales, L. L., Matos, L., den Broeck, A. V., & Burga-León, A. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25478 · Cited by 16
“Some of the people-oriented styles are effective leadership [13]; servant leadership [14]; commitment leadership [15]; or trans-formational and transactional leadership [16].”
BackgroundFrom hero to humility: Critical approaches to teaching servant leadership
Madison, K., Fernando, J., Robberts, J., & Eva, N. (2023) · New Directions for Student Leadership · doi:10.1002/yd.20579 · Cited by 8
The Relationship between Servant Leadership and Student Achievement in Southwest Virginia Schools.
Crabtree, C. T. S. (2014) · Digital Commons (Liberty University) · Cited by 8
Building Teal Organizations with Servant Leadership?
Jack, R. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75644-8_11 · Cited by 8
Leading Through Awareness and Healing: A Servant-Leadership Model
Song, J. (2019) · International Journal of Servant-Leadership · doi:10.33972/ijsl.77 · Cited by 8
“…different angles: characteristics (Liden et al., 2014; Spears, 2002), behaviors (Liden et al., 2014), pillars (Sipe & Frick, 2009), dimensions (van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011), practices (Keith, 2008), attributes (Russell & Stone, 2002), subscales (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006), subscores (Laub,…”
BackgroundInfluentialLeaders who empower: a gateway to radical innovation
Domínguez-Escrig, E., Broch, F. F. M., Alcamí, R. L., & Chiva, R. (2019) · Journal of Management & Organization · doi:10.1017/jmo.2019.73 · Cited by 8
“Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) considered that empowerment promotes personal development, proactive attitudes and self-confidence in followers, being its main characteristic the belief in the intrinsic value of each person.”
BackgroundInfluentialFostering Workplace Well-Being Through Servant Leadership
Roberts, G. E. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30025-8_9 · Cited by 9
Motivational Interviewing: A Tool for Servant-Leadership
Organ, J. N. (2021) · International Journal of Servant-Leadership · doi:10.33972/ijsl.13 · Cited by 7
Servant Leadership Theory and Practice in Government Organizations
Awasthi, P., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-01323-2_44 · Cited by 8
The Effect of Servant Leadership Behaviors of School Principals on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction
KATITAŞ, S., DOĞAN, S., & Yıldız, S. (2022) · Journal of Education and Recreation Patterns · doi:10.53016/jerp.v3i2.48 · Cited by 27
“The follower’s need for autonomy can be met by the empowering behavior of the servant leader (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).”
BackgroundHİZMETKAR LİDERLİK İLE İŞ TATMİNİ ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ: BİR HAVAYOLU ŞİRKETİ ÖRNEĞİ
Yalçıntaş, M., & Feyza, E. R. E. N. (2017) · Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi · doi:10.18092/ulikidince.323535 · Cited by 8
Hameiri, L. (2018) · VOLUNTAS International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations · doi:10.1007/s11266-018-9998-6 · Cited by 8
Hakanen, J., & Pessi, A. B. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75644-8_8 · Cited by 10
Examining a servant leadership construct and its influence on organizational citizenship behavior
Amir, D. A., & Santoso, C. B. (2019) · Jurnal Siasat Bisnis · doi:10.20885/jsb.vol23.iss1.art4 · Cited by 10
“These six characteristics of the SL construct are the result of the study of SL instruments by Laub (1999) and Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2010).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialHOW PACKAGING, PRODUCT QUALITY AND PROMOTION AFFECT THE PURCHASE INTENTION?
Yulianingsih, R., Syah, T. Y. R., & Anindita, R. (2019) · Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences · doi:10.18551/rjoas.2019-08.06 · Cited by 8
Mivumbi, M., & Yuan, X. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15054101 · Cited by 17
Quy, H. T. K., Tran, M. D., & Dinh, T. M. (2023) · Human Resource Development International · doi:10.1080/13678868.2023.2285923 · Cited by 7
“Servant leadership also fosters subordinate autonomy and empowers individuals to act as change agents and align their job with their inner motivations (van Dierendonck and Nuijten 2011).”
Systematic review of servant leadership and burnout
Mahon, D. (2024) · Mental Health and Social Inclusion · doi:10.1108/mhsi-02-2024-0027 · Cited by 11
Nissinen, T. S., Upadyaya, K., Lonka, K., Toyama, H., & Salmela‐Aro, K. (2024) · International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior · doi:10.1108/ijotb-03-2023-0060 · Cited by 10
Meyer, M., & Rego, A. (2020) · International handbooks in business ethics · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-00140-7_21-1 · Cited by 7
Enacting Relational Leadership Through Restorative Practices
Webb, O. (2021) · Alberta Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v67i2.68603 · Cited by 9
Jakada, M. B. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Management · doi:10.1108/ijem-05-2023-0253 · Cited by 7
CONFIRMATORY ANALYSIS OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP DIMENSION TO THE INDONESIAN ACADEMIC LEADER
Surabaya, U. C., Melinda, T., Antonio, T., Surabaya, U. C., Christina, C., & Surabaya, U. C. (2020) · Jurnal Aplikasi Manajemen · doi:10.21776/ub.jam.2020.018.04.12 · Cited by 7
“Russel and Stone (2002), developed the primary attributes and functional attributes of Servant Leadership. There are nine main attributes namely Pioneering, Modeling, Service, Trust, Integrity, Honesty, Respect for others, Empowerment, and Vision. While the functional attributes consist of Delegation, Teaching, Encour…”
BackgroundMethodTrauma-informed servant leadership in health and social care settings
Mahon, D. (2021) · Mental Health and Social Inclusion · doi:10.1108/mhsi-05-2021-0023 · Cited by 14
Dami, Z. A., Imron, A., Burhanuddin, B., Supriyanto, A. S., & Mustiningsih, M. (2022) · Pedagogika · doi:10.15823/p.2022.145.6 · Cited by 8
Mirza, F., Younus, S., Hasan, A., Yousaf, J., & Hafeez, N. (2023) · International Journal of Social Science & Entrepreneurship · doi:10.58661/ijsse.v3i2.137 · Cited by 9
Universality of Servant Leadership
Timiyo, A. J., & Yeadon-Lee, A. (2016) · University of Huddersfield Repository (University of Huddersfield) · Cited by 8
Hurt, K. J., Huning, T. M., & Thomson, N. F. (2017) · The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship · doi:10.9774/gleaf.3709.2017.ap.00004 · Cited by 8
A Conceptual Framework to Operationalise Servant Leadership Within an Organization
Coetzer, M. F. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75644-8_9 · Cited by 8
The Concept of Servant Leadership in Business Management
Muzira, D. R., & Muzira, R. (2020) · EAST AFRICAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SCIENCES · doi:10.46606/eajess2020v01i01.0003 · Cited by 10
“This then makes them empower their followers (Van Dierendonck, & Nuijten, 2011).”
BackgroundInfluentialHizmetkâr Okul Liderliği: Bir Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışması
Öter, Ö. M., & Dağlı, A. (2020) · Opus uluslararası toplum araştırmaları dergisi · doi:10.26466/opus.749822 · Cited by 7
Comunicación positiva: la comunicación organizacional al servicio de la felicidad
Velázquez, J. A. M., & Nobell, A. Á. (2013) · Vivat Academia · doi:10.15178/va.2013.124.90-109 · Cited by 7
Servant-Leadership in Nursing Education
Todt, K., & Covington, S. (2023) · International Journal of Servant-Leadership · doi:10.33972/ijsl.384 · Cited by 6
Bhatti, O. K., & Irfan, M. (2024) · Journal of Leadership Studies · doi:10.1002/jls.21884 · Cited by 8
Servant leadership informed trauma peer support
Mahon, D. (2021) · Mental Health and Social Inclusion · doi:10.1108/mhsi-06-2021-0029 · Cited by 4
Leadership instills organizational effectiveness: a viewpoint on business organizations
Hasan, I., & Islam, M. N. (2022) · SN Business & Economics · doi:10.1007/s43546-021-00193-z · Cited by 7
(2024) · Journal of Research Innovation and Implications in Education · doi:10.59765/nywp5295 · Cited by 16
“Servant leaders prioritize stakeholders' concerns to align the organization's mission and vision, emphasizing ethical values for trust and authenticity while empowering followers to achieve goals and fostering their well-being and development (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011; Hu & Liden, 2011).”
BackgroundMesfin, S. (2023) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2023.2288711 · Cited by 12
“Consistent with this result, Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) and Abid et al. (2015) also found that servant leadership had a significant effect on the OCB of employees.”
Chaudhary, S., Gupta, V. K., & Singla, C. (2024) · International Small Business Journal Researching Entrepreneurship · doi:10.1177/02662426241268328 · Cited by 7
“Consequently, servant leaders with a high level of organisational stewardship encourage followers to develop the community spirit and give back to society (Barbuto and Wheeler, 2006; van Dierendonck and Nuijten, 2011).”
Mukonoweshuro, J. Z., Sanangura, C., & Munapo, E. (2016) · Banks and Bank Systems · doi:10.21511/bbs.11(3).2016.10 · Cited by 6
Bande, B., Ferrín, P. F., & Castro‐González, S. (2019) · Personnel Review · doi:10.1108/pr-09-2016-0254 · Cited by 7
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
