Cited by 182Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorEmployee Performance and ManagementEmployee Performance and Leadership

Toward an Understanding of When and Why Servant Leadership Accounts for Employee Extra-Role Behaviors

Panaccio, Alexandra, Henderson, David J., Liden, Robert C., Wayne, Sandy J., Cao, Xiaoyun·2015·Journal of Business and Psychology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10869-014-9388-z

Cites

101 of 101 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • There is a growing literature linking servant leadership to innovation-oriented outcomes and knowledge-sharing among employees.

    “There is also a growing literature linking servant leadership to innovation-oriented outcomes (Panaccio, Henderson, Liden, Wayne, & Cao, 2015) and knowledge-sharing among employees (Luu, 2016).”

    From Servant Leadership: A systematic review and call for future research (2019) · cites this paper as Panaccio, Henderson, Liden, Wayne, & Cao, 2015

  • Previous literature has demonstrated that proactive personality influences how followers respond to servant leaders and is in turn influenced by servant leadership itself, leading to positive individual outcomes such as the willingness to master tasks and goals.

    “Previous literature has already demonstrated that proactive personality influences how followers respond to servant leaders (Newman et al., 2017) and is in turn influenced by servant leadership itself (Panaccio et al., 2015;Song & Lee, 2020), leading to a series of positive individual outcomes, such as the willingness to master tasks and goals.”

    From Servant Leadership and Employee Engagement: A Qualitative Study (2022) · cites this paper as Panaccio et al., 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Panaccio, A., Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Cao, X.
Affiliations
  • Concordia University (CA)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Panaccio, Alexandra
Venue
Journal of Business and Psychology
Published
2014-11-27
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
657-675
ISSN
  • 0889-3268 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-353X
OpenAlex
W2013067835
Cited by
182
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 6
FWCI
13.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Business and Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Employee Performance and Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employee Performance and Leadership
Keywords
servant leadership, organizational citizenship behavior, innovative behavior, psychological contract fulfillment, social exchange theory, extraversion, collectivism, proactive personality, personal initiative, follower engagement, supervisor-subordinate dyads

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.

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