CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 174Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorEmployee Performance and LeadershipEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 80 of the 91 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Examining the influence of servant and entrepreneurial leadership on the work outcomes of employees in social enterprises

Open access
Newman, Alexander, Neesham, Cristina, Manville, Graham, Tse, Herman H. M.·2018·The International Journal of Human Resource Management
DOI 10.1080/09585192.2017.1359792
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The present study examines the relative influence of two distinct leadership styles, servant leadership and entrepreneurial leadership, on the organizational commitment and innovative behavior of employees working in social enterprises. Analyzing data from 169 employees and 42 social entrepreneurs, we found that, although servant leadership was positively related to followers’ organizational commitment, the relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and organizational commitment was insignificant. In contrast, whilst we found evidence that entrepreneurial leadership was positively related to followers’ innovative behavior, the relationship between servant leadership and employees’ innovative behavior was insignificant. Our research contributes to the underdeveloped literature on leadership in social enterprises by exploring the relative effectiveness of different leadership styles (namely an entrepreneurial leadership style and a servant leadership style) in promoting follower work attitudes and behaviors in social enterprises. In addition, our research demonstrates the importance of leadership over and above followers’ individual differences such as pro-social motivation and creative self-efficacy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09585192.2017.1359792

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 91 references

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. 10.1111/etap.2006.30.issue-1 · DOI
  2. Bandura A., 1986, Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory
  3. Bliese P., 2000, Multi-level theory, research, and methods in organizations, 349
  4. 10.1111/caim.2007.16.issue-3 · DOI
  5. 10.1111/etap.2010.34.issue-4 · DOI
  6. 10.1111/peps.2004.57.issue-1 · DOI
  7. 10.1111/caim.2003.12.issue-3 · DOI
  8. Greenleaf R. K., 2002, Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness
  9. 10.1111/caim.2014.23.issue-4 · DOI
  10. 10.1111/scps.2013.36.issue-2 · DOI
  11. Martin R., 2003, Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1, 36
  12. Phills J. A., 2008, Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6, 34
  13. 10.1111/jsbm.2015.53.issue-1 · DOI
  14. 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379 · DOI
  15. 10.1111/joms.2007.45.issue-2 · DOI
  16. 10.1080/19416520.2013.759433 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Visser W., 2011, Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics, 5, 7

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–174 of 174

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Newman, A., Neesham, C., Manville, G., & Tse, H. H. M.
Affiliations
  • Deakin University (AU)
  • Swinburne University of Technology (AU)
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
  • Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
Newman, Alexander
ORCID
Venue
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2017-07-29
Volume
29
Issue
20
Pages
2905-2926
ISSN
  • 0958-5192 (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-4399
DOI
10.1080/09585192.2017.1359792
OpenAlex
W2739864212
Cited by
173
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3
FWCI
15.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The International Journal of Human Resource Management (publishedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • 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 › Employee Performance and Leadership
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Entrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Keywords
servant leadership, entrepreneurial leadership, social enterprises, organizational commitment, innovative behavior, employee outcomes, leadership styles, prosocial motivation, creative self-efficacy

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