Cited by 189Leadership and Management in OrganizationsJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorWorkplace Spirituality and Leadership

Individual differences in servant leadership: the roles of values and personality

Washington, Rynetta R., Sutton, Charlotte D., Feild, Hubert S.·2006·Leadership & Organization Development Journal

Abstract

Purpose: The paper seeks to address the lack of empirical research on servant leadership by investigating relationships between servant leadership and four individual differences – values of empathy, integrity, and competence and the five‐factor model's personality factor of agreeableness. Design/methodology/approach: Dennis and Winston's servant leadership scale (a revision of Page and Wong's servant leadership instrument), Braithwaite and Law's Goal and Mode Values Inventories, Mayer and Davis' integrity scale, and Costa and McCrae's NEO Five‐Factor Inventory were used with 288 followers and 126 leaders in three organizations in order to measure relationships between followers' ratings of leaders' servant leadership, followers' ratings of leaders' values of empathy, integrity, and competence and leaders' ratings of their own agreeableness. Findings: Followers' ratings of leaders' servant leadership were positively related to followers' ratings of leaders' values of empathy, integrity, and competence. Followers' ratings of leaders' servant leadership were also positively related to leaders' ratings of their own agreeableness. Research limitations/implications: Common method bias is a potential limitation due to respondents' tendency toward consistency in responses. Practical implications: Organizations embracing servant leadership may benefit from selecting leaders partly on the basis of certain personal attributes such as those investigated in the present study. Furthermore, in order to maintain a servant leadership culture and to retain leaders in a servant leadership organization, recruiters and trainers in servant leadership organizations would likely benefit from communicating accurate information about attributes valued in a servant leadership culture – e.g. attributes explored in the present research. Originality/value: The study extends our understanding of servant leadership research by offering support for individual attributes related to the practice of servant leadership.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/01437730610709309

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Washington, R. R., Sutton, C. D., & Feild, H. S.
Affiliations
Auburn University (US)
Venue
Leadership & Organization Development Journal
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2006-12-01
Volume
27
Issue
8
Pages
700-716
ISSN
0143-7739 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2056652860
Cited by
189
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 9
FWCI
8.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Leadership & Organization Development Journal (publishedVersion)
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 › Demography › Workplace Spirituality and Leadership
Keywords
servant leadership, individual differences, values, personality, agreeableness, empathy, integrity, competence, follower perceptions, leadership selection, leader traits

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