A meta-analytic review of the consequences of servant leadership: The moderating roles of cultural factors

Abstract

The past decade has witnessed growing interests in empirically examining the effectiveness of servant leadership in management research. Our study reviews the literature on servant leadership and analyzes the relationship between servant leadership and outcome variables. Drawing on social exchange theory, this study uses meta-analysis to find that servant leadership is positively related to followers' job-related outcomes (e.g., psychological empowerment, organizational commitment, service quality), leader-related outcomes (e.g., leader effectiveness), and group-related outcomes (e.g., group service performance). Further, we find that the relationships between servant leadership and its outcomes are moderated by cultural factors (i.e., traditionality, masculinity, individualism, and power distance). Finally, we examine the incremental validity of servant leadership by taking transformational leadership into account and comparing their effects on job performance and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) via leader-member exchange (LMX). Implications for theory and practice are discussed, and an agenda for future research is proposed.

Servant Leadership in Japan: A Validation Study of the Japanese Version of the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS-J)

“…Lastly, this study provides useful suggestions regarding the creation of a healthy workplace. As pointed out in previous studies ( Lee et al, 2019 ; Zhang et al, 2019 ), organizations should implement, deploy, and support appropriate training development programs for leaders in order to establish reciprocal relationships with their followers and increase their commitment to the organization. The SLS-J and SLS-J-short will provide useful insight for that.…”

“…Cultural context is assumed to be associated with SL effects ( van Dierendonck, 2011 ; Eva et al, 2019 ). According to thorough analyses, SL has shown a stronger impact when the context involves low power distance, high individualism ( Lee et al, 2019 ; Zhang et al, 2019 ), and low masculinity ( Zhang et al, 2019 ) in terms of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions model ( Hofstede et al, 2010 ). In this study, the SLS-J showed the lowest total score within The Netherlands, United Kingdom, Italy, and Spanish speaking countries, and the highest score of Forgiveness in The Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Italy in previous studies.…”

“…Affective commitment is defined as “the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization” and motivation to stay with the organization ( Meyer and Allen, 1991 ), which is linked to high job performance, a low rate of turnover cognition, and low voluntary absenteeism ( Luchak and Gellatly, 2007 ). According to social exchange theory, servant leaders are assumed to increase the level of employees’ attachment to the organization through motivation stemming from the norm of reciprocity motivations to return favors in social relationships with the leader ( Zhang et al, 2019 ). When employees experience SL, they show affective commitment, which is mediated by followers’ need satisfaction, leadership effectiveness ( van Dierendonck et al, 2014 ), or organizational support ( Zhou and Miao, 2014 ).…”

“…As the impact of cultural factors on the relationship between SL and its consequences has been pointed out ( Liden, 2012 ; Mittal and Dorfman, 2012 ; Lee et al, 2019 ; Zhang et al, 2019 ), it is essential to validate the SLS also in a different cultural context, outside of Europe. In terms of cultural context ( Hofstede et al, 2010 ), the relationship between SL and outcomes has been more explicitly shown in low power distance ( Mittal and Dorfman, 2012 ; Lee et al, 2019 ; Zhang et al, 2019 ), individualistic cultures ( Lee et al, 2019 ), low masculinity ( Zhang et al, 2019 ), and low uncertainty avoidance ( Mittal and Dorfman, 2012 ). Little is known about the impact of SL on personal and organizational outcomes in Japanese society, with its high masculinity, high uncertainty avoidance, moderately high power-distance, and collectivistic cultural context.…”

Untitled

“…This study indicates that the more competent employees perceive their supervisors using a downward influence tactic in the form of consultation, the more they will increase their commitment to supervisors and organizations. Referring to the study context, as in most countries in Asia, respondents are part of a society that tends to have a high power distance value (Zhang et al, 2019). People with a high power distance culture may have high organizational commitment if they experience strong ties with their supervisors as well as paternalistic treatment (Cohen, 2006).…”