Leadership Theory 1

Running head: LEADERSHIP THEORY

Leadership Theory

Your Name Goes Here

Institutional Affiliation Goes Here

 Question 2

Literature over the past few years points to the importance of transformational and servant

leadership theories as key ingredients for organizational leaders to understand. Compare and

contrast the key principles of these two theoretical concepts. Synthesize key components of these

concepts for the potential they might contribute to successful leadership development.
 Leadership Theory 3

Introduction

The impact and importance of leadership as a trait has found increasing levels of

acceptance at the organizational level although its distinction from management has always been

a controversial topic. However the roles played by strong management as well as leadership are

considered essential elements for optimum organizational effectiveness (Robbins, 1999). Any

organization needs both managers and leaders to function effectively. A manager is a person who

makes plans and initiates steps to utilize resources within available budget and timeframes to

achieve maximum productivity and efficiency. A leader is more of a motivator who spurs action

towards positivity and achievement in the organization. Both qualities are essential and

interlinked. Identifying and pinpointing what exactly leadership is has been a much debated topic

and research has put forth a number of theories which try to identify the essence of leadership

and the level of pertinence it has towards better management within an organizational setup. Due

to the complexity of comprehension as well as from the voluminous research done on the subject

experts in leadership theories have now shortlisted the agreed forms of leadership theories by

generalizing and focusing on four specific domains. These include the charismatic, transactional,

transformational and servant leadership theories (Smith et al, 2004). The aim of this paper is to

focus on the latter two i.e. the transformational and leadership theories and how they impact the

performance of a manger with leadership qualities within an organization.

Transformational Leadership Theory

When a leader inspires followers to share a vision, facilitates the achievement of attaining

a goal by empowering the followers and provides them with the necessary resources to achieve

their full potential, the phenomenon is known as transformational leadership (Smith et al, 2004).

Transformational leaders inspire their followers to overlook their self interests in favor of the
overall organizational goals. Such leaders often have a profound and extraordinary effect on their

followers (Robbins, 1999). They work by setting examples, promoting optimism and at the same

time eliciting commitment from their followers (Smith et al, 2004). Transformational leadership

involves four major behavioral components which include idealized influence, inspirational

motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration (Smith et al, 2004). A

transformational leader provides a role model to the followers by focusing on the attainment of

organizational goals which serves as the primary motivational factor for all. It is a participatory

effort where the best in each member is brought to the fore and their individual excellence is

appreciated. Qualities of good workers are nurtured by providing all possible facilities to

empower the attainment of their specific individual contribution for the gross benefit of the

organization. Creativity and innovation are encouraged at the individual level which serves as

intellectual stimulation for the followers. Mistakes, if any, are overlooked within tolerable limits.

Problems are sorted out in a cooperative manner and individual potential is nurtured by

providing all necessary inputs which can be individualized according to the situational demand.

The flow of ideas is therefore bidirectional and no opportunity for acquiring new skills and

knowledge for the workers is missed for which the transformational leader serves as mentor and

guide. A transformational leader is capable of raising the awareness of followers to a level where

they realize and become conscious of the needs of the organization and are motivated to achieve

those goals over and above the need for the satisfaction of self interest (Bass, 1995). The

followers of such leaders therefore become capable of achieving much more than their own

expectations and capabilities. It promotes loyalty, respect and admiration for the leader which

encourages them to emulate him or her and the realization of their goals due to this enhanced

effort allows them to gain more self confidence as well belief in the organization (Bass, 1995).
 Leadership Theory 5

The author believes that an effective transformational leader can motivate his followers to

generate extra effort and at the same time stimulate their creativity and productivity enabling

them to exceed their expectations. In order to be an effective transformational leader it is

assumed that all members within an organization are trustworthy and purposeful, each person has

a unique contribution to make and problems are handled from the lowest level which enables the

leader to build a culture focused at a common goal or vision (Bass & Avolio, 1993). The

transformational leadership theory therefore promotes growth and innovation from within in a

participative environment where the best use of the available talent is made. In the process these

participative efforts offer learning opportunities which further enhance the capabilities of the

workers who are motivated to acquire leadership qualities themselves.

Amongst the many propounded theories of leadership, transformational leadership theory

has shown astounding results with regular consistency as it has yielded positive results in the

majority of the organizations where it has been practiced (Barling et al, 2000). It serves to

enhance subordinate satisfaction, their trust in leaders, affective commitment towards the vision

of the company along with its strong association within a business unit performance (Barling et

al, 2000). The component of emotional intelligence (EI) has a strong association with the

transformational theory of leadership as the emotion handling of self as well as workers within

an organization is a vital tool in the hands of the leader (Sivanathan & Fekken , 2002; Barling et

al, 2000). Individuals with higher than ordinary emotional intelligence are likely to be more

effective transformational leaders according to the authors. An idealized influence on the

followers is likely if they exercise self control and delay of gratification themselves. Based on

this quality a transformational leader with high emotional intelligence can understand the extent

of raising followers’ expectations in a better way at the same time comprehending individual
requirements (Barling et al, 2000).Transformational leadership is increasingly being felt as the

need in present times when the present generation has markedly changed its priorities in life as

compared to the previous generation which was more susceptible to authoritarianism and likely

to fall in line with organizational goals as dictated by the authorities (Bass, 1999). They were

likely to sacrifice self interests in favor of organizational goals. On the other hand, the present

generation is more cynical and needs motivation to align their thought processes in accordance

with organizational goals. This necessitates the need for a motivational leader who can harness

the thought processes of the followers in a positive manner and give it direction at the same time

keeping in touch with individual preferences and values nurtured by the followers.

Servant Leadership Theory

The servant leadership theory is a recent concept put forth by Robert Greenleaf who

believes that instead of a leader being the primary focus within an organization, he or she should

rather tend to serve as a servant to others within the organization without harboring any

expectations for acknowledgement for his or her efforts (Smith et al, 2004). This sort of attitude

attributes a pivotal role for the practitioner of such skills who eventually emerges as a leader due

to his or her concerted efforts by providing resources and facilities for others which ultimately

results in the overall benefit for the organization. Such leaders emerge from an inconspicuous

position within the organization and are not primarily focused on assuming the mantle of

leadership at the entry level. They are rather pushed into the role of a leader by other members of

the organization in the pursuit of success at the group level. Such leaders emerge due to their

inherent personal talent for motivating others rather than being trained artificially for leadership.

Greenleaf believes that a servant-first attitude is a direct contrast for a leader-first attitude and is

based on the special skills of communication, persuasion and receptivity to other people’s ideas
 Leadership Theory 7

inherent in such leaders (Smith et al, 2004). Such leaders promote their ideology within the

organization by setting an example for others to follow i.e. act as servants for the cooperative

achievement of common goals which ultimately benefit everybody within, without eulogizing

the efforts of a specific person. The focus therefore remains on organizational and group success

rather than individual attainments. Although the concept of servant leadership has received

invigorated interest from the management gurus in the recent past however it cannot be accepted

on the mere conjectures put forward by its proponents which need to be established as true facts

by thorough research (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). The hitherto accepted ten characteristics of

servant leadership viz. listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization,

foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of the people and building community which

have been promoted merely from Greenleaf’s observations need to be established by concrete

research into the concept (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). The concept of servant leadership though

attributed as Greenleaf’s brainchild is not new to mankind as it is reflected in the history the way

Jesus Christ Himself practiced. Christ was instrumental in promoting amongst his disciples the

concept of service to humanity by acting as a servant and not as an authoritarian figure. The

following generations of monarchs as well other people followed and practiced this concept by

identifying themselves as servants to their people the general masses (Sendjaya & Sarros,

2002).The vital lesson of servant leadership is the idea of using power as an enabling factor in

order to serve other people. Servant leadership therefore has a philosophical component as it

follows from historical notions of service for the society which can be minimized as per the

present requirements to an organizational level. It promotes the concept of attaining leadership

status by ‘doing’ rather than ‘being’ a leader (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). Servant leadership

though untested by empirical research in its concepts has a strong parallel in the theory of
charismatic leadership in its historical context. Charisma itself is a quality which when possessed

by individuals lends them certain exceptional characteristics of personality which enable them to

influence others in a profound manner. Such persons are accepted by others as born leaders. The

parallel nature of charismatic and servant leadership concepts is purely on historical basis as

charisma was also believed initially to be a divine endowment. However unlike the concept of

servant leadership, the theory of charismatic leadership has been well researched and established

as a leadership theory (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). However charismatic leadership relies heavily

on individual qualities of the leader which may be so awe inspiring in the eyes of the followers

that they fail to understand the moral and ethical aspects of their actions prompted by such

leaders (Graham, 1991). Both theories therefore have a common factor of leadership by example,

one being by setting up standards for excellence for the others to follow while holding a

diminutive status initially which transforms into an accepted leadership status in the eyes of the

coworkers with time (servant theory) and the other by providing an awesome inspiration for

others to follow suit (charismatic theory). The servant theory of leadership has only one

disadvantage that it is not backed up or substantiated by scientific empirical data and research

unlike the other accepted concepts of leadership.

An attempt to explain the servant leadership theory on the basis of rational scientific

principles has been made in a comprehensive review of the servant leadership attributes where

the focus has been shifted from it having been explained on the basis of primarily philosophical

and anecdotal historical facts in the past (Russell & Stone, 2002). The construct of servant

leadership has now been clarified and operationalized for empirical research and potential

characteristics of servant leadership have been identified (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006).The authors

have highlighted the lack of support with empirical and published research, despite the
 Leadership Theory 9

proclamation of the servant theory as a modern component of organizational leadership, in order

to put forth a researchable model for this theory (Russell & Stone, 2002). The authors have

sorted out and highlighted some of the identifiable attributes which have the likelihood of

association with the servant theory of leadership from the currently available literature. In

addition to the ten major attributes as explained by Green leaf earlier, the authors have expanded

the identifiable attributes’ number to 20 with the incorporation of the original attributes of

Greenleaf. Nine of the newly identified attributes have been described as ‘functional attributes’

and were picked by the authors from the work of their respective proponents. These include

‘vision, honesty, integrity, trust, service, modeling, pioneering, appreciation of others and

empowerment’ (Russell & Stone, 2002). The functional attributes are picked up from leadership

behaviors at the workplace and describe the ‘operative qualities, characteristics and distinctive

features’ of a leader (Russell & Stone, 2002). The multitude of these functional attributes are

often inter related and reciprocally affect each other. Besides these functional attributes the other

new ‘accompanying attributes’ are ‘communication, credibility, competence, stewardship,

visibility, influence, persuasion, listening, encouragement, teaching and delegation’ (Russell &

Stone, 2002). The accompanying attributes are complimentary in nature to the functional

attributes and considered essential elements of servant leadership qualities (Russell & Stone,

2002; Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006).

In the functional attributes, ‘vision’ or foresight as far as organizational goals and

objectives are concerned has been identified as the primary quality of a good leader. It should be

clear at the outset and the leader should be able to percolate it into the psyche of the followers in

an effective and convincing manner. The vision envisaged for the company should have a

justifiable and genuine goal for organizational integrity, growth and should be a continuous
learning process rather than being an ‘egocentric’ and ambitious idea of the leader. Once the

vision is clear, the energies and talents of the organizational members are utilized and directed

towards a progressive goal.

The second functional attribute of servant theory of leadership has been identified as

‘honesty’ which is an essential character attribute of an effective leader. The leader’s intent and

integrity should be transparent enough for the followers to elicit a firm belief in the vision

specified for the organization. Honesty is strengthened with the third attribute i.e. integrity and

both these attributes are considered complimentary to each other. Honesty is related more to the

concept of truthfulness while integrity broadly incorporates elements of adherence with a moral

code of conduct (Russell & Stone, 2002). In order to emerge as a leader and mentor for others to

emulate, a servant leader should possess these two attributes along with an impeccable character

in order to inspire confidence in the followers. Ethics are considered as an integral part of any

successful organization in present times and the leader should be able to ensure the incorporation

of a value system based on truth, kept promises, fairness and respect for all (Russell & Stone,

2002). As and when challenges emerge within and outside the organization the leader should be

able to follow the ideals and principles which have been set up using the principles of honesty

and integrity and these should pervade and persist within the organization.

The third functional attribute is ‘credibility’ and has been defined as ‘the quality,

capability, or the power to elicit belief’ in others (Russell & Stone, 2002). Credibility and its

consistent demonstration by the leader enthuses confidence and admiration in the followers. This

encourages the development of trust and commitment which are essential for integration of all

within the organization into a single harmonious entity. The ability to build trust and be a source

of accurate and pertinent information at all times for the followers is an essential element of
 Leadership Theory 11

credibility which should follow a continuous, dynamic pattern as a process instead of being a

temporary trait. Once credibility has been accepted as an established trait in a leader, it goes a

long way in establishing his role as the leader.

Although sharing some common elements with the above three functional attributes, the

ability of being trustworthy is the fourth important functional attribute listed by the authors

(Russell & Stone, 2002). In the servant leadership model, building trust among compatriots is an

essential element for emergence into a leadership role. In fact trust has been considered as the

very basis upon which leadership is built. It is an abstract belief of the followers in the ability of

their leader in the absence of any monitoring or control mechanisms for measuring this trait

(Russell & Stone, 2002). Once established, trust goes a long way in improving interpersonal

relationships within the organization and elicits cooperation from followers at the time of critical

junctures, decision making occasions and challenges. It eliminates fear among the followers

thereby enhancing their productivity. Trustworthiness as a trait begins from home itself when

children in their tender years have unflinching faith in their parents. To establish and magnify

that type of trust at an organizational level is an essential element of true leadership.

In order to establish trust, a leader should display the fifth identified functional attribute

of servant leadership i.e. ‘competence’. Competence is the qualification and ability to handle

one’ designated duties at the organization (Russell & Stone, 2002). The knowledge, skills and

talent of the leader should be in tune with the organizational responsibility attributable to

him/her. A good leader should be able to enhance his capabilities in a continuous manner by

acquiring new skills and knowledge and providing solutions for the followers as and when they

crop up. In fact a good leader should set an example in competence for the others to emulate and

should be a reliable source for solutions in the designated expertise.

 The sixth functional attribute is the desire to serve others which is the core element of a

servant leader (Russell & Stone, 2002). Service before self should be the driving factor in the

leader’s temperament and he should be capable of offering his services to address issues facing

the followers. To be of good service to the organization a leader should possess the ability of

being ever ready to make available information, time, attention, material and other resources for

the followers (Russell & Stone, 2002). The display of service to others and targeted towards

achieving the vision of the group should be an omnipresent phenomenon within the organization

which will set a hallmark for the followers to emulate.

From the service attribute emerges the next fundamental attribute which is stewardship.

‘Stewardship involves managing the property or affairs of another person’ (Russell & Stone,

2002). The organization for which a leader works is his/her primary responsibility and

automatically the leader becomes a steward for the goals set forth as the vision of that

organization. The servant leader should emanate the qualities of stewardship from within and

remind the followers of their own stewardship roles within the organization. This aids in

distributing ownership and responsibility to the concerned persons and eliminates patriarchy

(Russell & Stone, 2002). The followers therefore share the responsibility in their respective

sections which brings out the best of their talents when practiced with honesty and integrity in

close cooperation with the leader. The display and delegation of stewardship therefore has an

important role in the success of an organization.

The next fundamental attribute is that of a role model i.e. setting a visible positive

personal example for others to emulate (Russell & Stone, 2002). The leader sets up the desired

attributes within the organizational culture by his actions and reactions. By executing their duties

in an excellent manner good leaders attract followers into commitment, dedication, discipline
 Leadership Theory 13

and excellence which are modeled on their own performance (Russell & Stone, 2002).

The public presence and ready availability of the leader on all occasions is the next

fundamental attribute of servant leadership which has been entitled ‘visibility’ (Russell & Stone,

2002). A good leader should be omnipresent within the organization and offer honest and ready

solutions to the followers in a perfectly transparent environment. The interactions between the

leader and his followers should be public and prove the capabilities of the leader in full limelight.

The ninth fundamental attribute is the pioneering nature of the leader. A leader should be

able to develop new strategies, take risks and work out innovative approaches to handle old

problems (Russell & Stone, 2002). A good leader should cause rather than react to situations by

initiating and developing plans to encounter obstacles in the vision of the organization as well as

the ones faced by the followers. He should possess creative abilities and have the courage to

initiate changes according to the signs of the times with the primary focus on the organizational

objectives.

The ability to ‘influence’ others has been considered as a true measure of leadership and

is the tenth attribute described by the authors (Russell & Stone, 2002). True influence does not

denote domination and control but the ability to exert a determining effect on the behaviors of

group members and their activities (Russell & Stone, 2002). Influence tactics include persuasion,

inspiration, consultation, ingratiation, personal appeals, bargaining, coalition building,

legitimization and pressure (Russell & Stone, 2002). The ability to influence others is therefore

the primary criteria by which the leader translates his ideas into practical shape. The influence

tactics more pertinent for the servant leadership model should however be based on non

manipulative methods and rely more on cooperation with the followers (Russell & Stone, 2002).

Other attributes associated with the servant theory of leadership follow the above pattern
and include the abilities of persuasion, appreciation, encouragement, listening, teaching,

empowerment and delegation which are just the finer nuances of the primary attributes described

above. The conglomeration of these attributes has been suggested by the authors as a means for

imparting a more meaningful and scientific character to the servant theory of leadership. Servant

leadership is also considered more appropriate for implementing personalism within the business

and the needs and desires of the followers assume a higher hierarchy than those of the leader.

This sometimes becomes too unrealistic to practice as the leaders' staying in a lower rung and

lack of authority sometimes aids in serving the wrong cause which may go against the goals of

the organization (Whetstone, 2002). However, as far as leader trust and organizational trust are

concerned, servant model of leadership is more congenial for a high level of trust in both these

sectors when compared with other theories of leadership (Joseph & Winston, 2005).

The Blend of Transformational and Servant leader Theories

The two leadership theories described above are currently the focus area for management

experts who consider them to have the potential for being put to good use in running the present

organizational structures in the world. The ultimate purpose of every leader is to modify and

influence the people within an organization in order to reach organizational goals and objectives.

What kind of leadership is desirable or more appropriate in the present times is the crux of the

matter, which needs justification in order that organizations choose that particular role models for

their leaders in order to handle their short term as well as long term business and organization

objectives.
 Leadership Theory 15

The transformational leadership theory is a time tested and proven method and

charismatic leaders have shown remarkable consistency in directing the energies of their

followers towards a common vision for an organization. A transformational leader’s self

confidence, ability to articulate a vision, initiate change as and when required and willingness to

pursue that vision even in adverse situations places him in an unenviable position for the others

to follow and emulate (Giampetro-Meyer A. et al, 1998). On the other hand a servant leader

addresses such issues from within the organization, not by dictating but by setting an example for

his fellow workers and subsequent followers and by pursuing matters in a more ethical manner

as compared to transformational leadership. However the type of leadership characteristics

desired by a particular organization depends upon the nature of its business as well as short time

and long term goals it has set up for itself. Choosing the right kind of leader therefore is driven

by the needs and not by choice. Whether a not a particular vision itself is desirable for an

organization depends upon its business character and thereby influences the requirement of a

transformational leader. A transformational leader is more likely to be more assertive in his

decision making and driven by own personality while framing the vision for an organization.

There is high likelihood of decisions of such a leader not following the conformations of ethics

and therefore being inconsistent with what the followers might believe and expect.

Transformational leaders are often accused of ignoring ethics while framing visions for an

organization which are driven more by short term profits. As their decisions and visions are

imposed and sometimes blindly followed by the followers, there is no room for discussion and

solution of problems on a common platform. There is a lack of analysis and reflection in the

reasoning process. A transformational leader is also subject to narcissism as the target oriented

approach they follow often makes them harbor grandiose thoughts about their capabilities which
may not always prove to be successful and occasionally might end in disaster (Giampetro-Meyer

A. et al, 1998). The servant leader on the other hand is part of an organizational culture based on

ethical and reflective decision making. The leader works from within the organization and

establishes leadership status by example and by directing other workers to follow common

shared goals and objectives by acting as a role model. Nothing is imposed on anybody and the

leader as well as the followers share equal responsibility in the outcomes of the organization.

Sorting out problems takes a collective effort and the servant leader is superior only due to his

accepted status as a man for any crisis. The servant leader model is more appropriate for the

multinational corporate culture where individual flair and influence have less chances of being

noticed. The common objectives and vision in such organizations are already well defined and

they run on the basis of common shared values, duties and responsibilities. This can however

prove a detrimental measure if short term goals within a time constraint and particular location

are desired. In such a situation a transformational leadership style is more appropriate. Servant

leaders might hinder corporate success within such organizations (Giampetro-Meyer A. et al,

1998). Servant leadership cannot yield stupendous results like transformational leadership where

individual charisma and vision of the leader may be the driving factor, however unsound it may

appear to the onlooker or the follower. Servant leadership can hold promise in organizations

which are not driven by profit, but are part of the service industry or an organization of such

magnanimous proportions which can bear to sustain temporary losses and setbacks (Giampetro-

Meyer A. et al, 1998).

However experts believe that servant leadership theory which is currently undergoing

empirical testing and research upon recommendations of management experts might be the

theory made for the future leaders as it shares some the characteristics of traditional hierarchical
 Leadership Theory 17

and autocratic leadership models with the nearest to it being the transformational model. This

similarity emanates from the fact that when a transformational leader empowers his followers in

order to reach organizational goals it amounts to sharing of responsibilities which is the modus

operandi of the servant theory of leadership. Certain characteristics of leadership are also shared

by these two models which include vision, respect, influence, role model, trust, integrity and

stewardship. Individual appreciation and consideration to the follower’s problems are also

essential elements of the leader following the tenets of these two forms of leadership. Innovation

and creativity are also the hallmarks of both forms of leadership theories. Servant leadership

leads to a spiritual generative culture while transformational leadership leads to an empowered

dynamic culture (Smith et al, 2004). Servant-leadership adds a moral dimension to

transformational leadership which enhances the blend between the two by including credible

safeguards against the excesses possible from charismatic effects (Graham, 1991). High change

and target driven environments are more suited for the transformational model while static

environments and non profit organizations are more suited to the servant style of leadership

(Smith et al, 2004). When the essential difference between the two leadership styles was

subjected to critical research it was discovered that the primary difference between the two

leadership styles lies in the focus of the leaders (Stone et al, 2004). A transformational leader is

more focused on the organization itself and his behavior is directed towards achieving

organizational objectives which he transmits to his followers. The servant leader on the other

hand has his primary focus on his followers with whom he collectively aspires to fulfill the

organizational objectives (Stone et al, 2004). As far as learning organizations are concerned, the

future educational leaders are expected to follow the tenets of transformational leadership but

with a sense of responsibility and democracy as they will act as the harbingers of positive change
in society (Bass, 2000).

Conclusion

When compared, the two styles of leadership – transformational and servant based, have

certain common attributes which can be magnified according to merit when selecting the model

of leadership for an existing or future organization. Transformational leadership is more effective

in short-term target oriented organizations where the vision is clear and the followers need an

inspirational and charismatic leader at the helm. Ethics and morality can take a backseat in such

organizations as their goal does not allow for rumination and correction of anomalies. The

servant model of leadership is a new one although its historical existence is justified. The large

corporate sectors and organizations with international presence often are financially sound and

their goals long term and generalized globally. They can benefit more from the servant model of

leadership which encourages equal participation from all and allows for emergence of new

leaders from the existing staff. Experts feel that a blend of these two leadership theories can be

used in the present organizational cultures, in order to suit their individual requirements. The

corporate world and business organizations have changed and acquired more ethnic variety and

cosmopolitan outlook in their staff as well as character, which spurs the need for leadership

styles best suited for them. Successful leadership cannot be envisioned within the narrow

framework and confines of the protected and monopolized work environments of yesteryears and

only the best suited mechanisms need to be adopted for international survival.
 Leadership Theory 19

References

Barbuto J. E.Jr. & Wheeler D. W., 2006, Scale Development and Construct Clarification of

Servant Leadership, Group Organization Management; 31; 300

Barling J., Slater F., & Kelloway E.K., 2000, Transformational leadership and emotional

intelligence: An exploratory study, Leadership & Organization Development Journal;

2000; 21, 3

Bass B., 1995, Theory of Transformational Leadership Redux, Leadership Quarterly, 6(4),

463478.

Bass B. M., 2000, The Future of Leadership in Learning Organizations, Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 7; 18

Bass B. & Avolio B.J., 1993, Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture, PAQ

Spring

Bass B.M., 1999, Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational Leadership,

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8 (1), 9-32

Giampetro-Meyer A., S.J. Brown T., Browne M.N. & Kubasek N., 1998, Do We Really Want

More Leaders in Business?, Journal of Business Ethics 17: 1727–1736

Graham J.W., 1991, Servant-Leadership in Organizations: Inspirational and Moral, Leadership

Quarterly, 2(2), 105-l 19.

Joseph E. E. & Winston B. E., 2005, A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and

organizational trust, Leadership & Organization Development Journal; 26, ½

Robbins, 1999, Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies and Applications, 8th Edition,

Prentice Hall, New Jersey, Pgs. 372-375

Russell R. & Stone A.G., 2002, A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical
 model, A Gregory Stone Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23, 3/4

Sendjaya S. & Sarros J.C., 2002, Servant leadership: It's origin, development, and application in

organizations, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9, 2

Sivanathan N. & Fekken G. C., 2002, Emotional intelligence, moral reasoning and

transformational leadership, Leadership & Organization Development Journal; 23, ¾

Smith, Brien N., Ray V. Montagno, and Tatiana N. Kuzmenko, 2004, Transformational and

servant leadership: content and contextual comparisons, Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies 10.4, 80(12)

Stone A.G., Russell R.F. & Patterson K., 2004, Transformational versus servant leadership: a

difference in leader focus, The Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 25

No. 4, pp. 349-361

Whetstone J. T., 2002, Personalism and moral leadership: the servant leader with a transforming

vision, Business Ethics: A European Review Volume11 Number 4