Servant Identity

The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 544557
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
The Leadership Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua
The servant identity: Inuences on the cognition and behavior

of servant leaders
Peter Y.T. Sun
University of Waikato, Waikato Management School, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 11 September 2012
Received in revised form 24 March 2013
Accepted 25 March 2013
Available online 16 April 2013
Keywords:
Leadership
Servant leadership
Identity
Self-concept
Organizational context
a b s t r a c t
This paper approaches the study of servant leadership by concentrating on the identity of
servant leaders. An identity is important to one's sense of self and it influences the way a leader
cognitively processes socially relevant information and exercises a particular leadership
behavior in response to a situation. Unlike existing studies, which typically approach servant
leadership as one of a number of possible leadership styles, and which merely describe its
characteristics, this paper serves to explain the basis for individuals enacting this mode of
leadership. This paper defines and elaborates on the servant identity by showing the
psychological factors constituting it. Taking a socio-cognitive approach, the paper offers a
theoretical framework for the servant identity. The framework encompasses the cognitive and
behavioral disposition of leaders with servant identity and the organizational contexts that
influence it. This new angle on servant leadership opens avenues for future research and
practice.
2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In addition to the ongoing endeavor of better engaging one's employees and customers, organizations are increasingly aware
of the need to consider the community and society in which they operate. For this reason, management theories are shifting from
being egoistic to being more prosocial and other-oriented (Dyck & Schroeder, 2005; Laub, 1999; Rynes, Bartunek, Dutton, &
Margolis, 2012; Van Dierendonck, 2011). Increasingly, positive forms of leadership that serves the interests of others, such as
servant leadership, are gaining acceptance by organizations operating in different national cultures (Pekerti & Sendjaya, 2010).
Servant leadership is a style of leadership that typically focuses on the growth of those who are being simultaneously led and
served (Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2004).
Existing studies have approached servant leadership as just one of a number of possible leadership styles. These studies have
argued for a consistent pattern of servant leadership behaviors, and empirically analyzed its influence on individual, team, and
organizational outcomes. The existing literature on the servant leadership style speaks of its many advantages: it has a positive
influence on team performance (Hu & Liden, 2011; Irving & Longbotham, 2007; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng, 2011), increases the
job satisfaction of direct reports (Mayer, Bardes, & Piccolo, 2008), enhances firm performance (in terms of return on assets)
(Peterson, Galvin, & Lange, 2012), encourages organizational citizenship behavior (Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010), and
enriches employees' quality of family life (Zhang, Kwan, Everett, & Jian, 2012). The servant leadership style also invokes a
promotion focus in employees, resulting in supportive and creative behaviors in the organization (Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson,
Chonko, & Roberts, 2008).
In contrast to previous studies on the servant leadership style, which generally assume that servant leaders are authentic and
moral, this study examines why such individuals authentically engage with associated servant behaviors. The psychological and
Tel.: +64 7 838 4283; fax: +64 7 838 4270.
E-mail address: petersun@waikato.ac.nz.
1048-9843/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.03.008
P.Y.T. Sun / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 544557
545
motivational rationale to engage in servant leadership is often implied in previous studies but it has not been explicitly identified.
As such, this study focuses on the psychological factors constituting servant leaders in a bid to explain why such individuals adopt
this style of leadership. It argues that servant leaders engage in servant behaviors because of their identity as a servant, and such
an identity is an important aspect of their self-concept.
The self-concept is a multi-faceted and dynamic cognitive structure consisting of all of a person's self-representations
(Campbell et al., 1996; Obodaru, 2012, p. 36). These self-representations are defined by attributes that describe the person, are
rooted in the very core of oneself, and are formed by life's experiences. The self-representations can take many forms. It could
define the person in the present, i.e., define their current self. Individuals could also define themselves by their personal
characteristics (I'm a moral person), their occupational role (I'm an academic), their personal roles (I'm a father), their activities
(I'm an athlete), and their membership in groups or collectives (I'm a member of a union) (Obodaru, 2012). Together, these
aspects of current selves are referred to as identities. 1
Identities are humans' desire to be self-expressive, to express who they are, their feelings and values (Shamir, House, & Arthur,
1993). An identity is defined by attributes, and these attributes provide the evaluative standards which can be cognitively
engaged with, resulting in behaviors that align with that particular identity 2 (Hannah, Woolfolk, & Lord, 2009). In this study I
develop a theory of servant identity of a leader and describe the psychological processes constituting such an identity.
2. The problem with the style approach to servant leadership studies
Studies on leadership which focus on identifying different styles of leadership are characterized by descriptive chaos. What is
labeled as truly distinct is arguably similar. Some of the dimensions of different leadership styles (such as transformational,
charismatic, ideological, ethical, authentic, servant, and spiritual) overlap. In fact, existing studies on servant leadership
acknowledge the overlaps that exist with other more recent leadership styles (e.g., Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008;
Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004; Van Dierendonck, 2011). For example, altruistic calling, which is the servant leaders'
philanthropic and spiritual purpose to make a positive difference in others' lives through service (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006), is
also discussed in relation to spiritual leadership (Fry, 2003; Fry, Vitucci, & Cedillo, 2005). It is also found in literature that connects
one's faith (religion) with one's work-life (e.g., Delbecq, 1999; Dyck & Schroeder, 2005; Sauser, 2005).
Persuasive mapping, which is another dimension of servant leadership, is very similar to visioning. It is the extent to which
leaders use sound reasoning and mental frameworks to map issues and conceptualize greater possibilities for the future (Barbuto
& Wheeler, 2006; Liden et al., 2008). Servant leaders engaged with persuasive mapping encourage others to visualize the
organization's future and are persuasive by offering compelling reasons to get others to do things (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006,
p. 319; Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005; Page & Wong, 2000). This aspect of servant leadership has overlaps with most aspects of
transformational leadership. However, Graham (1991) and others have also pointed out that the topdown vision of
transformational leaders what the transformational leader believes is important differs from the other-oriented nature of
servant leadership visioning. While Van Dierendonck (2011) and Parolini, Patterson, and Winston (2009) have argued that
the vision of transformational leaders is primarily motivated by considerations of what benefits the organization, as opposed to
what benefits the individuals within the organization, a recent empirical study by Grant (2012) indicates that the vision of
transformational leaders can be prosocial, wherein benefits to others take precedence.
Community building is another dimension that, according to certain studies, distinguishes servant leaders from other types of
leaders (Graham, 1991; Liden et al., 2008). It is the extent to which servant leaders prepare an organization to make a positive
contribution to society (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Liden et al., 2008). For example, Liden et al. (2008) argues that being
community oriented differentiates servant leadership from transformational leadership, but this argument rests on an
understanding of transformational leadership as it has been conceptualized by Bass and colleagues (e.g., Avolio, Bass, & Jung,
1999; Bass, 1998). In contrast, Burns' conceptualization of transformational leaders has a strong community/society orientation
(Burns, 2003).
Servant leadership and ethical leadership are very similar in that both are governed by leaders who adopt the moral high
ground. Rather than being guided by the expectations of one's contemporary society, (it has been argued) servant leaders are
guided by internalized sets of high moral principles (Graham, 1991; Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008). While Graham (1991)
asserts that this distinguishes servant leadership from transformational leadership, another study has suggested that
transformational leaders do have post-conventional moral reasoning (Turner, Barling, Epitropaki, Butcher, & Milner, 2002) and
high ethical standards of care (Simola, Barling, & Turner, 2010). Similarly, the dimension of accountability in servant leadership
(Van Dierendonck & Nuitjen, 2011) also appears in the transactional leadership style. Transactional leaders hold others
accountable for their goals and objectives and use reward exchanges for follower performance (Judge & Piccolo, 2004).
The examples identified above demonstrate the overlaps between servant leadership and other styles of leadership. What do
these overlapping dimensions mean? Primarily, these overlaps reveal that effective servant leaders not only exercise distinct servant
1
Another form of self-representation is self-comparison (Obodaru, 2012). By self-comparison, the person describes him/herself not in terms of current self. It
can be their past self (what they were), possible selves (what they may become in the future), ideal self (what they ideally want to become), ought self (what
they think they should be), and alternate self (what they would have been if something in the past had happened).
2
Attributes are not necessarily always positive. There could be negative attributes that describe an identity. For example, an athlete could describe him/herself
as uncoordinated (Hannah et al., 2009).
546
behaviors but also enact other behaviors that have been generally linked to effective leadership (such as visioning, accountability,
etc.). This suggests that effective servant leaders possess multiple identities related to how they perceive themselves as leaders. Their
servant identity, when activated, enables them to display servant behaviors, while the other leadership related identities (such as
being a visionary) trigger other types of effective leadership behaviors according to the requirements of the situation. Effective
servant leaders are cognitively and behaviorally complex, and understanding their identities is important in enabling us to
understand what drives their servant and other associated behaviors. I begin by first explaining the servant identity.
3. Psychological factors constituting the servant identity
Fig. 1 helps to illustrate the psychological factors that constitute the servant identity and the processes involved in enacting it.
The salience of the servant identity is determined by the extent to which being a servant is central to one's sense of self. It is the
sustained desire to be marked as a servant, both intra-personally through self-categorization and inter-personally by being
recognized by others as someone who serves (Liden et al., 2008). Being other-oriented, servant leaders are seen as moral leaders
(Graham, 1995). Their leadership approach is to elevate the moral and ethical behaviors of their followers (Greenleaf, 1977), and
for this reason the servant identity is a self-schema that is organized around a set of moral attributes. Servant leaders who are
cognitively sophisticated are able to determine a set of consistent attributes that define their identity as servants (see Fig. 1 for the
attributes of calling, humility, empathy, and agape love). Such individuals are motivated to regulate their behaviors to align with
their servant attributes. The integration of sophisticated cognitive reasoning with socialbehavioral regulation lends the study of
the servant identity towards a socio-cognitive approach (Shao, Aquino, & Freeman, 2008). Such an approach recognizes that
servant identity goes beyond moral cognitive reasoning (Blasi, 1993) and asserts that other mechanisms such as behavioral
regulation and one's motivation to maintain self-consistency across social situations are equally important (Shao et al., 2008).
This socio-cognitive approach to identities has been applied to studies of leadership, especially the attempt to understand the
behavioral complexity of leaders (e.g., Hannah et al., 2009). Hannah and colleagues argue that leaders possess multiple identities
(which they refer to as self-aspects). Depending on the specificities of the situation, a particular identity of the self is activated.
This will result in the cognitive processing of its attributes and its associated behaviors will come into play.
Organizational
context
Servant identity
attributes
Calling to serve
P6, P7
Humility
Empathy
Agape love
P1
Cognitive
disposition
Servant identity
organized around a
set of servant
attributes
Behavioral
disposition Acting
in accordance to
ones servant
identity
Servant integrative
leadership
P2
Individual traits
Self-concept
clarity
Self-esteem
Cognitive
complexity
Attributional
complexity
P3
P4, P5
Feedback/
reflection
Servant
compartmentalized
leadership
Fig. 1. A framework for the servant identity.
A similar socio-cognitive approach will be used in the development of our understanding of the servant identity. As shown in
Fig. 1, the framework for the servant identity has two components: a cognitive dispositionthe extent to which leaders
cognitively process servant attributes; and a behavioral dispositionthe extent to which leaders regulate their behavior to
align with servant attributes. The cognitive disposition is organized around a set of servant attributes that are salient in the
cognition of leaders. This set of attributes is readily accessible when social information is being processed, leading them to
regulate their behavior in social settings to ensure self-consistency. Individuals are motivated to maintain self-consistency
(Shamir et al., 1993) so that they can derive a sense of meaning by maintaining continuity with their past, present and future
(McHugh, 1968). In Sections 3.1 to 3.6 to follow I will describe in detail the components of Fig. 1, starting with the servant identity
attributes.
547
3.1. Servant identity attributes

Servant leaders are concerned with the needs of their followers, and they desire to be socially identified as someone who comes
from a position of service (Greenleaf, 1977; Sendjaya et al., 2008). There is accumulating evidence within the social sciences that
other-centeredness can be central to humanity (Rynes et al., 2012), and such a quality is especially pronounced in servant leaders
(Stone et al., 2004). This does not necessarily mean that the servant leader avoids power, but rather that he or she will use power as
a means to serve others (Greenleaf, 1977; Van Dierendonck, 2011). For these reasons, the set of attributes to which the servant
leader will consciously refer to when processing socially relevant information, must be other-oriented.
Based on the existing literature on leadership, I have identified the four attributes of calling, humility, empathy, and agape love
(see Table 1), and it is around these attributes that one's cognitive and behavioral dispositions are based. This set of attributes is
strongly associated with the desire to serve others over and above oneself and is essentially altruistic and moral (Barbuto &
Wheeler, 2006; Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005; Fry, 2003; Fry et al., 2005; Graham, 1991; Reave, 2005; Sendjaya et al., 2008).
These servant identity attributes, when cued by situational factors, guide the cognitive processing and behavioral disposition of
servant leaders. When certain situations arise, servant leaders will be cognizant of these four behavior-framing attributes. For
example, when a situation provides the opportunity for servant leaders to promote their self-interest to the detriment of others, they
will be cognizant of their attribute of calling to serve others. This will prevent servant leaders from engaging in self-serving actions.
Calling, humility, empathy, and agape love are attributes that servant leaders are consciously, and hence cognitively, aware of.
3.1.1. Calling
A calling is one's deeply held belief and the expression of that belief in work and life (Sauser, 2005). A calling provides
meaning and purpose to life, and is deeply spiritual (Fry, 2003). It passionately engages the leaders' heart and mind. Leaders with
servant identities have a calling to serve others, to provide benefits to others, even if it entails self-sacrifice (Barbuto & Wheeler,
2006; Block, 1996). This type of altruistic calling is a stable attribute and contributes to the definition of the self.
How does an individual receive such a calling? It can result from turning point events that change the meaning, direction and
purpose to life (Pillemer, 2001). Quite often, a traumatic personal experience results in the individual reflecting on the meaning
and purpose of life, making them more spiritual and selfless (Dent, Higgins, & Wharff, 2005). A life-changing experience such as a
newfound relationship with God will make individuals adhere to God's calling to serve others (Sauser, 2005). Christian business
leaders tend to consider workplace leadership a part of their spiritual calling for service (Delbecq, 1999). By observing life's
events, by witnessing human tragedies, and through the maturing of one's moral self over time, an individual can evolve to be
more spiritual and thus embrace an altruistic calling (Dent et al., 2005). The outcome of such a calling will result in leaders putting
their subordinates first (Liden et al., 2008), and empowering subordinates to act so that they can realize their full potential and
succeed (Liden et al., 2008; Van Dierendonck, 2011; Van Dierendonck & Nuitjen, 2011).
Examples of elements that constitute this attribute are: the perception that one's vocation and mission in life is to serve others;
the spiritual satisfaction one derives from serving others; the ongoing search for opportunities that help one to fulfill his or her
calling as a servant.
3.1.2. Humility
Humility is not a set of normative behaviors that leaders can enact but rather an innate virtue (Owens & Hekman, 2012). It is
considered a stable personality trait (Lee & Ashton, 2004; Owens & Hekman, 2012), or, as I suggest in this study, a stable moral
attribute of the servant leader. Given the increasing complexity of today's environment, there is a greater need for shared
leadership and bottomup approaches to management, thereby necessitating business leaders to be humble (Owens & Hekman,
2012). Nielsen and his colleagues suggest that humility is the willingness to understand oneself and involves the prioritization of
Table 1
Attributes of servant identity.
Servant identity attributes
Definition
Literature references
Calling
Defines the vocation of the leader to be of service to others,

one which is deeply spiritual and provides purpose to life
Humility
A stable attribute that orients the leader to consider others

above self. Ability to put aside (or abandon) his/her position,
accomplishment and talents, in order to benefit the talents of
others. It is the ability to hold one's own position and
capability in proper perspective so as not to permit an inflated
sense of self to get in the way of fulfilling one's calling.
A moral attribute that enables the leader to put themselves in
another person's shoes and understand the position and
situation they are coming from. An important prerequisite for
positive forms of leadership
Altruistic form of love which is selfless and unconditional. It is
a type of love referred to as agape love and is deeply spiritual
Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), Block (1996), Delbecq (1999),

Levy (2000), Liden et al. (2008), Sauser (2005), Van
Dierendonck and Nuitjen (2011)
Chan et al. (2011), Dennis and Bocarnea (2005), Nielsen et al.
(2010), Owens and Hekman (2012), Patterson (2003), Van
Dierendonck (2011), Van Dierendonck and Nuitjen (2011)
Empathy
Agape love
Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), Ciulla (2010), George (2000),

Holt and Marques (2012), Mill-Chalmers (2010)
Dennis and Bocarnea (2005), Ferguson and Milliman (2008),

Fry (2003), Kouzes and Posner (1992), Patterson (2003),
Russell and Stone (2002)
548
others' needs above one's own (Nielsen, Marrone, & Slay, 2010). An individual possessing this attribute is able to put aside, or
even abandon altogether, his or her position, accomplishment, and talents, in order to utilize the talents of others (Dennis &
Bocarnea, 2005; Owens & Hekman, 2012; Van Dierendonck, 2011; Van Dierendonck & Nuitjen, 2011). Humility involves the
ability to keep one's position and capability in perspective (Patterson, 2003), precluding the possibility of an inflated sense of self
detracting one from fulfilling one's calling (Chan, McBey, & Scott-Ladd, 2011). Leaders marked with humility are willing to be
accountable to their subordinates, to receive criticism and to learn, and to retreat to the background once the task is accomplished
(Owens & Hekman, 2012; Van Dierendonck, 2011; Van Dierendonck & Nuitjen, 2011). Humble leaders exhibit behaviors that
others can model, a process in which their direct reports may learn that displaying vulnerability and uncertainty are legitimate
behaviors in the workplace and are a part of one's journey to self-development (Owens & Hekman, 2012). Conversely, leaders
who are proud, self-centered and arrogant create a level of toxicity in the workplace where Machiavellianism thrives (Chan et al.,
2011).
Leaders who display humility may hold fast to the following ideas: I value the skills and capabilities of others; my position and
accomplishments do not stop me from learning or receiving criticism from others; my position and power are unimportant when
dealing with others; I am happy for others to benefit from my work and accomplishments.
3.1.3. Empathy
Empathy is the ability to put oneself in another's shoes and to understand their position and point of view (Barbuto & Wheeler,
2006; George, 2000). While empathy has been regarded as a personality trait or an attribute (Brown et al., 2010), it is also a
recognized ability to understand the feelings transmitted through verbal and nonverbal messages, to provide emotional support
to people when needed, and to understand the links between others' emotions and behavior (Polychroniou, 2009, p. 345, in Holt &
Marques, 2012). For leaders who conceive of themselves within a servant paradigm, being empathetic is critical since one's ability
to understand the psychological perspective of others (Van Dierendonck, 2011) enables one to provide emotional support and
healing in times of distress and trauma (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Liden et al., 2008; Spears, 1995). Understanding the position of
others will also help the leader to structure unique learning experiences for individuals so that they can develop and grow.
Showing care and concern, which is an aspect of empathy, has been recognized as important to the functioning of
organizations (Rynes et al., 2012). Although empathy is often recognized as a prerequisite for positive forms of leadership (Ciulla,
2010; Mill-Chalmers, 2010), it is argued to be undervalued by business school students and business leaders (Holt & Marques,
2012). Holt and Marques's empirical study of business school undergraduates and MBA students (mostly working adults) found
that empathy received the lowest rating when compared to other leadership attributes. Being empathetic requires the leader to
engage the medial prefrontal cortex of their brain, which is the seat of higher level thinking, emotions and empathy. This is an
attribute, at times referred as a soft-skill, that requires a well-developed level of moral maturity (Holt & Marques, 2012).
The following statements pertain to individuals who are highly empathetic: I'm aware of the emotional states of others even if
they don't explicitly disclose them to me; people come to me for advice and support when they are down; helping others in their
time of need is not a waste of time.
3.1.4. Agape love
The type of love that underpins the servant identity is termed agape love (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005; Patterson, 2003), a
selfless and unconditional love (Russell & Stone, 2002) that is often used in Christian literature to describe God's love for
humanity. While agape love is often understood as an active type of love, made manifest in behavioral displays of altruism, it is
also used in the Bible to describe selfless love and it is this latter sense of the term I refer to. One of the best known descriptions of
this love comes from the apostle Paul, writing to the Church in Corinth: Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love
does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely; does not keep record of wrong doings, is not provoked, thinks no
evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things
(1 Corinthians 13:47The New King James Version). Fry (2003) refers to this type of love as being altruistic. Agape love is not
merely a behavior, but an expression of one's true inner attribute (Kouzes & Posner, 1992). It influences the behaviors of others,
leading to positive outcomes for the organization (Chen, Yang, & Li, 2012; Fry, 2003; Fry et al., 2005).
Why is this attribute of agape love central to one's perception of oneself as a servant? It is the basis for providing service from
the heart and supporting others in their time of need (Ferguson & Milliman, 2008; Kouzes & Posner, 1992). Without agape love
there would not be any true forgiveness of others, which is the ability to let go any perceived wrongdoings and not carry past
grudges to other situations (Van Dierendonck & Nuitjen, 2011). Although it has been suggested that forgiveness is a particular
dimension of servant leadership (Van Dierendonck & Nuitjen, 2011), I argue that forgiveness is better conceived as an outcome of
agape love rather than a dimension of servant leadership. Indeed, in a follow up study, Asag-gau and Van Dierendonck (2011)
eliminated forgiveness as a dimension of servant leadership.
Even without agape love, leaders can display courage and foresight, provide direction, show good conceptual skills, and be
good stewards of the resources of their organization. Indeed, these qualities have been recognized as important components of
servant leadership (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Liden et al., 2008; Spears, 1995; Van Dierendonck, 2011; Van Dierendonck &
Nuitjen, 2011). For example, pseudo-transformational leaders can display inspirational motivation, exercise intellectual
stimulation, and be alert to the needs and changing contexts of the organization (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Price, 2003).
However, these are exercised by pseudo-transformational leaders with a self-serving motive (Price, 2003). Apostle Paul, writing
to the Corinthian Church, says this of actions devoid of agape love: And though I have the gift of prophecy and understand all
mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could move mountains, but have not love, I'm nothing (1
549
Corinthians 13:2The New King James Version). Agape love is thus the cornerstone for servant leadership (Dennis & Bocarnea,
2005; Patterson, 2003). It arises out of the following principles: I love others as much as I love myself; loving others fulfills my
spiritual need; when others suffer, I want to do something about it.
Calling, humility, empathy, and agape love are therefore attributes that leaders with servant identity can cognitively refer to,
and are widely acknowledged in the leadership literature as essential to servant leadership (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Dennis &
Bocarnea, 2005; Fry, 2003; Fry et al., 2005; Graham, 1991; Reave, 2005; Sendjaya et al., 2008). The best known example of a leader
governed by a servant identity is the Lord Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul says this of Jesus Christ: Let this mind be in you which
was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no
reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He
humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death on the cross (Philippians 2: 58The New King
James Version).
The above Bible verses about Jesus Christ illustrate the attributes involved in the servant identity. Consider first the calling of
Jesus Christ. The reason for His coming to earth and assuming a human form is stated in Matthew 20:28: the Son of Man did not
come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many (the New King James Version). His calling entailed
humility, in that He set aside His positional glory in Heaven and humbled Himself and became Man. His humility is further
attested by His willingness to die on the cross as a fulfillment of His calling. As a Man He was able to show genuine empathy to
those in need. He is therefore regarded as the bond Servant of God who understands every pain and need experienced by all
(Hebrews 2:1718). His calling, humbling Himself to become Man, and His empathy during His time on earth, was driven by His
agape love. For Christ also loved the church (i.e., His followers) and gave Himself for her (Ephesians 5:25The New King James
Version). In summary, the following proposition is suggested:
Proposition 1 (P1). Servant leaders possess a servant identity. The strength of the servant identity is measured by the strength of the
attributes of calling, empathy, humility, and agape love.
3.2. Cognitive and behavioral dispositions

Calling, humility, empathy, and agape love are therefore attributes that servant leaders cognitively refer to when processing
socially relevant information, and which define their sense of self. Behavioral disposition is the desire to act in accordance to
oneself, and constitutes the externalization aspect of servant leadership. Leaders are not only pragmatic and goal-oriented in their
behaviors, they can also be self-expressive (Shamir et al., 1993). Apart from the need to achieve important tasks and objectives
(i.e., being instrumentalcalculative), they can also be motivated to express their values, beliefs, and their sense of self. Expressive
behavior, that is, what I do, is based on who am I. This desire to remain consistent and true to oneself (i.e., correspondence
between identity and behavior) is important for leaders with servant self-perceptions, and for this reason, they operate on a
highly authentic basis (Sendjaya et al., 2008).
Research has shown that identities are activated by particular situations and experiences and thereby govern behavior
(Hannah et al., 2009; Lord & Brown, 2004). I argue that relational cues activate the servant identity. Servant behavior is largely
exercised at the relational level (Graham, 1991), and it is here that the self-expression of a servant becomes salient. For example, a
change in an organization's systems and processes that does not impact on the welfare of individuals may not necessarily bring
into play the servant identity. However, an organization that undergoes a restructuring process in which jobs are at stake may
compel the servant identity to be activated, especially when relationships within the organizations are destroyed. Another
example would be if servant leaders are called upon to help someone that requires them to set aside personal time, a commitment
that could potentially compromise their ability to meet their own personal goals and objectives. Of course, such situations can
have positive outcomes if the service rendered by the servant leader is recognized and valued, or if the servant leader sees the
individual that they have helped realizing their full potential. These types of situational cues heighten the self-consciousness of
servant leaders and activate their servant identity. This triggers the cognitive processing of the servant attributes that result in
self-evaluation and an engagement with one's authentic self.
3.3. Servant integrative and servant compartmentalized
Are all leaders who have the servant identity effective leaders? Most studies have projected servant leadership as being ideal
with normative sets of behaviors (e.g., Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Liden et al., 2008; Sendjaya et al., 2008), while some argue that
servant leadership is only good within a context of a stable environment (e.g., Humphreys, 2005; Smith et al., 2004). Existing
literature is therefore divided about the universal effectiveness of servant leadership. Adding to this discussion, I suggest that
servant leadership is better understood in terms of a continuum and the notions of plurality and unity of identities are important
in such a conceptualization (see Fig. 2note that Fig. 2 only acts as an illustration).
The notion of plurality and unity of identities was originally proposed by Hannah et al. (2009) to explain the complex behavior of
leaders. Hannah and colleagues suggest that leaders are complex beings with multiple identities (Hannah et al., 2009), and the
servant identity can be one of them. A leader can see him or herself in the following ways: I'm an inspirational leader, I'm a
transactional manager, I'm a mentor, I'm a moral person, and I'm a servant, possessing a mixture of attributes that define each
of these identities (see Fig. 2). The advantage of having multiple identities is that leaders can respond in different ways to different
550
Leader identity
Visionary
Motivational
Empowering
Trustworthy
Leader identity
Visionary
Motivational
Empowering
Trustworthy
Calling
Agape Love
Transaction manager
identity
Organized
Good planner
Task orientated
Enabler
Transaction manager
identity
Organized
Good planner
Task orientated
Enabler
Empathy
Humility
Moral person identity

Honest
Transparent
Ethical
Authentic
Moral person identity

Honest
Ethical
Authentic
Agape love
Servant identity
Servant identity
Calling
Empathy
Humility
Agape love
Calling
Empathy
Humility
Agape love
Servant-compartmentalized
(Plurality of identities)
Servant-integrative
(Unity of identities)
Note The Figure serves as an illustration only
Fig. 2. Servant leadership continuum.
situations, and this explains their behavioral complexity (Hannah et al., 2009). The extent to which these identities correspond and
overlap with each other provides an indication of the strength of the servant identity. A high degree of unity among these identities
would mean that similar attributes appear across multiple identities. For example, the servant attributes of empathy, humility, agape
love, and having a sense of calling can be present within other identities (see Fig. 2). I use the term servant-integrative to describe
such a high degree of unity among various identities. A high unity among the various perceptions one has of one's self implies that the
servant identity is not particularly distinctive. Instead of servant attributes being clearly contained within the servant identity, these
attributes also recur in other identities. In such cases, the leader sees the need to display servant attributes across multiple situations,
even when other identities are activated. This can potentially limit their effectiveness as leaders. For example, if leaders who are
servant-integrative had to implement a restructuring process in their organization that entailed the loss of jobs, their struggle to
differentiate their role as instruments of change from that of servitude potentially creates emotional dissonance, doubt about one's
role, and, worse still, the avoidance of active leadership. Servant-integrative leaders tend to find it difficult to separate their actions as
551
leaders from their compulsion to serve, leading them to prioritize the needs of individuals even if it may be to the detriment of the
larger organization. Many studies have acknowledged this. For example, an empirical study by Parolini et al. (2009), which
differentiates servant leadership from transformational leadership, suggests that servant leaders primarily focus on their followers'
needs whereas transformational leaders focus on the organizational goals at hand. The case of Chief Joseph (18401904), as described
in Humphreys (2005), exemplifies how the primary allegiance of the servant-integrative leader is to the follower. Chief Joseph was a
leader of the Native American Indian tribe Nez Perce, which had initially refused to sign a treaty with the federal government.
Although there were several other leaders of Nez Perce, Chief Joseph was recognized as the primary leader (Humphreys, 2005). His
preoccupation with serving the varying needs of his people meant that he could not inspire a common agreed upon objective. This
resulted in divisions within the tribe and certain factions embarked on violent episodes against white settlers. The retributive
response by the United States Army culminated in a battle-ravaged retreat by Chief Joseph and his followers and, ultimately, their
surrender and forced relocation to an inhospitable location. Humphreys (2005), citing Chief Joseph as an example, argues that servant
leadership is effective in a static environment, but less successful when the external environment is volatile, since this requires the
leader to inspire a collective vision and objective. I suggest that Chief Joseph's case is illustrative of a servant-integrative leader.
Leaders who have little unity between their multiple identities are more inclined to display their servant attributes discriminately
since these attributes are compartmentalized into, or relate only, to one of their many conceptions of self (see Fig. 2). Such leaders can
be described as servant-compartmentalized and I argue to be more effective leaders than servant-integrative leaders. 3 They are able
to activate different identities in different situations, sometimes within short periods of time, thereby displaying behavioral
complexity (Hannah et al., 2009).
According to structural symbolic interactionism, identities in a self-concept are arranged in a hierarchy of salience (Shamir et
al., 1993). Instead of the hierarchy of salience being fixed for all situations, for servant-compartmentalized leaders the order of
salience of their many leadership identities may change depending on the context or situation. For example, in a restructuring
situation that requires job cuts, the identity of a transaction manager executing the restructuring may have the highest salience.
However, when dealing with the grief and pain of restructuring, servant-compartmentalized leaders may enact their servant
identity and in such a context their servant identity has the highest salience. Therefore, the hierarchy of salience of identities can
change depending on the context or situation, and can happen in a relatively short period of time.
The above argument runs the risk of portraying servant-compartmentalized leaders as inauthentic, who are able to strategically
manipulate their public appearances and behaviors to suit the situation and contextin other words, they are high self-monitors
(Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). This is certainly not the case, as high self-monitors are those who engage in surface acting with an
attempt to deceive others about what they really feel (Diefendorff, Croyle, & Gosserand, 2005). On the other hand, servantcompartmentalized leaders display genuine emotions, which are natural or true-self emotions displayed during/after an affective
event (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993). For example, in the restructuring situation described above, servant-compartmentalized leaders
are able to carry out the needed job cuts and also genuinely empathize and deal with the loss and pain following the aftermath of the
event. Because of their ability to keep things compartmentalized, they are at less risk of suffering emotional dissonance and exercising
avoidance leadership. Therefore, situations that requires leaders to make difficult decisions and to follow through on them, such as
restructuring, tend to be effectively managed by servant-compartmentalized leaders.
In summary, the following proposition is offered:
Proposition 2 (P2). The effectiveness of servant leadership is better understood in terms of a continuum, with servant-compartmentalized
leadership being more effective than servant-integrative leadership.
What distinguishes servant-integrative from servant-compartmentalized leaders? I argue that the degree to which individual
traits such as self-concept clarity, self-esteem, cognitive complexity, and attributional complexity are present is that which separates
servant-compartmentalized leaders from servant-integrative leaders. These individual traits are discussed in the section below.
3.4. Individual traits
I argue that servant-compartmentalized leaders have greater clarity in their self-perception (i.e., stronger self-concept clarity)
compared with servant-integrative leaders. Self-concept clarity involves one being certain about who one is and being clear and
confident of the attributes that define this sense of self (Hannah et al., 2009). Leaders who have self-concept clarity are inclined to
have clear self-belief of their moral worth and the attributes that constitute this worth (Campbell et al., 1996).
Another important and related aspect of servant-compartmentalized leaders is their self-esteem. Leaders with high
self-esteem are in control of their environment and display a sense of control, competence and power. For leaders to have such a
high self-esteem, they must first be confident of their intrinsic value and worthiness as an individual, possessing clarity of their
self-concept. Although they serve others, their clear sense of self (i.e., self-concept clarity) enables them to display control,
competence, and power while serving. They do so by influencing rather than coercing (Graham, 1991; Wong & Page, 2003). As
studies such as Campbell's (1990) have indicated, there is a palpable link between self-esteem and one having a clear sense of self.
The high self-esteem that characterizes many servant-compartmentalized leaders is not based on temporal and external
factors such as membership in an organization (i.e., Organizational Based Self Esteem, Pierce & Gardner, 2004), or being part of a
3
It should be noted that Hannah et al. (2009) make a separate argument about compartmentalization and integration. Their use of these terms relates to the
degree to which any of a leader's self-aspects (or identities) contains both positive and negative attributes (integration), or the positive and negative attributes
are separated into different self-aspects or identities (compartmentalization).
552
group, or relationships with significant others. It is based on the composite set of moral servant attributes, and which extends
across situations that require servant behaviors, and dictates the way leaders perceive and respond to situations especially when
it relates to others. Self-concept clarity and self-esteem are therefore important when particular situations compel the servant
identity to be enacted. These are individual traits that aid in the cognitive processing of socially relevant information resulting in
more consistent and authentic servant behaviors.
On the other hand, those with lower self-concept clarity and self-esteem are characterized by self-analysis and are concerned
as to how their behaviors are viewed by others (Campbell et al., 1996). This characterizes the servant-integrative leaders who see
the need to display servant attributes in all leadership situations, even if this inhibits their effectiveness as leaders.
As argued earlier, servant-compartmentalized leaders are better able to manage complex situations, requiring them to enact
multiple identities while also being true to their servant identity. They are able to choose a leadership behavior that best fits the
characteristics of their direct reports and the work they are involved in, and this type of complex behavior has been discussed in
path-goal theory of leadership (Northouse, 2010). Such complexity is also referred to by Hooijberg and colleagues as managerial
complexity, and requires leaders to possess both cognitive complexity and behavioral complexity (Hooijberg, Hunt, & Dodge,
1997). Cognitive complexity is the ability to differentiate and integrate multiple dimensions of their physical and social
environments (Hooijberg et al., 1997). Leaders who are cognitively complex are able to use more dimensions when differentiating
stimuli, and are also able to see more commonalities among these complex dimensions. They are therefore better able to
differentiate situations and then integrate them into a perspective that produces an outcome that satisfies the multiple demands
of the complex situations. Such cognitive complexity is an important foundation for leadership. For example, empirical studies
have found that cognitive complexity is important for project leadership (Green, 2004), it enables leaders to succeed in turbulent
environments (Hunsaker, 2007), and it engages leaders in complex moral reasoning (Turner et al., 2002). This skill is also
representative of servant-compartmentalized leaders, enabling them to enact multiple identities as the situation requires.
While cognitive complexity has been argued to be a general trait across all situations, many now agree that it is domain
specific (Alba & Hasher, 1983; Fletcher et al., 1986; Townsend et al., 2002). In particular, attributional complexity is a domain
specific trait concerning the individual's ability to exercise sophisticated judgments in complex social situations (Fletcher et al.,
1986; Townsend et al., 2002). Recognized as important in other styles of leadership such as transformational leadership (Sun &
Anderson, 2012a), I argue that attributional complexity is also crucial for servant-compartmentalized leaders. Because
servant-compartmentalized leaders are inclined to have high levels of self-esteem, they tend to feel in control of the situations
they are in. They are therefore less likely to be suspicious about the motives of others and encounter situations marred by mistrust
(Kramer, 1994; Kramer & Wei, 1999). Attributional complexity is measured by the degree to which individuals: are intrinsically
motivated to understand and to explain social behavior; prefer complex explanations to simplistic ones; think about underlying
issues and processes related to causal attribution; recognize that people's behavior is a function of their interactions with others;
understand causally complex internal attributions; understand causally complex external attributions; and consider external
causes operating from the past (Fletcher et al., 1986). It is a necessary characteristic of servant-compartmentalized leaders, as
those who are adept in attributional complexity are less likely to subscribe to group stereotypes (Schaller et al., 1995), are more
likely to treat others as individuals (Schaller et al., 1995), and, as opposed to assuming that the behavior of others is simply the
result of who they are, are mindful of the way situational factors can affect one's behavior (Fletcher, Grigg, & Bull, 1988). Others
are therefore more likely to turn to leaders with high attributional complexity for help and advice (Fast, Reimer, & Funder, 2008).
Servant-compartmentalized leaders are therefore more adept at tailoring their behavior according to the situation and they
will be more selective in rendering service than servant-integrative leaders who, by default, will approach every situation with an
intention to serve. Arguably then, the former are more effective as leaders. In summary, the following proposition is offered:
Proposition 3 (P3). Self-concept clarity, self-esteem, cognitive complexity and attributional complexity are more strongly associated
with servant-compartmentalized leadership than with servant-integrative leadership.
3.5. Feedback
We now discuss how feedback by others influences servant leaders. Being consistently true to oneself in any situation is very
important for identity (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Shamir et al., 1993). For leaders with servant identity, maintaining a consistent link
between their conception of self and their actions/behaviors in the world is very important. This link may also be consolidated
through the feedback of others.
How would feedback influence servant-integrative and servant-compartmentalized leaders? Servant-integrative leaders, as
argued previously, tend to see the need to serve in every situation, even if such actions are detrimental to the larger organizational
goals. Their primary allegiance is to the concerned individual rather than the organization (Parolini et al., 2009; Smith et al.,
2004). They focus on individual needs, nurturing the welfare of individuals, thus developing strong affective relationships with
others (Schaubroeck et al., 2011). However, because they tend to approach all situations with the need to serve, their failure to
exercise leadership behaviors that require the enactment of different leadership identities prevents them from being effective
leaders in certain situationsfor example, if their focus on the well-being of individuals prevent them from making difficult job
cuts in organizational restructuring. Therefore, they are bound to receive conflicting feedback: while their servant behaviors may
be affirmed by others, they may also be criticized for their inability to tackle difficult issues. Affirmation of their servant behaviors
will consolidate their servant identity, but their inability to lead in difficult situations may result in them questioning their
effectiveness as leaders. This ambivalent mixture of positive and negative feedback is typical for leaders who have integrative
553
identities. This conflicting feedback results in servant-integrative leaders exercising an ineffective mixture of approach and
avoidance leadership behaviors (Hannah et al., 2009), and their failure to deal with certain situations is bound to rock their
self-worth, creating a degree of emotional dissonance in servant-integrative leaders.
However, feedback for servant-compartmentalized leaders may result in different outcomes. Servant-compartmentalized leaders
are more capable of exercising servant behaviors discriminately, and are sophisticated enough to enact identities that are appropriate
to the situation at hand. Research has also shown that multiple and differentiated identities are associated with well-being
(Raphael-Mor & Steinberg, 2002), as negative feedback from one aspect of oneself is less likely to spill-over to another (Hannah et al.,
2009). Because of their servant qualities, servant-compartmentalized leaders are able to build affective-based trust with others
(Schaubroeck et al., 2011). Also, being effective in their leadership, they will likely build competency-based trust with others. This
results in positive feedback of both their servant behaviors and quality of leadership, which in turn, reinforces their sense of selves.
With constant affirmation by others, servant-compartmentalized leaders can develop complex cognitive scripts on how to
behave in given situations by repeating previous successful behaviors. Given that they have a clear sense of self and are able to
keep their emotions in check, they can appropriate their behavior according to the specificities of the situation and are thus able
to remain in control of the moment. Over time, servant-compartmentalized leaders build up a significant knowledge bank of
social situations (i.e., cognitive scripts), which enables them to respond to future situations in an appropriate manner. In
summary the following propositions are offered:
Proposition 4 (P4). The type of feedback for servant-integrative leaders differs from servant-compartmentalized leaders. Servantintegrative leaders tend to receive conflicting feedback while servant-compartmentalized leaders tend to receive affirmative feedback of
their leadership effectiveness.
Proposition 5 (P5). For servant-integrative leaders, conflicting feedback will result in emotional dissonance, while servantcompartmentalized leaders' affirmative feedback will result in affirmation of their self-worth.
3.6. Organizational context
Leadership does not happen in a vacuum but is influenced by the context in which it operates. In this section I describe how
the organization's context can influence servant leadership behaviors. Servant leadership can arise in various situations, from
civic engagement to engagement within organizations. It should be noted that this paper does not consider civic engagement that
involves collaboration between partners from multi-sectors for the common public good. Such civic engagement is different from
traditional theories of leadership, as collaboration partners have no hierarchical relationship and the reasons for collaboration
may not necessarily intersect (Sun & Anderson, 2012b). Instead, this paper focuses on engagements within an organization, both
in the private and public sectors, which affect servant leadership.
Although situational cues will prompt particular identities to be enacted, the organizational context in which the leader is
situated will moderate self-concordant behaviors (Russell & Stone, 2002) (see Fig. 1). At present, there is little research that
examines how organizational contexts affect the leaders' display of servant behaviors. The upshot of this is that the different
organizational factors that can either constrain or encourage this style of leadership are only starting to be identified now. Russell
and Stone (2002), for example, suggest that the organization's communication systems and organizational values may either
promote or hinder servant leadership behaviors. Van Dierendonck (2011) asserts that an organizational culture that is humanelyoriented and that has low power distance facilitates servant leadership behaviors. An organizational culture that is humanelyoriented encourages staff to show each other care and concern, friendliness, tolerance for mistakes, and sensitivity to others'
needs. In such a culture, servant behaviors flourish. Likewise, Van Dierendonck (2011) argues that low power distance also
encourages servant leadership behaviors. Low power distance puts leaders and their subordinates on a more equal footing,
minimizing the need for self-protection and encouraging personal growth and development. Wong and Page (2003) suggest that
an organization with an authoritarian culture and a hierarchical structure tends to promote a dominant belief and marginalize
alternatives and it demands obedience and compliance from direct reports. This, they argue, is not conducive to servant
behaviors. A recent empirical study by Pekerti and Sendjaya found that national cultures can influence certain dimensions of
servant leadership. They found that an individualistic national culture encourages the authentic-self dimension of servant
leadership, while a national culture that encourages distance to be maintained between the elite and the dregs of society
predisposes servant leaders to exert more of a transformative influence on their direct reports (Pekerti & Sendjaya, 2010).
What is obvious from previous studies is that particular aspects of the organization's context do influence leaders to display
servant behaviors, although very little empirical work has been done to find out how. The particular systems, processes, beliefs,
culture and structure of an individual organization have an impact on the enactment and efficacy of leadership styles since
leadership does not take place in a social vacuum but within these social contexts (Humphreys, 2005). Most studies on servant
leadership tend to overlook the impact of organizational contexts, an omission that I now address.
The organizational context framework introduced by Ghoshal and Bartlett (1994) is useful to understand how servant leaders
engage different contexts. Organizational context encompasses the structure, climate, and culture of the organization, and refers
to the systems, processes and beliefs that shape and influence individual behaviors within the organization (Ghoshal & Bartlett,
1994; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). Within this organizational context are four main factors that shape staff behavior: discipline,
stretch, support and trust. Firstly, discipline is the establishment of a clear standard of performance measures, a system of honest,
transparent and rapid feedback, and requires consistency when sanctions are applied. Stretch comes into play when individuals
554
set and strive to reach ambitious goals and objectives. When individuals in the organization share common goals, this facilitates a
collective identity, and when individuals feel personally involved and invested in the goals and growth of the organization, then
stretch is achieved. When support is present, members assist and back each other up. In such a context, senior managers would
give greater priority to providing support and guidance to direct reports, as opposed to being primarily concerned with exercising
their authority in order to maintain the hierarchical structure at hand. Subsequently, individuals are given the freedom to take
initiatives. Finally, trust is established when individuals are involved in decisions that affect them, and positions are occupied by
individuals who have the required capabilities. Individuals in the organization can rely on the commitment of one another and
feel secure in this knowledge.
In an empirical study, Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) found that these four dimensions of organizational context only
generated two distinct factors. They grouped together discipline and stretch, referring to this combination as the performancecontext of the organization, and they synthesized support and trust, referring to this combination as the social-context of the
organization. The performance and social contexts of the organization are regarded as situational variables that directly influence
behavior (Johns, 2006). If an organization placed too much emphasis on the performance of its staff, Gibson and Birkinshaw
suggest that this would result in staff burnout and disillusionment. Conversely, an organization that contained too much of the
social-context would result in a country club atmosphere in which no work gets done (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004, p. 213).
Gibson and Birkinshaw found that organizations which were able to achieve an optimal combination of discipline, stretch,
support and trust were more adept in aligning their practices to contemporary practices and they were better placed to adapt to
the changing environment (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). Organizational contexts have been found to moderate the effectiveness
of the leadership styles of managers (Sun & Anderson, 2011) as well as the effectiveness of learning processes in organizations
(Berson et al., 2006). Clearly then, organizational contexts, in influencing the behavior of both managers and staff, deserve further
scholarly attention (Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1994).
An organization that has an effective social-context provides a supportive environment for servant behaviors to flourish. Here,
priority is given to providing support and assistance without exhibiting authoritarianism, freedom is given for decision making,
and individuals are provided with opportunities to develop their abilities to function effectively in their positions. In such an
organizational context, individuals are given freedom to experiment, they are not punished for mistakes borne out of good
intentions, and systems and processes are set up for transparency, information sharing, and work efficiency (Gibson &
Birkinshaw, 2004). Such a social-context facilitates servant behaviors (Van Dierendonck, 2011), and the organization's gravitation
towards considering the needs of others enables servant leaders to display self-concordant behaviors.
An organization that places emphasis on its social-context must balance this with an appropriate level of performance context
(Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). Social-context, which encourages servant behaviors, creates a high level of social-connectedness.
Social-connectedness promotes common thinking, and this will result in ideas generated that will incrementally improve the
existing competencies of the organization. Social-connectedness is also useful when implementing and institutionalizing changes
to the systems and processes of the organization as a result of these ideas (Jansen, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2005). Such a high
social-context is therefore beneficial when the external environment in which the organization operates is less volatile, and
where no radical thinking/changes are required. However, if the external environment is characterized by complex technological
and market changes then the organization may require changes that are more radical. For this, the social-context must be
balanced by the organization's performance-context (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004), requiring the organizational members to
stretch to achieve ambitious goals while maintaining discipline in delivering on expectations. Individuals must be held
accountable for their goals and objectives through a rigorous appraisal system, initiatives must be effectively monitored and
institutionalized, and there must be alignment with the vision and purpose of the organization. Such a performance-context is
important to drive improvement and change, especially when the external environment is unstable. This requires leadership to
instill a common-purpose, shared goals and objectives, and a more topdown approach to leadership, which may be seen as a
situation that is conducive to the imposition of dominant beliefs (Humphreys, 2005). Such an approach has been argued in
literature to be antithetical to servant leadership (Humphreys, 2005; Wong & Page, 2003).
Effective leadership entails an optimal balance of the social-context with the performance-context. Current research is silent
as to how servant leaders can handle both the social and performance context effectively. Humphreys (2005), for example,
suggests that the servant leadership style is only suitable in a high social-context organization and that it is only effective when
the external environment is stable. This implies that servant behaviors are suitable only in a narrow range of contexts, and as this
paper has argued, they are typical of servant-integrative leaders.
I argue that servant-compartmentalized leaders are more proficient in balancing the soft and hard aspects of organizational
contexts. They are better able to compartmentalize their roles as leaders and servants, and effectively switch leadership behaviors
between the social-context and performance-context of the organization. In comparison, servant-integrative leaders are likely to
have difficulty in effectively balancing the social and performance-contexts of their organization. Their inclination to serve the
needs of others first and foremost may hinder them from taking actions that serve the wider goals of the organization, even
though the situation calls for it. In summary, the following propositions are offered:
Proposition 6 (P6). The social-context of the organization (characterized by trust and support) moderates self-concordant behaviors
so that the higher the social-context, the more inclined the servant leader will be to display servant behaviors.
Proposition 7 (P7). Servant-compartmentalized leaders are better able to engage in servant leadership behaviors in an organizational
context characterized by discipline, stretch, trust and support (i.e., high social and performance contexts) than servant-integrative leaders.
555
4. Conclusionimplications for further work

Although servant leadership has attracted much discussion, little research has been conducted on the motivational and
psychological composition of servant leaders. This paper makes a significant contribution by fleshing out the servant identity and
examining how this identity leads to self-concordant behaviors within an organizational context. Leaders with servant identity
are able to consciously refer to a set of servant attributes when the situation requires servant behavior. This then results in
self-concordant behaviors. Moreover, the concept of the servant identity has been the subject of theoretical speculation in this
paper, but it needs to be empirically tested. I suggest that this can be done through a qualitative study analyzing the
decision-making processes of servant leaders in a variety of situations.
This paper introduced two new concepts: servant-compartmentalized and servant-integrative. Both conceptual frameworks
provide a way to determine how servant leaders respond to various situations. Given that leaders have multiple identities
(Hannah et al., 2009; Obodaru, 2012), this paper has suggested that servant-compartmentalized leaders are able to distinguish
their servant identity from other identities, and hence, can tailor their behavior to the specificity of each situation, enabling them
to respond effectively to a range of situations. In comparison, I contend that servant-integrative leaders, whose inclination to
serve is palpable in all of their identities, are less effective as organizational leaders, since they will respond to almost every
situation from the default position of the servant. Both concepts provide a framework for understanding the psychological and
behavioral processes of servant leaders.
The paper positions servant-integrative leaders as being less effective than servant-compartmentalized leaders. However, in
certain contexts, servant-integrative leaders may prove to be effective. For example, in faith-based or religious-based settings, where
commitment to serve in all situations is required, servant-integrative leaders may be effective. The servant-compartmentalized
leaders, on the other hand, may prove effective in both profit and not-for-profit organizational settings where judicious balance
between individual and organizational needs are required. These aspects could be the subject of future research studies.
The other obvious avenue for further research is to develop a measure for the servant identity attributes. Once this is
achieved, it can be used in a variety of ways and may help practitioners involved with management development workshops
especially those focusing on servant leadership. Practitioners present servant leadership as somewhat ideal and focus on
certain normative servant leadership behaviors. This paper would perhaps change the way servant leadership workshops are
conducted in the future. In addition to normative leadership behaviors, practitioners can also focus on participants' servant
identity. By measuring their servant identity attributes, participants can go a long way towards understanding their
self-schema, which could be the impetus for their servant leadership development (thus altering their cognitive and behavioral
dispositions).
The differences between servant-compartmentalized and servant-integrative leaders also suggest that each type may have
come about as a result of individuals taking different paths of leadership development. Individuals who are leaders first, and who
eventually develop a servant identity may, one could speculate, be more likely to become servant-compartmentalized leaders. It is
also probable that individual traits play a role in determining what type of servant leadership an individual eventually adopts. For
example, would those who have high self-esteem and a clearly defined sense of self (i.e., self-concept clarity) have a greater
tendency to evolve into servant-compartmentalized leaders? There is much to be understood about the development of servant
identity in leaders, and this study opens up exciting possibilities in this area.
The measure developed for servant identity attributes could also be used in future empirical studies on leadership. For
example, one can examine how a leader's servant identity can moderate the impact with which their transformational leadership
behaviors have on the performance of followers.
As with other studies, this paper's focus on certain subjects entails the omission of other areas. In particular, this paper is
leader-centric and does not focus on leaderfollower interactions. Future studies can extend the model illustrated in Fig. 1 to
include direct reports in the following ways:
1. Leaders often measure the effectiveness of their leadership based on the feedback they receive from their subordinates. How
does such feedback affect the servant identity of leaders?
2. What type of dyadic relationship can evolve for a servant-compartmentalized leader versus a servant-integrative leader? Do
servant-compartmentalized leaders produce more effective direct reports than servant integrative-leaders?
Although the notion of servant leadership has a long history, the idea of what exactly is servant leadership remains
fragmented. Current literature lacks a strong and universally agreed upon definition of servant leadership with stated bounds,
along with a psychometrically derived operationalized measurement instrument. The development of a well-defined theoretical
framework for servant leadership, in which the servant identity serves as an important predictor of the individual's leadership
style and efficacy, would, I suggest, be a fruitful step in this area.
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Prof. Marc Anderson and Dr Kathy Ooi for their constructive comments that helped shape the writing of
this article. I'm also grateful for the feedback provided by the Associate Editor and the three anonymous reviewers, whose
valuable comments made the article better. Any errors remain my own.
556
References
Alba, J. W., & Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin, 93, 203231.
Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 14231440.
Asag-gau, L., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). The impact of servant leadership on organizational commitment among the highly talented: The role of challenging
work conditions and psychological empowerment. European Journal of International Management, 5, 463483.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 88115.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership
questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441462.
Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31, 300326.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181217.
Berson, Y., Nemanich, L. A., Waldman, D. A., Galvin, B. M., & Keller, R. T. (2006). Leadership and organizational learning: A multiple levels perspective. The
Leadership Quarterly, 17, 577594.
Blasi, A. (1993). The development of identity: Some implications for moral functioning. In G. G. Naom, & T. E. Wren (Eds.), The moral self (pp. 99122). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Block, P. (1996). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Brown, A. T., Sautter, J. A., Littway, L., Sautter, A. C., & Bearnes, B. (2010). Ethics and personality: Empathy and narcissism as moderators of ethical decision making
in business students. The Journal of Education for Business, 85, 203208.
Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership. New York: Grove Press.
Campbell, J. D. (1990). Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 538549.
Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehman, D. R. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural
boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 141156.
Chan, C. C. A., McBey, K., & Scott-Ladd, B. (2011). Ethical leadership in modern employment relationship: Lessons from St. Benedict. Journal of Business Ethics, 100,
221228.
Chen, C., Yang, C., & Li, C. (2012). Spiritual leadership, follower mediators, and organizational outcomes: Evidence from three industries across two major Chinese
societies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 890938.
Ciulla, J. B. (2010). Being there: Why leaders should not fiddle while Rome burns. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 40, 3856.
Delbecq, A. L. (1999). Christian spirituality and contemporary business leadership. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12, 345354.
Dennis, R. S., & Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of a servant leadership assessment instrument. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 600615.
Dent, E. B., Higgins, M. E., & Wharff, D. M. (2005). Spirituality and leadership: An empirical review of definitions, and embedded assumptions. The Leadership
Quarterly, 16, 625653.
Diefendorff, J. M., Croyle, M. H., & Gosserand, R. H. (2005). The dimensionality and antecedents of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66,
339359.
Dyck, B., & Schroeder, D. (2005). Management, theology and moral points of view: Towards an alternative to the conventional materialisticindividualistic
ideal-type of management. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 705735.
Fast, L. A., Reimer, H. M., & Funder, D. C. (2008). The social behavior and reputation of the attributionally complex. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 208222.
Ferguson, J., & Milliman, J. (2008). Creating effective core organizational values: A spiritual leadership approach. International Journal of Public Administration, 31,
439459.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Danilovics, P., Fernandez, G., Peterson, D., & Reeder, G. D. (1986). Attributional complexity: An individual differences measure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 875884.
Fletcher, G., Grigg, F., & Bull, V. (1988). The organization and accuracy of personality impressions: Neophytes versus experts in trait attribution. New Zealand
Journal of Psychology, 17, 6877.
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693727.
Fry, L. W., Vitucci, S., & Cedillo, M. (2005). Spiritual leadership and army transformation: Theory, measurement, and establishing a baseline. The Leadership
Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530555.
George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53, 10271055.
Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management. Strategic Management
Journal, 15, 91112.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role or organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209226.
Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. The Leadership Quarterly, 2, 105119.
Graham, J. W. (1995). Leadership, moral development, and citizenship behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5, 4354.
Grant, A. M. (2012). Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the performance effects of transformational leadership. Academy of
Management Journal, 55, 458476.
Green, G. C. (2004). The impact of cognitive complexity on project leadership performance. Information and Software Technology, 46, 165172.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.
Hannah, S. T., Woolfolk, R. L., & Lord, R. G. (2009). Leader self-structure: A framework for positive leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 269290.
Holt, S., & Marques, J. (2012). Empathy in leadership: Appropriate or misplaced? An empirical study on a topic that is asking for attention. Journal of Business
Ethics, 105, 95105.
Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (1997). Leadership complexity and the development of the leaderplex model. Journal of Management, 23, 375408.
Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: Examination of goal and process clarity of servant leadership. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96, 851862.
Humphreys, J. H. (2005). Contextual implications for transformational and servant leadership: A historical investigation. Management Decision, 43, 14101431.
Hunsaker, P. L. (2007). Using social simulations to assess and train potential leaders to make effective decisions in turbulent environments. Career Development
International, 12, 341360.
Irving, J. A., & Longbotham, G. J. (2007). Team effectiveness and six essential servant leadership themes: A regression model based on the items in the
organizational leadership assessment. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2, 98113.
Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter?
Academy of Management Journal, 48, 9991015.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386408.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
89, 755768.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1992). Ethical leaders: An essay about being in love. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 479484.
Kramer, R. M. (1994). The sinister attribution error: Origins and consequences of collective paranoia. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 199230.
Kramer, R. M., & Wei, J. (1999). Social uncertainty and the problem of trust in social groups: The social self in doubt. In T. R. Tyler, R. M. Kramer, & O. P. John (Eds.),
The psychology of the social self (pp. 145168). London, U.K.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization; Development of the organizational leadership assessment (OLA) model. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 60 (02): 308A (UMI No. 9921922).
557
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329358.
Levy, R. B. (2000). My experience as participant in the course on spirituality for executive leadership. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9, 129131.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multilevel assessment. The
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mayer, D. M., Bardes, M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2008). Do servant-leaders help satisfy follower needs? An organizational justice perspective. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 17, 180197.
McHugh, P. (1968). Defining the situation: The organization of meaning in social interaction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril.
Mill-Chalmers, W. (2010). Training to survive the workplace of today. Industrial and Commercial Training, 42, 270273.
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant
leadership on employee behaviour. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 12201233.
Nielsen, R., Marrone, J., & Slay, H. (2010). A new look at humility: Exploring the humility concept and its role in socialized charismatic leadership. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 17, 3343.
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Obodaru, O. (2012). The self not taken: How alternative selves develop and how they influence our professional lives. Academy of Management Review, 37, 3457.
Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2012). Modelling how to grow: An inductive examination of humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes. Academy of
Management Journal, 55, 787818.
Page, D., & Wong, P. T. P. (2000). A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership. In S. Adjibolooso (Ed.), The human factor in shaping the course of
history and development (pp. 69110). Washington, DC: American University Press.
Parolini, J., Patterson, K., & Winston, B. (2009). Distinguishing between transformational and servant leadership. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal,
30, 274291.
Patterson, K. (2003). Servant leadership: a theoretical model. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Graduate School of Business, Regent University.
Pekerti, A. A., & Sendjaya, S. (2010). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: Comparative studies in Australia and Indonesia. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 21, 754780.
Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B. M., & Lange, D. (2012). CEO servant leadership: Exploring executive characteristics and firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 65,
565596.
Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: A review of the organizational-based-self-esteem literature. Journal
of Management, 30, 591622.
Pillemer, D. B. (2001). Momentous events and the life story. Review of General Psychology, 5, 123134.
Price, T. L. (2003). The ethics of authentic transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 6781.
Raphael-Mor, E., & Steinberg, J. (2002). Self-complexity and well-being: A review and research synthesis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 3158.
Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 655687.
Russell, R., & Stone, G. A. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23,
145157.
Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Margolis, J. D. (2012). Care and compassion through an organizational lens: Opening up new possibilities. Academy of
Management Review, 37, 503523.
Sauser, W. I. (2005). Ethics in business: Answering the call. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 345357.
Schaller, M., Boyd, C., Yohannes, J., & O'Brien, M. (1995). The prejudiced personality revisited: Personal need for structure and formation of erroneous group
stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 544555.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affective-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influence on team performance. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 863871.
Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45,
402424.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577594.
Shao, R., Aquino, K., & Freeman, D. (2008). Beyond moral reasoning: A review of moral identity research and its implications for business research. Business Ethics
Simola, S. K., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2010). Transformational leadership and leader moral orientation: Contrasting an ethic of justice and an ethic of care. The
Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Contextual and content comparisons. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 10, 8091.
Spears, L. C. (1995). Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's theory of servant leadership influenced today's top management thinkers. New York: John
Wiley.
Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant leadership: A difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 25, 349361.
Sun, P. Y. T., & Anderson, M. H. (2011). The combined influence of top and middle management leadership styles on absorptive capacity. Management Learning, 43,
2551.
Sun, P. Y. T., & Anderson, M. H. (2012a). The importance of attributional complexity for transformational leadership studies. Journal of Management Studies, 49,
10011022.
Sun, P. Y. T., & Anderson, M. H. (2012b). Civic capacity: Building on transformational leadership to explain successful integrative public leadership. The Leadership
Townsend, J. C., Da Silva, N., Mueller, L., Curtin, P., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). Attributional complexity: A link between training, job complexity, decision latitude,
leadermember exchange, and performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 207221.
Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., & Milner, C. (2002). Transformational leadership and moral reasoning. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
304311.
Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37, 12281261.
Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuitjen, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multi-dimensional measure. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 26, 249267.
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational
citizenship behavior: A cross-level investigation. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 517529.
Wong, P. T., & Page, D. (2003). Servant leadership: An opponent-process model and the revised servant leadership profile. Servant leadership roundtable.
Zhang, H., Kwan, H. K., Everett, A., & Jian, Z. (2012). Servant leadership, organizational identification, and work-to-family enrichment: The moderating role of
work climate for sharing family concerns. Human Resources Management, 51, 747776.

Servant Identity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Servant Identity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 544557

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

The servant identity: Inuences on the cognition and behavior

P.Y.T. Sun / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 544557

P.Y.T. Sun / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 544557

Fig. 1. A framework for the servant identity.

P.Y.T. Sun / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 544557

3.1. Servant identity attributes

Defines the vocation of the leader to be of service to others,

A stable attribute that orients the leader to consider others

Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), Block (1996), Delbecq (1999),

Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), Ciulla (2010), George (2000),

Dennis and Bocarnea (2005), Ferguson and Milliman (2008),

P.Y.T. Sun / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 544557

P.Y.T. Sun / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 544557

3.2. Cognitive and behavioral dispositions

P.Y.T. Sun / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 544557

Moral person identity

Moral person identity

Fig. 2. Servant leadership continuum.

P.Y.T. Sun / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 544557

P.Y.T. Sun / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 544557

P.Y.T. Sun / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 544557

P.Y.T. Sun / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 544557

P.Y.T. Sun / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 544557

4. Conclusionimplications for further work

P.Y.T. Sun / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 544557

P.Y.T. Sun / The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013) 544557

You might also like