This intent of this literature reappraisal was to place and analyze the extant literature related to the leading theory of servant leading it impacts occupation satisfaction. Servant leading has steadily emerged as an option and plausible alternate leading theory and pattern among old and new theories of leading in the past three decennaries. The servant leader like any other leaders in order to be effectual carries the duty for the overall public presentation and motive of the follower. The success and effectivity of a leader and the organisation is frequently attributed to the follower/employee degree of motive in that organisation that leads to occupation satisfaction. Possibly, this could be the ground that research workers and practicians in leading are concentrating more attending to the function and character of a leader, the displacement from power and authorization to act upon. This literature reappraisal brings to come up the demand to understand the factors in the servant leading theory that contribute to occupation satisfaction. The reappraisal will demo the needed survey of the spread between servant leading and occupation satisfaction.
Servant goon and leading have frequently been seen every bit runing as a antonyms. However, this is no longer the instance. With the debut of servant leading theory by concern adult male, pedagogue and litterateur Robert K. Greenleaf in organisational and direction literature. Greenleaf ( 1977 ) maintained over 3o old ages ago that servant – leaders put demands and involvements of others above their ain. They make a deliberate pick to function others. The servant-leader seeks to function people that follow them to “ aˆ¦grow healthier, wiser, freer, more independent, and more likely themselves to go retainers ( Greenleaf 1977 ) . Servant leading since so has become a topic of great involvement among leading practicians, pedagogues, experts and leaders of organisations. As Senge ( 2005 ) noted in his reappraisal of the servant leading, “ non merely organisations need servant leading, but besides the full society needs the servant leading. ” Smith, Montagano, and Kuzmenko ( 2004 ) province that servant leading is an organisation civilization which has productive force.
This has led to several surveies and probes associating servant leading to occupation satisfaction ( Randall, 1987 ; Luthans, 1989 ; Dobni and Harel, 1998 ; Poon, 2003 ; Campbell, 2004 ) have provided extended treatments of the application of occupation satisfaction. A survey by Dawis, England and Lofquist ( 1967 ) concluded that there are two distinguishable factors that affect occupation satisfaction: an external factor and an internal factor. The internal factor showed in the surveies that the servant leading theory might hold conducive factors that have positive effects on employee occupation satisfaction ( Drury, 2004 ) . And looking at the internal factor, ( Spencer, 1986 ) maintained that employee engagement is an of import factor in taking to occupation satisfaction among employees.
Leaderships who employ the servant leading theoretical account contribute to occupation satisfaction and organisational wellness thereby adding value to stakeholders. Job satisfaction leads to profitableness ( Wilson, 1998 ) . The survey of Bass ( 1990 ) maintained that leading theories, including the servant leading theoretical account, purpose to further leader-follower harmoniousness. Servant leading promotes “ follower acquisition, growing, and liberty. Job satisfaction on the other manus is a mark of harmoniousness between employers and the employed. Servant leading leads to higher occupation satisfaction ( Thompson, 2002 )
Servant Leadership Theory Examined
Although the wide thoughts of servant leading have been with us since Biblical times, the term servant leading was popularized by Greenleaf ( 1977 ) . He provided modern leading his now celebrated description and popularly quoted response of who a servant leader is:
The servant-leader is servant firstaˆ¦.It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to function, to function foremost. Then witting pick brings one to draw a bead on to take. That individual is aggressively different from one who is leader firstaˆ¦.The difference manifest itself in the attention taken by the servant-first to do certain that other people ‘s highest precedence demands are being served. The best trial, and hard to administrate, is this: Do those served grow as individuals? Do they, while being served, go healthier, wiser, freer, more independent, more likely themselves to go retainers? And, what is the consequence on the least privileged in society ; will they profit, or, at least, non be farther deprived ( p27 )
Greenleaf maintained that servant leaders are driven to function foremost, instead than to take foremost, ever endeavoring to run into the highest precedence demands of others. He identified the central motivation of the traditional leaders as being the desire to take followings to accomplish organisational aims. Servant leaders make a deliberate pick to function others. A strong self-image, moral strong belief, and emotional stableness are factors that thrust leaders to do the pick of taking as retainers ( Senjava & A ; Sarros, ( 2002 ) . On the other manus, the driving motive of servant leader is to function others to be all they are capable of going. De Pree ( 1989 ) defined the nature of servant leading as functioning to taking. Greenleaf, farther suggested that true leading emerges through 1s ‘ deep desire to assist others. In this respect, Spears ( 2004 ) , identified a set of features cardinal to the development of servant leaders. This included ( a ) hearing ( B ) empathy, ( degree Celsius ) healing, ( vitamin D ) consciousness, ( vitamin E ) persuasion, ( degree Fahrenheit ) conceptualisation, ( g ) foresight, ( H ) stewardship, ( I ) committedness to the growing of people, and ( J ) edifice community. In the same breath, how servant leading maps has been outlines by Stone, Russell, and Patterson ( 2003 ) to include vision, honestness and unity, mold, service, open uping, grasp of others, and authorization. Pollard, ( 1997 ) concludes that a existent leader is non the individual with the most distinguished rubric, the highest wage, or the longest term of office but the function theoretical account, the hazard taker, the retainer ; non the individual who promotes himself or herself, but the booster of others.
Job satisfaction is a positive feeling about one ‘s occupation ensuing from an rating of its features Robbins & A ; Judge, ( 2009 ) And Thompson ( 2002 ) suggests that empirical research demonstrates that assorted factors influence degrees of employee occupation satisfaction such as occupation factors such as accomplishment, acknowledgment, duty and possibility of promotion, and salary have a relationship with occupation satisfaction. A big figure of surveies have examined several factors of occupation properties and the function of director related to occupation satisfaction at workplace for illustration ; Pellegrini and Scandura 2006 ; Ascigil 2004 ; Griffin and et al 2001 ; Ross 1999 ; Rodwell et Al 1998 ; Morley & A ; Heraty, 1995 ; Hackman & A ; Oldham 1980. The traditional theoretical account of occupation satisfaction focuses on all the feelings that an person has about his/her occupation ( Lu, While, & A ; Barriball, 2005 ) . However, what makes a occupation satisfying or dissatisfying does non depend merely on the nature of the occupation, but besides on the outlooks that persons expect their occupation to supply ( Spector, 1997 ) .
Furthermore, surveies show that employees who are satisfied with their occupations are more productive, originative and more likely to be retained by the company ( Eskildsen & A ; Dahlgaard 2000 ; Kim 2000 ; Kirby 2000 ; Lee 2000 ; Money 2000 ; Wagner 2000 ) .
Correlating relationship surveies have been positive towards underlining that servant leading has conducive factors to occupation satisfaction ( Hebert, 2004 ; Irving, 2004, 2005 ; Laub, 1999 ; Thompson, 2002. ) Laub ‘s ( 1999 ) research found that the Organizational Leadership Assessment was extremely dependable, possessing strong concept and face cogency. The followers is a list of the six primary subscales of the OLA, along with a 7th graduated table that provides comparative points on occupation satisfaction: ( a ) Values Peoples, ( B ) Develops Peoples, ( degree Celsius ) Builds Community, ( vitamin D ) Displays Authenticity, ( vitamin E ) Provides Leadership, ( degree Fahrenheit ) Shares Leadership, and ( g ) Job Satisfaction. Together, the six primary points of the OLA assess the indispensable characteristics of servant leading in the organisational scene.
K.P. Anderson ( 2005 ) listed three ways in which information from an empirical survey on servant leading could do meaningful parts on occupation satisfaction. First, the informations could better the cost-effectiveness of leadership-training plans. Second, the leader ‘s ability to lend to the work satisfaction of employees could non be gauged. Another research conducted by Thompson ( 2002 ) among employees at a church-related college supported Laub ‘s averment. He found that employees who perceived a high degree of servant leading in the organisation enjoyed a higher degree of occupation satisfaction. Miears ( 2004 ) found a similar correlativity between perceived servant leading and occupation satisfaction among instructors in a Texas public school territory. Miears ( 2004 ) besides found that demographic informations, such as, gender, old ages working in the school territory, or keeping a valid instruction certification, did non hold a important relationship with single occupation satisfaction in the survey.
Further surveies by Drury ( 2004 ) maintained that in traditional and non traditional colleges mensurating occupation satisfaction, organisational committedness, and servant leading. The survey concluded that servant leading and occupation satisfaction were significantly and positively correlated, but that servant leading and organisational committedness, contrary to the theoretical literature, demonstrated a important opposite relationship, intending they were significantly and negatively correlated. A similar survey by Hebert ( 2004 ) with the relationship between perceived servant leading and occupation satisfaction from the follower ‘s position was examined. A important relationship between perceptual experiences of servant leading and overall intrinsic occupation satisfaction was found.
Although the reappraisal yielded findings that have been both theoretical and practical on the topic of servant leading and occupation satisfaction with deductions to leading, the survey has restrictions. The several restrictions have to make with more research and the second has to make with informations garnering. In both of the above, there needs to be more research and informations aggregation.
Recommendations for future research
With the above restriction of this reappraisal of literature, recommendations are made to further analyze the subject among other leading theories and comparing them to servant leading and its properties to occupation satisfaction.