Servant Leadership: A systematic literature review—toward a model of antecedents and outcomes

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

The purpose of this article is multi-layered. First, we focus on gaining a comprehensive insight into a research area which just recently received more recognition in management literature: servant leadership. Second, we identify antecedent and outcomes of servant leadership within the existing research body. Third, we synthesize and develop a comprehensive servant leadership model. It assists academics and practitioners in keeping pace with the increasing servant leadership literature. The systematic literature review provides explanations as to why managers practice servant leadership. The study also contributes to a better understanding of the outcomes of servant leadership and brings clarity to a discombobulated group of studies.

Related collections

Most cited references 119

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review

David Tranfield, David Denyer, Palminder Smart (2003)

0 comments Cited 1860 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions.

D J Cook, C D Mulrow, R B Haynes (1997)

Systematic reviews can help practitioners keep abreast of the medical literature by summarizing large bodies of evidence and helping to explain differences among studies on the same question. A systematic review involves the application of scientific strategies, in ways that limit bias, to the assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies that address a specific clinical question. A meta-analysis is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several primary studies. Because the review process itself (like any other type of research) is subject to bias, a useful review requires clear reporting of information obtained using rigorous methods. Used increasingly to inform medical decision making, plan future research agendas, and establish clinical policy, systematic reviews may strengthen the link between best research evidence and optimal health care.