Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Examining Servant Leadership Effects on Team Satisfaction: An Agent-Based Approach

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Leading for High Performance in Asia

Abstract

Servant leadership is a fairly recent concept in the gamut of leadership styles. It has received wide acceptance, lending itself well in public serving organizations and bringing positive impact on organization wide development. Existing literature has put forth evidences from the past where social and spiritual leaders have given importance to others’ needs, aspirations and interests above their own. Such leaders have been driven by the goal to serve others. Yet, research till date has not portrayed a concrete idea of what would be the impact of servant leadership in different teams and scenarios. Since researchers in the past have claimed that servant leadership offers the potential to improve organizational leadership in many settings, this chapter attempts to discover the finer details of the effects of servant leadership in team context through agent-based model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anghel, C., Godja, C., Dinsoreanu, M., & Soalomie, I. (2003). JADE based solutions for knowledge assessment in eLearning environments.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. L., Murry, W. D., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (Eds.). (1996). Building highly developed teams: Focusing on shared leadership processes, efficacy, trust, and performance. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baggett, B. (1997). Power serve: 236 inspiring ideas on servant leadership. Germantown, TN: Saltillo Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bankes, S. C. (2002). Agent-based modeling: A revolution? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99, 7199–7200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformation leadership: Industrial, military and educational impact. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettenhausen, K., & Murnighan, J. K. (1985). The emergence of norms in competitive decision making groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 350–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, J. A., Oliver, R. L., Howell, J. P., & King, J. P. (2006). A dynamic system simulation of leader and group effects on context for learning. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), 39–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonabeau, E. (2002). Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 7280–7287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1990). Cognitive psychology and team training: Shared mental models in complex systems. Annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychologists, Miami, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carless, S. A. (2004). Does psychological empowerment mediate the relationship between psychological climate and job satisfaction? Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(4), 405–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carley, K. M. (1995). Computational and mathematical organization theory: Perspective and directions. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 1, 39–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carley, K. M., & Ren, Y. (2001). Tradeoffs between performance and adaptability for C3I architectures. Paper presented at the Command and Control Research and Technology symposium, Annapolis, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J. L. (2011). Motivating and demotivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership and relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., Jr., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49, 643–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, T. G. (1978). Self-regulating work teams: A socio-technical synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 3, 625–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (2000). Fusion leadership: Unlocking the subtle forces that change people and organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2009). Empowering behaviour and leader fairness and integrity: Studying perceptions of ethical leader behaviour from a levels-of-analysis perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(2), 199–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dooreward, H., Hootgem, G. V., & Huys, R. (2002). Team responsibility structure and team performance. Personnel Review, 31, 356–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorfman, P. W., & Stephan, W. G. (1984). The effects of group performance on cognitions, satisfaction, and behavior: A process model. Journal of Management, 10(2), 173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubrin, A. J. (2007). Traits, motives, and characteristics of leaders. In Leadership (pp. 32–60). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durham, C. C., Knight, D., & Locke, E. A. (1997). Effects of leader role, team-set goal difficulty, efficacy, and tactics on team effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72(2), 203–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 61–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farling, M. L., Stone, A. G., & Winston, B. E. (1999). Servant leadership: Setting the stage for empirical research. Journal of Leadership Studies, 49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, N. (2005). Agent-based social simulation: Dealing with complexity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, N., & Bankes, S. (2002). Platforms and methods for agent-based modeling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gladstein, D. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, M. A., Patterson, M. G., & West, M. A. (2001). Job satisfaction and teamwork: The role of supervisor support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(5).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M. A. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 269–313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t): Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazy, J. K. (2007). Computer models of leadership: Foundations for a new discipline or meaningless diversion? The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 391–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hecht, M. L., & Riley, P. (1985). A three factor model of group satisfaction and consensus. Communication Research Reports, 2, 179–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubler, A., & Pines, D. (1994). Prediction and adaptation in an evolving chaotic environment. In G. Cowan, D. Pines, & D. Meltzer (Eds.), Complexity: Metaphors, models, and reality. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, S. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., Meyer, C. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2007a). Trait configurations in self-managed teams: A conceptual examination of the use of seeding for maximizing and minimizing trait variance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007b). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). The typical leadership study: Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(5), 435–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, N. R., Sycara, K., & Wooldridge, M. (1998, March). A roadmap of agent research and development. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, 1, 7–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 6–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzenbach, J. (1997). The myth of the top management team. Harvard Business Review, 75, 82–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, S., Hill, K. D., & Broedling, L. (1986). The first-line supervisor: Phasing out or here to stay? Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiggundu, M. N. (1983). Task interdependence and job design: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 31, 145–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20, 403–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W., & Doherty, M. L. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 546–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., McHugh, P. P., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (Eds.). (1996a). A dynamic theory of leadership and team effectiveness: Development and task contingent leader roles. Greenwich, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (Eds.). (1996b) Team leadership and development: Theories, principles, and guidelines for training leaders and teams. Greenwich, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, E. E., III. (1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high involvement organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, R., Parker, T., & Regine, B. (1998). Complexity theory and the organization: Beyond the metaphor. Complexity, 3(4), 36–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2002). Group task satisfaction: Applying the construct of job satisfaction to groups. Small Group Research, 33(3), 271–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2005). Group task satisfaction: The group’s shared attitude to its task and work environment. Group Organization Management, 30(6), 625–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, R. M., & Salas, E. (1995). Measuring and managing for team performance: Lessons from complex environments. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision-making in organizations (pp. 9–45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, L. B. (1971). Organizational technology and organizational structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 444–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molleman, E. (1998). Variety and the requisite of self-organization. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 6, 109–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molleman, E. (2009). Attitudes toward flexibility: The role of task characteristics. Group & Organization Management, 34(2), 241–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S., & Wall, T. D. (1998). Job and work design: Organizing work to promote well-being and effectiveness. Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23, 145–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. Teams: Their Training and Performance, 16, 3–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., Rozell, D., Mullen, B., & Driskell, J. E. (1999). The effect of team building on performance. Small Group Research, 30(3), 309–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkus, D. J. (1996). Servant-leadership in safety: Advancing the cause of and practice. Professional Safety, 41, 26–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, S. K., & George, W. M. (2011). Servant leadership versus transformational leadership in voluntary service organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(1), 60–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(1), 118–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seers, A., Petty, M., & Cashman, J. F. (1995). Team-member exchange under team and traditional management. Group and Organization Management, 20(1), 18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. The Academy of Management Journal, 332–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application in organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9, 57–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 402–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987). Groups as human resources. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 5, 323–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, W. S., & Bufanio, K. M. (1996). The impact of group efficacy and group goals on group task performance. Small Group Research, 27, 347–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, A. (1992). The tyranny of a team ideology. Organizational Studies, 13, 611–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W. D., Avolio, B. J., & Jung, D. I. (2002). A Longitudinal model of the effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance. Group Organization Management, 27, 66–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spears, L. (1996). Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant-leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17, 33–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, G., & Manz, C. C. (1994). Leadership for self-managing work teams: A theoretical integration. Annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychologists, Nashville, TN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatum, J. B. (1995). Meditations on servant-leadership. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant-leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tauer, J. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2004). The effects of cooperation and competition on intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6), 849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. The Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administration. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold, D. (1995). Cooperation theory, constructive controversy, and effectiveness. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 79–112). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 298–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J. M., & Van De Vliert, E. (2001). Patterns of interdependence in work teams: A two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 51–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wall, T. B., Kemp, N. J., Jackson, P. R., & Clegg, C. W. (1986). Outcomes of autonomous workgroups: A long-term field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 280–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. The Academy of Management Journal (AMJ), 53(1), 107–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Calvary Community Care, Melbourne, Australia

    Kaivalya Prasad

  2. Monash Business School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Ly Fie Sugianto

Authors
  1. Kaivalya Prasad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ly Fie Sugianto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ly Fie Sugianto .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Swinburne Business School, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC, Australia

    Sen Sendjaya

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Prasad, K., Sugianto, L.F. (2019). Examining Servant Leadership Effects on Team Satisfaction: An Agent-Based Approach. In: Sendjaya, S. (eds) Leading for High Performance in Asia. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6074-9_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation