servant leadership, empowerment climate, and group ... · servant leadership, empowerment climate,...

1

servaNt leaDershIP, eMPoWerMeNt clIMate, aND GrouP creatIvIty:

a case stuDy IN the hosPItalIty INDustry

Jorge Linuesa-Langreo, Pablo Ruiz-Palomino & Dioni Elche

abstract: Leadership, due to its power to influence, is one of the most important tools available to organisation in order to become competitive, and as such it is one of the recurring themes in social sciences. Today, new leadership strategies have emerged as new drivers of effectiveness in workplace relationships based on the leader–follower relationship. One of these leadership strategies is servant leadership, whose motto is ‘put and promote followers’ interests and needs first’, which makes this leadership style strongly linked to exercising high ethics. As agapao love and service to others are important distinctive features of these leaders’ decisions and behaviours, the ethical influence relationship with their collaborators is thought to reach high levels. It is no surprise then that this ethical influence relationship makes followers to serve others and inculcates in followers values such as acceptance, tolerance, empathy, love, or forgiveness. More importantly, these leaders might make followers to grow in matureness, intelligence, creativity, and self-management, among other aspects. However, despite findings in recent literature of positive effects of servant leadership on valuable employee outcomes, research is still lacking on the results of this phenomenon on collective organisa-tional variables and its influence in work groups. A case study analysis of a historic and emblematic hotel situated in a small Spanish city declared

Ramon Llull Journal_07.indd 9 30/05/16 11:56

10 raMoN llull JourNal of aPPlIeD ethIcs 2016. Issue 7 PP. 9-36

by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site provides evidence of the relation-ship between servant leadership and valuable work-group outcomes such as empowerment climate and group creativity.

Keywords: ethical leadership, servant leadership, empowerment climate, group creativity, work group, hospitality industry.

1. INtroDuctIoN

Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory indicates that individuals learn and change their behaviour not only by direct experience, but also through models to follow in their immediate work environment. Leaders are usually considered role models in work environments and represent an essential element for achieving the objectives of work groups (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007) through building adequate climates and inspiring correct behavioural and attitudinal models. Increasingly, new effective leadership theories stress the importance of listening, appreciating, valuing, and empowering employees (Van Dierendonck, Stam, Boersma, de Windt & Alkema, 2013), to get the maximum performance in the work group. That is the case of servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977; Greenleaf & Spears, 2002), which emphasises service to others –the continuous and friendly attention to the needs of followers– and promote followers to build a more humane future. Because this leadership strategy concerns the interests of their fellow workers over self-interest (Patterson, 2004), and makes these leaders be servants in their relationships with others (Russell & Stone, 2002), unethical implications are less probable to occur. Rather, these leaders, who base their relationships with followers on the agapao love dimension (Patterson, 2004), are probable to keep up a logic of giving cognitive schema that according to Torralba (2012) gener-ates communion, cohesion, emotional bonds and sense of belonging in their fellow workers. Moreover, these leaders are likely to build an ethi-cal work climate that frees employees from the need to guard self-interest and elevates them to a high level of moral reasoning, as well as inform about the own needs and inquire about the needs and interests of oth-ers to serve them. This is the seed promoting a type of functioning in work groups governed by empowerment (Russell & Stone, 2002), that fosters opportunities for wide participation in discussions about policies and practices (Graham, 1995). Thus, it is no surprise that this leadership


11lINuesaservaNt leaDershIP, eMPoWerMeNt clIMate, aND GrouPcreatIvIty: a case stuDy IN the hosPItalIty INDustry

strategy, when authentically performed, exerts positive effects on follow-ers and work groups (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).

Increasingly today, the pressure to find new business models in dy-namic and uncertain environments requires managers to adapt the labour structure that has traditionally been configured around employees by, for example, introducing new change-oriented and group-based work designs (Lawler & Worley, 2006). In fact, the use of work groups in some or-ganisations and sectors is essential for the development of objectives and for raising competitiveness. Thus, in this article the unit of analysis is the work group which provides a better understanding of group creativity (Shalley & Gilson, 2004) and empowerment climate (Seibert, Silver & Randolph, 2004; Seibert, Wang, & Courtright, 2011) as valuable or-ganisational outcomes raised thanks to performing servant leadership in work groups.

Empowerment has been seen as a powerful mechanism for increasing employee involvement and commitment (Lawler, 1986) and allowing organisations to be more competitive and responsive (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Typically, empowered work groups have greater authority and responsibility for their work than more traditional work groups do, and their effectiveness is determined, in part, by the receptiveness or power to organize them within which they operate (Hyatt & Ruddy, 1997). This is easy to occur in those organisations where servant leaders are present since these leaders, through their dimension of service to follow-ers, make the development of intrinsic motivation and empowerment a priority (Ehrhart, 2004) in order to achieve autonomous and motivated followers in the work group.

Creativity, at the group level, is a function of group processes that include the development of shared information and knowledge, participa-tion in decision-making, conflict management in an effective manner, and the development of members’ integration skills (West, 2002). This aspect is easily promoted by servant leadership since this leadership is usually labelled as participative, encouraging followers to grow intelligently and be creative and serve people (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Thus, creativ-ity is fostered when employees have a relatively high autonomy and have a sense of ownership and control over their own work and their own ideas (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996), which is more probable in the presence of servant leaders who usually articulate empow-ering policies to create psychologically empowered subordinates. In such work contexts, the followers see themselves as more capable of shaping



work roles and work contexts, and therefore more motivated to try creative approaches to solving problems and performing tasks (Spreitzer, 1995).

In this article, we analyse the importance of servant leadership within an organisation and its positive effects within a group. Specifically, we investigate whether servant leadership generates a greater empowerment climate and whether servant leadership increases group creativity. Also, as there is some literature suggesting a potential positive relationship between these output organisational variables (Moulang, 2013), we will examine that in work contexts where empowerment climate is present group creativity appears to a high extent. Although servant leadership is applicable to the management role regardless of the hierarchical level, in this study we focus on leaders who work in groups and closely with group members on a daily basis. Leaders at the intermediate level who tend to work closely with subordinates are likely to exert greater influ-ences on their behaviour (Mayer, Bardes & Piccolo, 2008; Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010). Thus, the following research questions will be examined. Servant leadership increases within work group both 1) em-powerment climate, 2) group creativity, and 3) there is a positive relation-ship between empowerment climate and group creativity. In order to answer these questions, we use the case study methodology to better understand the mechanisms involved in the development of servant leadership. Because in the hospitality industry service is one principal axis of its operative and success, one representative firm in the tourism sector –a landmark hotel with a long tradition in Cuenca, a small city in Spain declared by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site– was selected to test our research questions.

The structure of this paper is as follows: In the next section, we discuss the concept of servant leadership, the central topic of this work. Then, we explain in more detail the relationship between servant leadership and the empowerment climate and group creativity. Next, we present the methodology and provide the results of the case study. In the last section, we discuss the main conclusions drawn from the study, the practical implications, limitations and possibilities for future research.

2. servaNt leaDershIP: coNcePt aND DIMeNsIoNs

Leadership is one of the most important instruments available to or-ganisations to become competitive. As such, one of the recurring themes



in management science is to search the key features of effective leadership (Bass, 1990). Thus, current studies have demonstrated that the moral dimension is an essential ingredient to obtain this effectiveness (Ciulla, 2004), and new approaches focused on the leader–follower relationship have consequently emerged to improve understanding of the leadership concept (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Bass, 1985; Fry, 2003; Greenleaf, 1977). In fact, recent literature indicates that only when the leader-fol-lower relationship is a right process of influence that contributes to human development of the follower, the leadership can be effective (Guillén, 2006). Thus, some important ethical-based perspectives of relational leadership have emerged in the past decades: transformational leadership (Bass, 1985), authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005), spiritual leadership (Fry, 2003), and servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977).

Although unlike traditional leadership styles, relational leadership approaches, focused on the leader-follower relationship, incorporates the role of followers and their needs to lead in an effective manner, a com-parative analysis of these leadership styles enables us to identify that eth-ics is a convergent theme (Farling, Stone, & Winston, 1999; Van Dier-endonck et al., 2013). Also, this comparison enables us to conclude that servant leadership is the crucible where all these approaches merge in ethical terms. In particular, servant leadership is the leadership style that encompasses the highest levels of morality and human kindness (Ehrhart, 2004; Mayer et al., 2008).

Greenleaf (1970, p. 4) coined the concept of servant leadership, though he failed to give a formal definition, and described the phenomenon of servant leadership as:

It [servant leadership] begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. The difference manifests itself in the care the servant takes – first to ensure that other peo-ple’s highest priority needs are served. The best test is: Do those served grow as persons; do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, and more likely themselves to become servants?

In order to understand its essence, we learn from this definition that servant leadership puts and promotes followers’ interests first (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Greenleaf, 1977). Servant leaders encourage followers to grow intelligently, be creative, self-manage, and serve people. This leads to the betterment of society and advocates acceptance, tolerance, empathy,



love, forgiveness, and adherence to the Ethical Golden Rule of ‘do unto others as you shall have them do unto you’. Therefore, Greenleaf (1977) conceptualized servant leadership as a lifestyle rather than a technique of management. Perhaps this notion complicated the recognition of this leadership theory and drove scholars to question how it could be em-pirically tested (Parris & Peachey, 2013), bringing about a proliferation of theoretical frameworks and measurement instruments which define this concept in a more academic manner. Thus, recently, Ehrhart (2004) conducted a thorough review of the literature and identified seven dimen-sions of servant leadership. The first dimension involves forming relation-ships with followers, such as when servant leaders spend quality time and develops interpersonal ties with their followers. Second, servant leaders empower followers, giving them more strength and autonomy. Third, servant leaders also help followers grow and succeed through serving them: they provide opportunities for followers to develop their skills. Fourth, servant leaders behave ethically; thus, servant leadership fosters greater ethical values in followers. Fifth, these leaders have conceptual skills, manifested in their daily work. Sixth, this leadership put followers first, by promoting followers success. Finally, servant leaders create value for those outside the organisation, by encouraging followers to give back to the community all material and immaterial gifts they have previously received.

Although abundant literature has been dedicated to capture the essence of servant leadership (Spears, 1998; Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2001), there are many studies that have dedicated their efforts to study the effects of servant leadership (Jo-seph & Winston, 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2010; Hu & Liden, 2011), showing positive effects on the organisation and the leader-follower rela-tionship. For example, Walumbwa, Hartnell and Oke (2010) carried out a research in seven Kenyan multinational companies with 815 employees and 123 work groups. This study showed that the presence of servant leadership in the work group creates a greater commitment to the super-visor. This relationship is justified because servant leaders are strongly concerned with developing their followers, which imbues positive psy-chological and affective benefits in them (e.g. gratitude and trust). An-other study which merits being highlighted is Hu and Liden (2011) re-search in five banks of China with 304 employees in 71 work groups. Hu and Liden (2011) revealed that servant leadership functions at both individual and group levels. At the group level, servant leadership served



as a type of “ambient stimulus” around inspiring servant attitudes to all members of the work group. At the individual level, work group members reciprocate this servant attitude by exerting extra job effort, thus improv-ing their work group effectiveness.

In general, these studies have shown the positive effects of servant leadership on the organisation and especially on the leader–follower re-lationship. Thus, according to the social learning theory, individuals learn by “paying attention to and emulating the attitudes, values and behaviours of attractive and credible models” (Brown & Treviño, 2006: 597). Fol-lowers perceive servant leaders as attractive because servant leaders em-phasize the development of others and place the good of those led over their own interests (Hale & Fields, 2007). It is of no surprise then that leaders who satisfy the needs of their followers are likely to generate at-titudes and desires among followers to put forth their best for the benefit of the organisation, resulting in a greater job satisfaction (Mayer et al., 2008) and lower employee turnover (Jaramillo, Grisaffe, Chonko, & Roberts, 2009), among other positive outcomes. However, the effects of servant leadership are not only orientated to improve the leader-follower relationship, but also to develop an organisational work climate that in-spires a greater sense of community upon its human members (Han, Kakabadse, & Kakabadse, 2010).

3. BeNefIts of servaNt leaDershIP WIth the Work GrouP

Although literature suggests positive relationships between servant leadership and individual and organisational valuable outcomes, these relationships still need better understanding in work groups. Thus, on a group level basis, we will discuss below that along with higher pres-ence of servant leadership in work groups, empowerment climate and group creativity will reach high levels. Also, group creativity will be addressed here to be higher in presence of servant leadership because empowerment climate is high at the same time. This thesis is outlined as a theoretical model in Figure 1, which helps to understand better our research purposes and serves as a guide for our theoretical arguments provided below.



3.1. SERvANT LEADERSHIP AND EMPOWERMENT CLIMATE

Two major perspectives on the empowerment phenomenon have emerged to develop a fuller understanding of the nature of empowerment. On the one side, psychological empowerment –at the individual level– is defined as intrinsic task motivation reflecting a sense of control in relation to one’s work and an active orientation to one’s work role (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). On the other side, early socio-structural approaches regarded the empowerment climate –at the group level– as a set of shared perceptions regarding the structures, policies, and practices designed to decentralise power and authority throughout the organisation, enabling employees to take and make appropriate actions and decisions (Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2004). Thus, at the group level, three key organisational practices can be identified in empowerment climates (Ran-dolph, 1995; Seibert et al., 2004): a) information sharing, involving that sensitive information is provided to employees, b) autonomy through boundaries, entailing organisational structures and practices that encour-age autonomous action in the work group, and c) team accountability, involving that work groups are accountable for their own group perfor-mance.

Based on self-determination theory (Gagne & Deci, 2005), servant leadership might be a good strategy to promote all these organisational practices in the work group context. According to this theoretical frame-work, an autonomy-supportive leader fosters job designs incorporating motivational job core characteristics (i.e. skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback), thus enhancing intrinsic motiva-tion and providing empowerment within the work group (Menon, 2001). It is of no surprise then that servant leaders might be very useful in foster-ing an empowerment climate. Servant leaders characterize for believing

ServantLeadership

RQ3 +

RQ1 +

RQ2 +

EmpowermentClimate

GroupCreativity

Figure 1. the servant leadership effects on empowerment climate and Group creativity.



in the intrinsic value of their followers, respecting their capabilities and enabling them to exercise their own abilities as well as to share power and information (Hannay, 2009). Core features of this leadership strategy are, for example, helping followers achieve a high level of accomplishment (Russell, 2001) as well as design structures to foster a proactive, self-confident attitude and a sense of power within the work group (Winston, 2003; Ehrhart, 2004; Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008). Moreover, servant leaders are conceptualized to value people for what they are, en-couraging their personal and professional development (Laub, 1999). In fact, paradoxically though, a servant leader increases his/her power because followers know that meeting their interests and needs is always in the leader’s mind. Thus,

Research Question 1: Servant leadership increases empowerment climate within work group

3.2. SERvANT LEADERSHIP AND GROUP CREATIvITy

To maintain or enhance effectiveness within rapidly changing and extremely competitive environments, corporations must be creative at the individual, group, and organisational levels (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002). Most of the research on creativity has focused on in-dividual traits, abilities, and cognitive styles (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004) that allow for the development of novel and useful ideas concern-ing products, services, processes and procedures (Amabile et al., 1996). However, both group and organisational features are also important in promoting creativity in organisations. Thus, creativity is usually consid-ered as a function of group processes, structure and characteristics (Jung, 2001; Shalley & Gilson, 2004) which fosters, among other aspects, in-formation and knowledge sharing, decision-making involvement, and members integration and social skills development (West, 2002).

Leadership, according to the input–process–output model (Shalley et al., 2004), is one important element to develop the above mentioned aspects. In fact, leaders contribute actively to the production of creative ideas through their leader expertise, creative problem solving and social skills (Mumford et al., 2002), and servant leaders might serve as good creativity boosters within the work group. O’Hara & Sternberg (2001) found that participative leadership, a typical servant leadership feature,



improved group creativity through promoting group members’ engage-ment and through reducing interpersonal conflict within the work group. This is so because, based on Bandura’s social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), the stronger, closer, and narrower relationship between leaders and followers, which seems to be encouraged when servant leadership is present, the easier it is for employees to learn the values and norms lived and practiced by the leader (Melé, 2003; Ruiz, Martínez, & Rodrigo, 2010). As such, given that servant leadership provides for vision, motiva-tion, intellectual curiosity, constructive attitudes to problems, information searching, and assumptions questioning (Mumford et al., 2002; Zhang, Tsui, & Wang, 2011), this leadership style seems useful to build a creative climate within the work group. Thus,

Research Question 2: Servant leadership increases group creativity within the work group

3.3. EMPOWERMENT CLIMATE AND GROUP CREATIvITy

Creativity is a process of destroying established rules to develop new ones, a process of breaking through and reforming the various limited conditions, and a process which indicates the reform of elements which are already in existence (Si & Wei, 2012). This process is easily performed by empowered people because they see the meaning of their jobs, which serves as the ‘engine’ that energises them to achieve something of signifi-cance. They are further energised if they see that their work will have an impact and contribute to the achievement of collective goals (Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997). Thus, given that a work group produces more creative work when its members perceive themselves as having interper-sonal control over how to accomplish their own tasks (Jung & Sosik, 2002), self-determination and empowerment climate are important de-terminants of group creativity. In other words, conditions that allow a group to work in accordance with their own creative process encourage and nurture creative performance.

Self-determination theory, which favours to boost inter-connected relationships and autonomy to realize employees’ inherent growth tendencies to self-motivate at work (e.g. Gagne & Deci, 2005; Deci & Ryan, 2002) provides the theoretical underpinning for group creativ-ity to occur. Thus, group creativity is fostered when work group



members have high autonomy in their daily work and a sense of own-ership and control over their own work and ideas (Sun, Zhang, Qi, & Chen, 2012). The shared perception of empowering policies and prac-tices leads to changes in subordinates’ psychological states of empower-ment, which in turn influences their work group creativity (Moulang, 2013; Wei, Yuan, & Di, 2010). In fact, the degree to which an empow-erment culture is established may lead to employees’ perceptions of increased creative requirement for the work group (Unsworth, Wall, & Carter, 2005).

Employees who decide on day-to-day issues are more likely to come across situations that require ideas generation. More importantly, when work group members perceive that their job requirements are meaning-ful, creative activities might increase strongly. For example, they are more likely to put more effort into understanding a problem and generate a significant number of alternatives through connecting various sources of information within the work group (Gilson & Shalley, 2004). Thus, when people within the work group possess autonomy, a sense of ac-countability and the ability to perform a task freely, that is, self-determi-nation over job execution, they are more oriented to explore new cogni-tive pathways, and feel comfortable providing new ideas (Amabile et al., 1996; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Thus,

Research Question 3: Empowerment climate increases group crea-tivity within the work group

4. research fraMeWork

4.1. THE CASE STUDy: A LANDMARk HOTEL IN A HISTORICAL CITy IN SPAIN

Culture has become an innovative and coherent platform of develop-ment for the current knowledge society (Sacco, Blessi, & Nuccio, 2009). Over the last decades, urban cultural tourism has become a means of social and economic regeneration because of its potential for sustainable local development, especially in historic small and medium-sized cities (Richards & Wilson, 2006). In this context, Cuenca is a good example of these cities, as it offers visitors the possibility of enjoying their natural and cultural attractives. The tourism resources of Cuenca are based on a



natural and historical heritage that provides a wide range of creative, cultural, and artistic activities; which makes this site to be a competitive tourism destination in Spain. Cuenca is also included in the list of UN-ESCO’s World Heritage Sites, which constitutes a benchmark in terms of cultural and urban tourism.

In these cities the majority of firms are small and medium-sized, and they manage to remain competitive due to the establishment of relations and networks with internal and external agents (Martínez-Pérez, García-Villaverde, & Elche, 2014). They collaborate with a great diversity of organisations what allow them to supply high-quality customer-oriented products and services. In these circumstances, the internal factors such as servant leadership, empowerment climate and group creativity become critical variables in order to maintain high effectiveness and competitive-ness levels within the organisation.

The case study involves a hotel located in Cuenca. This hotel has more than 50 years of history and is considered as a symbolic lodging firm. The structure of hotel is formed by four work groups: kitchen, restaurant, reception, and room service, each one led by a different supervisor. The whole workforce is headed by a general manager and an economic-finan-cial manager. The average age of the hotel employees is approximately 35 years, which is still a very young and dynamic workforce. Permanent contracts account for more than 90%, which increases with temporary contracts during peak periods. Importantly, 82% of the hotel employees are women. Finally, in general, the educational level in the hotel staff (in more than the 86% of cases) is vocational training.

4.2. DATA COLLECTION AND MEASUREMENT vARIABLES

In order to study how the practices of servant leadership generate empowerment climate and creativity within the work groups a case study is used. Case study is a research methodology quite common in strategic management which allows the investigation of complex and unexplained phenomena in a multidimensional approach (Galli & Müller-Stewens, 2012). This exploratory method is suitable in the earliest stages of research because it is a flexible method (Eisenhardt, 1989), which provides spe-cific nuances about the facts due to a more direct perspective. Thus, the experience of a landmark hotel with a long tradition in a Spanish city declared a world heritage site seems sufficiently illustrative to extend our



findings to other firms in the hospitality industry in the geographic and cultural area of the study.

According to the case study literature, multiple sources of information are required concerning different levels of analysis such as interviews, questionnaires, and direct observations (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2013). In this article the data was collected through questionnaires in three levels. Specifically, we designed different question-naire forms for the employees and the work groups’ supervisors. The former assesses employees’ perceptions about the leadership of their su-pervisor, as well as the empowerment climate and group creativity of their work group. The latter only includes questions about the empower-ment climate and creativity of the work group. Finally, an interview with the hotel manager supplied additional comprehensive information about the organisational structure and policies of the hotel.

In order to measure our study variables, existing seven-point Likert scales were used. The measure for the different scales items ranged between 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). To test our research questions, we used a descriptive analysis in SPSS version 22. The individual scores for each group were added and averaged for each work group to build our three study variables: servant leadership, empowerment climate and group creativity.

Servant leadership. According to Ehrhart (2004), we used a fourteen-item scale where employees assessed to what extent their direct supervisor encom-passes servant leadership features. Sample items include “My work group su-pervisor spends the time to form quality relationships with employees” and “My work group supervisor creates a sense of community among employees”. This scale describe seven characteristic dimensions of servant leadership: 1) forming relationships with followers, 2) empowering followers, 3) helping followers grow and succeed, 4) behaving ethically, 5) having conceptual skills, 6) putting followers first, and 7) creating value for those outside of the hotel. This variable is included in the questionnaire of employees and measures the servant leadership of their supervisor within each different work group.

Empowerment climate. Following Seibert et al. (2004) we used a six-item scale to measure this variable. Employees were asked about the empowerment atmosphere they daily observe in their work group. Sample items include “We have created structures and procedures that encourage and expect people to take initiative in improving work group performance” and “My work group



recognizes individuals for taking initiative”. This scale includes three dimen-sions of empowerment climate: 1) information sharing, 2) autonomy through boundaries and 3) team accountability. Since literature suggests that the climate is generated through bottom-up emergent processes (Gilson & Shalley, 2004), we grouped individual scores of each group and obtained the measurement of empowerment at the group level. This variable was measured by employees and supervisors of each work group. No significant differences between both evaluations were observed.

Group creativity. We used the three-item scale used by Valentine, Godkin, Fleischman & Kidwell (2011) to measure this group aspect. Employees were asked about the level of innovation in their work groups. Some sample items are, for example, “As a whole, my work group and I welcome change”, and “My work group and I encourage each other to try new things, even though they might not work’’. Employees and supervisors of each work group answered these questions and no significant differences were found between both re-sponses.

In order to complete the information obtained through the question-naires, we also carried out personal semi-structured interviews with the hotel manager and four supervisors. The interviews were focused on the three main variables of our research: 1) servant leadership practices, 2) policies and practices focused on developing empowerment within the work group, and 3) creativity experiences of the work group. For example, they included questions about the strategic orientation and hu-man resources management policies of the hotel and work groups (e.g. Describe the structures and procedures that encourage people to take initiative in improving the work group performance), items regarding the supervisor’s style of leadership (e.g. Has your supervisor spent enough time to form quality relationships with the employees? Are his/her decisions influenced by employee’s input?), and some items about the work group creativity process (e.g. In the last year, describe three stages where your work group have been willing to try creative solutions to address difficult problems).

All these interviews were conducted over several weeks, and partici-pants were asked not to share information about the interviews with their colleagues. According to Galli & Müller-Stewens (2012), anonymity and confidentiality were assured in the whole process. This information was completed and enriched by observing directly how daily tasks are devel-oped in each work group and by speaking informally with the employees.



Therefore, the use of multiple sources of evidence ensured the triangula-tion principle (e.g. Yin, 2013) allowing us to check that the data from different sources converge and are reliable for the purposes of our study.

5. results

Our descriptive analysis of the three study variables is displayed in table 1, where the group-level data is observed. The mean score obtained for empowerment climate (MEC = 5.27) and group creativity (MGC = 5.09) is very similar, and proximal to the mean of servant leadership (MSL = 5.83). Thus, servant leadership in this hotel is perfectly aligned with higher perceptions of group creativity and empowerment climate within the work group. Regarding data dispersion, we find that servant leadership (SDSL = 0.80), group creativity (SDGC = 1.23), and empowerment climate (SDEC = 1.31) all have a low standard deviation, indicating that there is a great homogeneity in the assessments done by the respondents.

table 1. descriptive statistics of the study variables at the group-level

Variables mean (m) standard deviation (sd)

Servant Leadership (SL) 5.83 0.80

Group Creativity (GC) 5.09 1.23

Empowerment Climate (EC) 5.27 1.31Notes. M and SD refer to mean and standard deviation, respectively.Assessments were made on a seven-point Likert scale, where the mean value is 4.

Figure 2 shows graphically the average scores of servant leadership, group creativity, and empowerment climate in the work group. The graphic shows that if there are high levels of servant leadership in super-visory roles, there will be high levels of empowerment climate and high levels of group creativity. This is quite evident in the kitchen work group as well as in the restaurant work group which have the highest ratings of servant leadership (MSL = 6.04; MSL = 6.50, respectively) and also the highest scores regarding empowerment climate (MEC = 5.92; MEC = 5.96, respectively) and group creativity (MGC = 5.27; MGC = 5.67, respectively). A similar behavioural pattern is noted in the reception and room service work groups. In these cases, the lower ratings in servant leadership



(MSL = 5.25; MSL = 5.55, respectively) correspond to lower scores in empowerment climate (MEC = 4.71; MEC = 4.52, respectively) and group creativity (MGC = 4.93; MGC = 4.52, respectively), though these ratings always represent high levels in the scale (the mean of the scale is 4.00). However, as observed in Figure 2, empowerment climate in both of these two last work groups is strongly lower relative to ratings observed in the kitchen and restaurant work groups.

In order to investigate more thoroughly into the relations studied in this hotel, we analysed the behavioural pattern of the distinct dimensions of servant leadership and empowerment climate (Table 2). Concerning servant leadership, homogeneity in most dimensions was observed, spe-cifically in forming relationships with subordinates (M = 6.04), empow-ering subordinates (M = 5.94), helping subordinates grow and succeed (M = 5.96), behaving ethically (M = 5.79), having conceptual skills (M = 6.19), and putting subordinates first (M = 6.04). Despite some discrepancies observed regarding the dimension of creating value for those outside the hotel (M = 4.88), it represents a mean rating that is above the mean of the scale. Concerning empowerment climate, there is no percep-tible dispersion among the distinct dimensions of information sharing (M = 5.15), autonomy through boundaries (M = 5.21), and team ac-countability (M = 5.46).

Servant Leadership (SL) Group Creativity (GC) Empowerment Climate (EC)

Reception Kitchen Restaurant Room service

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Figure 2. average scores of the study variables at work group.



table 2. dimensional analysis of the study variables

servant leadership m sd

Forming relationships with subordinates 6.04 0.80

Empowering subordinates 5.94 0.78

Helping subordinates grow and succeed 5.96 0.55

Behaving ethically 5.79 0.94

Having conceptual skills 6.19 0.46

Putting subordinates first 6.04 0.49

Creating value for those outside the hotel 4.88 0.92

empowerment climate m sd

Information sharing 5.15 0.97

Autonomy through boundaries 5.21 0.95

Team accountability 5.46 0.82Notes. M and SD refer to mean and standard deviation, respectively.Assessments were made on a seven-point Likert scale, where the mean value is 4

Based on the data of the dimensional analysis realized, Figure 3 shows that the kitchen and restaurant work groups, except in the servant leader-ship dimension of helping subordinates grow and succeed, generally maintain the highest values in all dimensions of servant leadership and empowerment climate. However, the reception and room service work groups present lower scores in all dimensions analysed for both organi-sational variables.

The direct observations and the interviews which we carried out with the hotel manager and four supervisors aimed at collecting first-hand information, were rather helpful to complete the survey quantitative data. The interview with the hotel manager allowed us to understand the cul-ture of the hotel. It is a culture where the employees represent a crucial element when designing the organisational strategy. For years, this hotel has maintained a strategy based on developing participative leadership, creating a platform that promotes a culture of shared leadership. Also, the hotel has implemented several successful human resources practices that give value to employees such as coaching, mentoring, job assignment, and training. In this sense, the manager explains:



“I have experience in other hotels where the commitment to the employees was absolutely different. In those hotels the leadership and the relations with the employees were not so close. Everything was docketed, which meant a greater distrust ot the group and the organisation which meant that the mo-tivation and commitment to the hotel did not exist [...] I have been working with this hotel for more than ten years and I have been a part of the establish-ment of a more participative leadership aimed to satisfy the needs of employ-ees, strengthening human resource practices to give them more autonomy, and allowing the hotel to be more flexible and competitive.”

The interviews with supervisors also have allowed us to study the ef-fects of the above mentioned hotel strategy in creating higher levels of servant leadership, empowerment climate, and group creativity within the work group. These effects are especially observed in the kitchen and restaurant work groups, where the workforce is several years older than the average. Thus, the supervisor of the restaurant work group explains:

“I have over 20 years’ experience in this hotel. Managers who have passed through the hotel have always implemented a forward-worker, believing in their ability and knowledge, leaving work to each of the political groups. This same philosophy I try to convey to my workers, giving them a place to de-

Servant Leadership Empowerment Climate

Reception Kitchen Restaurant Room service

7

6

5

4

3

2

1Forming

relationshipswith

subordinates

Empoweringsubordinates

Helpingsubordinates

grow andsucceed

Behavingethically

Havingconceptual

skills

Puttingsubordinates

�rst

Creating valuefor those

outside theorganization

InformationSharing

Autonomythrough

boundaries

Teamaccountability

Figure 3. average scores per the servant leadership and empowerment climate dimensions.



velop and participate [...]In my case, this means working in coordination with the small kitchen, where we have meetings between workers of the two groups with the intention of looking for a plate or a way to serve that is fully innovative. This allows us to be one of the most important restaurants in the city.”

In summary, through direct observations, we could note the positive effects of servant leadership within the work groups, particularly in the kitchen and restaurant. In the rest of the work groups (reception and room service) we observed less positive effects because in both groups the supervisors had been working there for less than one year. In fact, we could note that the emotional relationships, shared information, and cohesion in these work groups were not as strong as in the kitchen and restaurant work groups.

6. DIscussIoN aND coNclusIoNs

Through a case study of a historic and emblematic hotel in a world heritage city in Spain, we address the effects of servant leadership on or-ganisational variables of great business interest, such as the empowerment climate and group creativity. Overall, our data offer support to the research questions posed in the article, as the findings reveal that when servant leadership exists in different work groups, high levels of group creativity and an empowerment climate emerge. Also, findings reveal that when empowerment climate is present in work groups, group creativity is also high. However, we have observed that the degree to which these or-ganisational variables appear in scene differs a little according the work group that is analysed.

In order to explain these different findings between work groups, Savage-Austin & Honeycut (2011) identify some limitations of the serv-ant leadership practices. One of these is that the effects of servant leader-ship in the work group are not visible in the short term; rather the benefits of servant leadership are perceived in the long term. Another limitation is related to the cultural system in which this leadership strat-egy is implemented. The distinctive cultural differences among regions might make servant leadership fit optimally with employees in one country but cause imperfect fits with employees in other countries. This study gives empirical evidence of both limitations. On the one side, su-



pervisors of reception and room service groups had not been long work-ing with the hotel studied at the moment of the study, thus the full effect of servant leadership practices on empowerment climate and group crea-tivity has not yet set in. This explains the different results obtained in these work groups in opposition to the other work groups analysed. On the other side, whereas our descriptive analysis reveals strong consistency between almost all the dimensions of servant leadership, the creating value for those outside of the hotel dimension seems to be less related to the others. Because the scale we utilized to measure servant leadership is adapted from other cultural regions where giving value to the commu-nity in which the firm operates is more strongly appreciated (i.e. United States), the different findings we obtained between our work groups might have been influenced in our Spanish cultural context.

This article helps affirm the important role that ethics plays in improv-ing organisations and launching them to effectiveness. Because servant leaders are focused on serving fellow workers with agapao love (Patterson, 2004), showing care and appreciation for them, put ethics as a cornerstone in their daily decision making, and create in their work groups high ethical climates (Graham, 1995). These leaders are strongly oriented to use logic of giving mental schemes, and thus more open to relinquish power to their fellow workers (Boyett & Boyett, 1998) to allow them to grow in human and technical matureness. When employees are granted power, they are actively listened and recognized as complete entities to act freely and with self-determination; they are respected in their personal dignity (Fernández, de Haro & Nieto, 2015). As a result, seeds for attaining important organisational variables such as empower-ment climate and group creativity are more easily sown in work groups where these leaders operate. Our study gives support to this position bringing to light additional knowledge about the nature of a possible lever mechanism in work groups –namely, servant leadership in supervisor roles– which might help activate better human relations in the workplace and positive organisational outcomes.

For this reason, and according to our results, organisations should consider servant leadership as an optimum style of leadership for building and fostering effective work groups. In practice, leaders should stimulate their fellow workers’ motivation by focusing on such things as identify-ing ambitious goals, depicting an ideal vision, and personalizing the needs of their fellow workers to make them feel that the leader and organisation takes them into consideration. This will definitely have positive impacts



on work group outcomes: trusting leader-workers and workers-workers relationships, fellow workers’ self-management initiatives through infor-mation-sharing dynamics, and fellow workers’ self-determination attitudes intimately linked to creativity spirals.

8. lIMItatIoNs aND recoMMeNDatIoNs for future research

Although our contributions to the literature are important, several limitations need to be addressed. First, a major limitation of this article is that our study relied on a single company in the hospitality industry, where we performed a descriptive analysis on a limited number of work groups. Second, our findings and interpretations may not be generalizable and should be treated with caution until they have been replicated in a variety of settings with other methods. Accordingly, it is important to note that our data represent subjective perceptions and experiences, rather than objective accounts of reality. Third, we did not consider the possibility that servant leadership might not be easily accepted depending on the characteristics of the national culture, the industry, the organisa-tion, or the employees surveyed. If, for example, different leadership styles are practiced (i.e. they are not in line with a servant leadership philosophy) or the workforce refuses to change (i.e. it lacks achievement needs), serv-ant leadership is likely to fail to create positive organisational outcomes such as the ones studied here (i.e. empowerment climate, group creati vity).

In general, opportunities still exist for deepening understanding around servant leadership’s positive effects within the work group. For example, research still needs to better comprehend the probable inter-relationships among servant leadership, group creativity, and empowerment climate. Also, further investigation of the variables and relationships studied here is needed such that a broader context in terms of corporate culture, or-ganisational structure, and number of hotels surveyed should be addressed to test our research questions. Also, the ethical implications of practicing servant leadership (Boyett & Boyett, 1998) intimately linked to the practice of agapao love– should be addressed to offer managers interest-ing leadership options that improve the ethical quality of their work groups as well as other valuable work group outcomes. In fact, because logic of giving-based work climates might be real in presence of servant leaders, further research should thoroughly address this issue. Under work



climates imbued with this logic, people express what they are, feel, think and hope freely, and good inter-communication and human coexistence are fostered (Torralba, 2012). Hence, the extent to which both the logic of giving and antecedents of group creativity (i.e. cohesion, openness to the other and cooperation) are real in servant leadership-guided work contexts represents an interesting area of research. In summary, many empirical research opportunities around servant leadership and its benefits on work groups remain alive.

FUNDING

This work was funded by The Ministry of Economy and Competitiv-ity (Spain), Research Project reference ECO2013-42387-P, Plan Estatal de Investigación Científica y Técnica y de Innovación 2013-2016.

BIBlIoGraPhy

Amabile T. M., Conti R., Coon H., Lazenby J. & Herron M. (1996). Assessing the workplace for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (5), 1154-1184.

Avolio, B.J. & Gardner W.L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (3), 315-338.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Barbuto, J.E. & Wheeler, D.W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Manage-ment, 31 (3), 300-326.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. London: Free Press.

Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stodgill´s Handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.

Boyett, J. & Boyett, J. (1998). The Guru Guide: The Best Ideas of Top Management Thinkers. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Brown, M.E. & Treviño, L.K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595-616.



Ciulla, J.B. (2004). Ethics and leadership effectiveness. In Antonakis, J. Cianciolo A.T. & Sternberg, R.J. (eds.), The nature of leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. New York: University of Rochester Press.

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

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532-550.

Eisenhardt, K.M. & Graebner, M.E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 50 (1), 25-32.

Farling, M.L., Stone A.G. & Winston B.E. (1999). Servant leadership: Setting the stage for empirical research. Journal of Leadership Stud-ies, 6 (1-2), 49-72.

Fernández, J.L.F., de Haro, C.M. & Nieto, C.R. (2015). Ethics as a Key Aspect to the survival of the company in times of crisis. Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics, 6, 81-109.

Fry, L.W. (2003). Toward a Theory of Spiritual Leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14 (1), 693-727.

Gagne, M. & Deci, E.L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26 (4), 331-362.

Galli, E.B. & Müller-Stewens, G. (2012). How to build social capital with leadership development: Lessons from an explorative case study of a multibusiness firm. The Leadership Quarterly, 23 (1), 176-201.

Gilson, L.L. & Shalley, C.E. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30 (4), 453-470.

Graham, J.W. (1995). Leadership, moral development, and citizenship behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5 (1), 43-54.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1970).The Servant as Leader. Indianapolis: The Rob-ert K. Greenleaf Center.

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

Greenleaf, R.K. & Spears, L.C. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.



Guillén, M. (2006). Ética en las Organizaciones. Construyendo con-fianza. Madrid: Prentice Hall.

Hale, J.R. & Fields, D.L. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A study of followers in Ghana and the USA. Leadership, 3 (4), 397-417.

Han, Y., Kakabadse, N.K. & Kakabadse, A. (2010). Servant leadership in the People’s Republic of China: A case study of the public sector. Journal of Management Development, 29 (3), 265-281.

Hannay, M. (2009). The cross-cultural leader: The application of servant leadership theory in the international context. Journal of Interna-tional Business & Cultural Studies, 1 (7), 1-12.

Hyatt, D.E. & Ruddy, T.M. (1997). An examination of the relationship between work group characteristics and performance: Once more into the breech. Personnel Psychology, 50 (3), 553-585.

Hu, J. & Liden, R.C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (4), 851-862.

Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D.B., Chonko, L.B. & Roberts, J.A. (2009). Examining the impact of servant leadership on sales force perfor-mance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29 (3), 257-275.

Joseph, E. & Winston, B.E. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26 (1), 6-22.

Jung, D.I. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13 (2), 185-195.

Jung, D.I. & Sosik, J.J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups; the role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-effica-cy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research, 33 (3), 313-336.

Kark, R. & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to fol-low: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32 (2), 500-528.

Kirkman, B.L. & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Anteced-ents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 42 (1), 58-74.

Kirkman, B.L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P.E. & Gibson, C.B. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The



moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (2), 175-192.

Laub, J.A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the organizational leadership assessment (OLA) instrument. Boca Raton, Florida: Doctoral dissertation.

Lawler, E.E. (1986). High-Involvement Management. Participative Strategies for Improving Organizational Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawler, E.E. & Worley, C.G. (2006). Built to change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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.

Martínez-Pérez, A., García-Villaverde, P.M. & Elche, D. (2015). Eco-innovation antecedents in cultural tourism clusters: External relation-ships and explorative knowledge. Innovation, 17 (1), 41-57.

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 (2), 180-197.

Melé, D. (2003). Organizational Humanizing Cultures: Do They Gen-erate Social Capital? Journal of Business Ethics, 45 (1-2), 3-14.

Menon, S.T. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psycho-logical approach. Applied Psychology, 50 (1), 153-180.

Moulang, C. (2013). Performance measurement system use in generating psychological empowerment and individual creativity. Accounting & Finance, 55 (2), 519-544.

Mumford, M.D., Scott, G.M., Gaddis, B. & Strange, J.M. (2002). Lead-ing creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13 (6), 705-750.

O’Hara, L.A. & Sternberg, R.J. (2001). It doesn’t hurt to ask: Effects of instructions to be creative, practical, or analytical on essay-writing performance and their interaction with students’ thinking styles. Creativity Research Journal, 13 (2), 197-210.

Parris, D.L. & Peachey, J.W. (2013). A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113 (3), 377-393.

Patterson, K. (2004). Servant Leadership: A Theoretical Model. Servant Leadership. Virginia Beach: Research Roundtable.



Randolph, W.A. (1995). Navigating the journey to empowerment. Organizational Dynamics, 24 (4), 19-32.

Richards, G. & Wilson, J. (2006). Developing Creativity in Tourist Experiences: A Solution to the Serial Reproduction of Culture? Tour-ism Management, 27 (6), 1209-1223.

Ruíz, P., Martínez, R. & Rodrigo, J. (2010). Intra-organizational social capital in business organizations: A theoretical model with a focus on servant leadership as antecedent. Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics, 1, 43-59.

Russell, R.F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 22 (2), 76-83.

Russell, R.F. & Stone, G.A. (2002). A review of servant leadership at-tributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3), 145-157.

Sacco, P., Blessi, G. & Nuccio, M. (2009). Cultural Policies and Local Planning Strategies: What Is the Role of Culture in Local Sustainable Development? The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 39 (1), 45-63.

Savage-Austin, A, & Honeycut A. (2011). Servant Leadership: A Phe-nomenological study of practices, experiences, organizational effective-ness, and barriers. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 9 (1), 49-54.

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. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (3), 332-350.

Seibert, S.E., Wang, G. & Courtright, S.H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organiza-tions: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (5), 981-1003.

Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J.C. & Santora, J.C. (2008). Defining and measur-ing servant leadership behaviour in organizations. Journal of Manage-ment Studies, 45 (2), 402-424.

Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J. & Oldham, G.R. (2004). The effects of per-sonal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30 (6), 933-958.

Shalley, C.E. & Gilson, L.L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativ-ity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15 (1), 33-53.



Si, S. & Wei, F. (2012). Transformational and transactional leaderships, empowerment climate, and innovation performance: A multilevel analysis in the Chinese context. European Journal of Work & Or-ganizational Psychology, 21 (2), 299-320.

Spears, L.C. (1998). Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the work place: Construct definition, measurement, and validation, Academy of Management Journal, 38 (5), 1442-1465.

Spreitzer, G.M., Kizilos, M.A. & Nason, S.W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management, 23 (5), 679-704.

Sun, L.Y., Zhang, Z., Qi, J. & Chen, Z.X. (2012). Empowerment and creativity: A cross-level investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 23 (1), 55-65.

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

Torralba, F. (2012). La lógica del don. Madrid: Khaf Collections, Luis Vives.

Unsworth, K.L., Wall, T.D. & Carter, A. (2005). Creative Requirement A Neglected Construct in the Study of Employee Creativity? Group & Organization Management, 30 (5), 541-560.

Valentine, S., Godkin, L., Fleischman, G.M. & Kidwell, R. (2011). Corporate ethical values, group creativity, job satisfaction and turno-ver intention: The impact of work context on work response. Journal of Business Ethics, 98 (3), 353-372.

Van Dierendonck, D. & Nuijten, I. (2011). The Servant-Leadership Survey (SLS): Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business & Psychology, 26 (3), 249-267.

Van Dierendonck, D., Stam, D., Boersma, P., De Windt, N. & Alkema, J. (2013). Same difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformational leadership to follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 25 (3), 544-562.

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. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 95 (3), 517-529.



Wei, F., Yuan, X. & Di, Y. (2010). Effects of transactional leadership, psychological empowerment and empowerment climate on creative performance of subordinates: A cross-level study. Frontiers of Busi-ness Research in China, 4 (1), 29-46.

West, M.A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology, 51 (3), 355-387.

Winston, B.E. (2003). Extending Patterson’s servant leadership model: Explaining how leaders and followers inter-act in a circular model. Virginia Beach: Servant Leadership Roundtable at Regent University.

Yin, R.K. (2013), Case study research. Design and methods. London: Sage Publications.

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

Zhang, A.Y., Tsui, A.S. & Wang, D.X. (2011). Leadership behaviors and group creativity in Chinese organizations: The role of group processes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22 (5), 851-862.

Jorge Linuesa-Langreo, Pablo Ruiz-Palomino, Dioni ElcheUniversity of Castilla-La Mancha

[email protected]

This paper was received on July 31st, and was approved on December 14th 2015.


servant leadership, empowerment climate, and group ... · servant leadership, empowerment climate,...

Documents