Category: Unit 4

As a consumer of research reports, the most important things for me in the introduction section of a high-quality research report are as follows:

1. That the subject matter is of interest to me;
2. That the author provides a clear and concise purpose statement in the introduction (P184 of clark and creswell);
3. That the need for the research is clear;
4. How the research will be conducted, ie. by what methodology; and,
5. The results discussion.

In the first few sentences of the introduction, the reader must become interested in the topic and must understand why there is a need for the research to be conducted in the first place. What exactly does the research hope to find or explain? Basically, the “so what?” question must be answered. The researcher must convince the reader that the study is important and is worthwhile.The reader must then understand what methodology will be used. There has to be a logical fit between what the purpose of the research is, and how the research will be conducted. The introduction should also identify who would benefit from the results of the study. Finally, the results should be presented as a brief summary.   

Within the sample that the researchers used, they noted that servant leadership is most prevalent in education organizational settings. (Parris and Peachey, 2013, P 385).  My question is, is the servant leadership theory more applicable to organizations in certain economic sectors more than others?

References

Parris, D., & Peachey, J. (2013). A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts. Journal Of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377-393. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6

• Is the study’s purpose clearly specified?

Yes the purpose of the study is clearly stated. It is to “identify empirical studies that explored servant leadership theory by engaging a sample population in order to assess and synthesize the mechanisms and outcomes and impact on servant leadership” (Parris, D., & Peachey, J., 2013, p. 377).

• Is the focus of the study appropriate?

The focus of the study is appropriate, but it is very broad as it is a Systematic Literature Review. The variables are clearly defined in the summary, but are vague:  “the researchers sought to provide an evidence-based answer of how does servant leadership work and how can we apply it” (Parris, D., & Peachey, J., 2013, p. 377).

• Is the overall intent of the study appropriate?

Yes, the intent is clearly stated. The researchers are clear on what they hope to learn. “Thus, we sought to provide an evidence-informed answer to how does servant leadership work, and how can we apply it?”(Parris, D., & Peachey, J., 2013, p. 377).

• Are the participants and the sites appropriate?

Yes the participants and the sites are appropriate. “A disciplined screening process resulted in a final sample population of 39 appropriate studies” (Parris, D., & Peachey, J., 2013, p. 377).

• Is the purpose of the study narrowed through appropriate research questions and/or hypotheses?

In terms of what literature was selected, the study was definitely narrowed by virtue of the fact that it was a systematic review of literature rather than a narrative review.  “The purpose of this study was to systematically examine and organize the current body of research literature that either quantitatively or qualitatively explored servant leadership theory in a given organizational setting. In this SRL we only included empirical studies that investigated servant leadership in an organizational context and excluded studies with a primary focus on model development or testing measurement instruments.(Parris, D., & Peachey, J., 2013, p. 378).

• Does the purpose of the study follow logically from the statement of the problem and the literature review?

Yes the purpose of the study is to assess empirical studies that explored theories of servant leadership in organizations to determine the impact of servant leadership on organizations (Parris, D., & Peachey, J., 2013, p. 377).

• Is the purpose consistent with the study’s overall approach?

Yes the purpose is consistent with the study’s overall approach. I would rate the research study as 3.

References

Parris, D., & Peachey, J. (2013). A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts. Journal Of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377-393. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6

Learning Activity 4.3:

• Does the review include relevant literature?

The article includes a reference section that is roughly 3 and a half pages in length. The authors referenced numerous sources related to the article. The authors clarify that the purpose of their study was to examine the research that is available on servant leadership (Parris and Peachey, 2013, P 378). They discuss that they systematically chose which research to include in their study and chose to include research that “ included empirical studies that investigated servant leadership in an organizational context and excluded studies with a primary focus on model development or testing measurement instruments.” (Parris and Peachey, 2013, P 378). The authors were very selective with which research to include.

• Does the review examine sources that are recent and of high quality?

The reference pages prove that the majority of their research was current. According to Clark and Creswell, current research includes research that has been published within the last ten years. (Clark and Creswell..) Although there are some sources that date back as far as the 70’s, the majority of their sources were published within the last ten years.

• Is the literature review documented properly?

All citations are done correctly in this piece of research. The authors included some citations which were found in more than one piece of research. For example, “Three studies (Fridell et al. 2009; McCuddy and Cavin 2009; Taylor et al. 2007) attempted to identify demographic characteristics conducive to practicing servant leadership. However, these studies lacked methodological quality sufficient to support any conclusions.” (Parris and Peachey, 2013, P 388).

• Is the literature thoughtfully synthesized?

The authors divide their research into subtopics that make sense for the research topic. They categorize their subtopics in a way that flows logically and is easy to read and comprehend.

• Is the literature critically examined?

Yes the literature is critically examined, first, in analyzing whether or not it should be included in the literature review at all, and then again, once it is included.  For example, they mention that the lack of one accepted conceptual outline of the characteristics of Servant Leadership Theory has resulted in a state of confusion and fragmented the outcomes of the research (Van Dierendonck, 2011) in (Parris, D., & Peachey, J., 2013, p. 389).

• Does the study have a strong foundation in the literature?

The study is actually the first in this topic area to provide a “a synthesis based upon evidence in published peer-reviewed journal of empirical studies conducted on servant leadership theory in organizational settings” (Parris, D., & Peachey, J., 2013, p. 380).

 

• Does the literature fit the study’s overall approach?

Yes overall it does. It is a comprehensive review of recent literature in the subject matter. I would rate the article at 3.

References

Parris, D., & Peachey, J. (2013). A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts. Journal Of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377-393. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6

I have chosen to use the article by Parris, D., & Peachey, J. (2013).

A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts. Journal Of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377-393 to complete the Unit 4.2 assignment.

 

• Is the topic interesting?

The topic of Servant Leadership is interesting because although its origins stem from the leadership style of Jesus Christ, it has not been studied in leadership theory until recently.  (Sendjaya, S. and Sattos, J., 2002, p. 57 and 58).The topic is introduced in a broad context, by Parris, D., & Peachey, J. by describing the topic of Servant Leadership as one that is linked to ethics, virtues,and morality” (2013, p. 377). By introducing the topic in a broad context, the research appeals to a broader audience.  Rating: 3

Is there a meaningful problem?

The problem is clearly stated that there is a controversy surrounding Servant Leadership, and according to Parris, D., & Peachey, J., critics of the theory are concerned whether this new leadership theory is “significantly distinct, viable, and valuable for organizational success” (Parris and Peachey, 2013, p. 377). I believe that the research is very important, as first and most importantly, the research must prove that Servant Leadership is a distinct style of its own. Rating: 3.

• Is the importance of the problem justified?

Clear evidence of the problem of proving that Servant Leadership is a distinct style of its own becomes apparent, when the Systematic Literature Review conducted by the authors reveals that part of the problem with Servant Leadership Theory is that there are several interpretations of what characteristics actually define Servant Leadership (Parris, D., & Peachey, J., 2013, p.380). This lack of consensus has created confusion and has resulted in the majority of the research to date, focussing on conceptualizing a definition and creating measurement tools for empirical testing (Parris, D., & Peachey, J., 2013, p. 389). Rating: 3

• Are there deficiencies in the knowledge about the problem?

Without one standard, accepted definition of what Servant Leadership is, many of the researchers have developed their own models for testing based on their definition of Servant Leadership; resulting in a state of confusion and detracting from the outcomes of their research (Van Dierendonck, 2011) in (Parris, D., & Peachey, J., 2013, p. 389). To further complicate the theory, the researchers also discovered that cross cultural studies indicate that different attributes of Servant Leadership were weighted differently across cultures (Parris, D., & Peachey, J., 2013, p.387). Rating: 3  

• Is an audience identified and are there specific examples of how the audience can use the missing knowledge?

The research found that Servant Leadership theory remains under-defined with no theoretical framework (Parris, D., & Peachey, J., 2013, p. 389). In my opinion, more research needs to be done to reach consensus on the characteristics of Servant Leadership, so that a consistent model and framework can be utilized for future research.  The agreed upon model and framework could then be more easily applied and studied in an organizational setting. Rating: 3

• Does the passage clearly argue that the study is warranted?

The problem, deficiencies and results are clearly stated and logically discussed. The authors provide a thorough analysis and review of current literature and the status of Servant Leadership Theory.  Rating: 3.

• Is the passage well written?

The study is well-written and very interesting. The authors were very systematic in compiling their research.  The conclusions were discussed in detail.  Strengths and weaknesses of the study were also discussed and highlighted.  Rating: 3

My overall quality rating of the study is 3.

References

Parris, D., & Peachey, J. (2013). A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts. Journal Of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377-393. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6

 

Learning Activity 4.1

• Why is servant leadership an interesting or worthwhile topic/phenomenon to research?

 

Servant leadership is an interesting topic/phenomenon to research because typically the words  “servant” and “leadership” are oxymorons, they are a contradiction in terms of how most scholars view attributes of a leader (Sendjaya, S. and Sattos, J., 2002 p. 57 and p. 59). Typically, a leader is thought to be someone who “leads”, “commands”, or “gives orders” to their organization, and not someone who “serves others first, rather than leads first” (Gromm, 1995; Yukl, 1989) in Sendjaya, S. and Sarros, J. (2002, p. 59). In Greenleaf’s Model of Servant Leadership (1977), a servant leader deliberately chooses to serve first rather than lead first; it is a conscious decision to put others needs ahead of your own (Sendjaya, S. and Sattos, J., 2002, p. 57).

 

• Why would this article interest researchers in the leadership field?

 

Researchers are interested in the field of servant leadership, because it is intriguing to analyze how a person that displays the qualities typically perceived of a “servant” could be a leader. Intellectually, and based on common perceptions, it would seem that a servant cannot be a leader and vice versa. There has been anecdotal observation of servant leadership, such as Spears (1995), who attempted to establish ten characteristics of a servant leader. These would be:  “listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, a commitment to growth of people and community” (Sendjaya, S. and Sarros, J., 2002, p. 58). But these attributes were identified upon reading Greenleaf’s essays and not based on rigorous analysis and research. (Sendjaya, S. and Sarros, J., 2002, p. 57). Although the origins of servant leadership has been traced back to its founder, Jesus Christ, it has only recently become a topic of interest to researchers.    

 

• What is already known about servant leadership?

 

In religion we know that service is the core trait of leadership (Sendjaya, S. and Sarros, J., 2002, p. 58). Jesus washing the feet of his disciples, is an example of how Jesus not only taught his people the qualities of servant leadership, but practiced them as well (Sendjaya, S. and Sarros, J.,2002, p. 59). In thinking of Jesus Christ, he reveals the personality attribute of “strength” in the concept that “I am the leader, therefore, I shall serve”, rather than “I am the leader, therefore, I shall lead” (Sendjaya, S. and Sarros, J., 2002, p. 60). According to De Pree (1989), “at its core, the nature of the servant leadership is serving, not leading” (Sendjaya, S. and Sarros, J., 2002, p. 60). It is important to note that being a servant leader emanates from having a strong self-concept and being confident in yourself to make the decision to serve; it should not be viewed as a weakness. In the case of Jesus washing his disciples feet; Jesus made a deliberate decision to “serve his disciples, because of his strong self-image, he placed himself before them and made “a deliberate offering of himself”. (Sendjaya, S. and Sarros, J., 2002, p.60). The two core characteristics of servant leadership are: a strong core self-image, and the drive to consciously acknowledge “I am the leader, therefore I shall serve” (Sendjaya, S. and Sarros, J., 2002, p.62).

References

 

Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J.C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application in organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, 9(2). 57-64.