LDRS591, Unit 4, Activity 4.2

Using Plano-Clark and Creswell’s (2015) evaluation criteria of a research problem, I will evaluate Parris and Peachey’s (2013) question: How was servant leadership (SL) defined, empirically investigated, and examined in precedent literature (p. 378)? The evaluation criteria consists of seven components which are rated on a scale of 0-3 from poor-excellent as indicated below:

1. The topic is interesting (2/3) – While the question is intriguing, the study’s research goal does not seek to answer the specific question of how to empirically investigate SL, but instead compiles and organizes previous ideas from previous literature. I am more interested in the specific answers to the question than a discussion on how others studied SL in the past.
2. There is a meaningful problem (3/3)- The problem proposed by Parris & Peachey (2013) is “Greenleaf’s conceptualization of servant leadership as a way of life rather than as a management technique perhaps has slowed the acceptance of this leadership theory in academia” (p. 378). Servant leadership is a viable leadership theory capable of resolving leadership issues in the twenty-first century (p. 378), but due to the current presentation of SL as a philosophy, it is not taken as a leadership technique; this is a meaningful issue.
3. The importance of the problem is justified (3/3)- Precedent literature recognize the “positive effects of servant leadership on organizational profits and employee satisfaction” (Parris & Peachey, 2013, p. 378), but without a testable and observable evaluation process, SL “would be difficult to operationalize and apply” (p. 378). The importance of recognizing SL as a practical leadership technique is justified.
4. There are deficiencies in the knowledge about the problem (3/3) – The article states “there does not exist a comprehensive summary of empirical studies exploring servant leadership theory in organizational settings […], which is a gap in the extant literature” (Parris & Peachey, 2013, p. 378) and that “only a limited amount of research has empirically examined [SL]” (p. 378). This indicates the lack of empirical knowledge compiled in this area.
5. There are audiences who can benefit from the missing knowledge (2/3)- Parris & Peachey (2013) identify beneficiaries of this study as “scholars and practitioners who are responding to the growing perceptions that corporate leader have become selfish and who are seeking a viable leadership theory to help resolve the challenges of the twenty-first century” (p. 378). My issue  is the study may not have a significant compilation of studies to fill this missing knowledge by compiling information alone.
6. The passage clearly argues that the study is warranted (3/3) – Parris & Peachey (2013) argue its method – systematic literature review – “adopts a replicable, scientific, and transparent process that aims to mitigate bias” (p. 378) crucial to the management of research.
7. The passage is well written (3/3) – In sum, the article guides readers easily through the issues and study of SL, and presents the information engagingly.

   References

   Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 113 (3), 377-393.

   Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.