Editorial Board

A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management

Thematic and Conceptual Analysis of Servant Leadership: A Bibliometric Approach Dr. Sunil Kumar Associate Professor, Department of Human Resource Management, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab-India, sunil.25179@lpu.co.in Sweta Chettri Research Scholar, Department of Human Resource Management, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab-India, sweta.chettri@gmail.com Abstract The study of leadership has taken a paradigm shift from vision to execution due to increased competition in the globalized market. It has been analyzed that companies adopting Servant leadership continue to grow out of the various kinds of leadership. This paper analyses the studies on Servant leadership for the past 30 years, from 1991 to 2021. The papers published in SCOPUS indexed journals have been analyzed through bibliometric analysis using VOS viewer and Biblioshiny. This study is about the evolutionary history of Servant leadership from conceptual to scale development to model formation in the past 30 years. Further bibliometric analysis included descriptive analysis, cluster and thematic analysis. The study showed presently servant leadership research is limited to specific sectors like health and education, more research on servant leadership is needed in other fields. Majority of the scholars are working on employee level outcomes of servant leadership. The study showed gap in identification of servant leadership applications at organizational level across industries. Keywords: Servant Leadership, Servant Leader, Bibliometric Analysis Introduction The leadership is a critical aspect for running a dynamic and complex business. Globalization results in the emergence of international level competitive forces. There are changes in the technology we use, asymmetric and non-uniform market changes, overproduction in some industries, manipulated stock market actions, and employee demography changes. Hence, the competition in the globalized market has made a paradigm shift from leadership vision to execution. Global and multinational organizations are considering servant leadership as a form of ethical, people-centered and caring type of leadership in an organization (Blanchard, 2002; Covey, 2002; Cowan, 1996; Kumar, 2018; Senge, 1997; Van Dierendonck, 2011). Servant leadership's principles and practices can bring a new sense of community and organizational focus (Brownell, 2010). Servant leader bring out the best in the employees and cater to the community feeling and their sense of organizational belongingness (Ambali et al., 2011). According to various studies, servant leaders have a positive impact on their followers, leading to enhanced organizational performance, satisfaction, and effectiveness (Farling et al., 1999; Laub, 1999; Nyhan, 2000; Shockley-Zalabak et al., 2000). The servant leadership approach fosters higher levels of inspiration, motivation, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Russell, 2001). Eva et al. (2019) also found that organizations that implement servant leadership practices experience ongoing growth. A company like Google, which had a very modest start, starting in a garage, prioritized its employee’s first and practiced Servant leadership even when conditions were unfavorable for the company. Google presented a significant difference in its capacity to attract and retain human potential. Such instances give us more substantial reasons to expand our horizons in Servant leadership. A servant leader prioritizes the well-being of others by supporting their career aspirations and promoting the value of giving back to society. This mindset can instill a sense of responsibility towards humanity in those who follow this leadership style. According to Robbins et al. (2013), servant leadership can be characterized by five key behaviors, including listening, persuading, actively developing followers, empathizing, and accepting stewardship. Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) also identified eight dimensions of servant leadership, such as empowerment, accountability, humility, authenticity, courage, interpersonal acceptance, and stewardship, which can be used to measure this leadership approach as a latent construct. By understanding the complexities of an organization, a servant leader can prioritize the concerns of their followers and act as a mentor to help individuals reach their full potential and become self-sufficient (Rowe & Guerrero, 2012). As a Servant leader, one motivates the employees to fulfil the leader's targets and goals and wants their employees to improve and develop for their good rather than merely fulfilling the organizational goals. (Ehrhart, 2004) Hence, to practice Servant leadership, one should surpass the leader's ego and enable them to build an organizational climate fostering employee empowerment. Servant leadership crosses the organizational barriers and instils in the followers the idea of serving the organization and the community at large (Liden et al., 2008). When a leader qualities liked and appreciated by the followers, the followers try to copy and behave like the leader (Mayer et al., 2012). Thus, the virtue, the concern and care servant leaders have for their followers make them more trustworthy and liked, enabling followers to model their leaders (Schaubroeck et al., 2011). Though there are different reactions from the followers to the Servant leadership style, most of the followers appreciate and are favourable toward their leaders engaging in Servant leadership behaviour (Meuser et al., 2011). Servant leaders act as role models for their followers, support them in every possible way, engage their followers in the organization's decision-making process, and understand that they eventually have to serve the community (Reed et al., 2011; Stone et al., 2004). Studies have found that servant leaders create a positive work environment that leads to higher levels of follower satisfaction, commitment, engagement, and performance (Carter and Baghurst, 2014; Liden et al., 2008; Mayer et al., 2008; Neubert et al., 2008). According to Spears (2002), servant leadership is a model of leadership that prioritizes serving employees, customers, and the community. It involves building ethical and humble relationships with followers and focuses on developing and empowering stakeholders (Lemoine, 2015). Servant leadership is also about promoting learning in the organization (Bass, 2000). The term "Servant leadership" was first introduced by Greenleaf (1970) in his book "The Servant Leader". Although Greenleaf did not provide a formal definition of servant leadership, he described it as a phenomenon that prioritizes serving others. Though Greenleaf did not state a formal definition of Servant leadership, he described the phenomenon of Servant leadership as: “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 people's highest priority needs are served. The best test is: Do those served grow as persons; do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, more accessible, more autonomous, and more likely themselves to become servants?” (Adopted from the study of Greenleaf). According to Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), servant leadership involves prioritizing and promoting the interests of followers. This approach emphasizes individual presence and creating positive societal change, representing a transformative perspective on work and life (Spears, 2004). The effectiveness of servant leadership can be measured by the well-being, mental health, and positive emotional state of followers (Page & Wong, 2000). Servant leaders create a psychologically safe environment where followers can share their concerns for others (Schaubroeck et al., 2011). Yukl (2013) incorporated servant leadership into ethical leadership, with increased interest in this approach stemming from scandals, decreased confidence, and unethical practices. According to Walumbwa et al. (2010) the Servant leadership is different from any other kind of leadership in the following aspects: • Servant leaders are categorized with high interest and concern of the followers are also concerned with the organizational stakeholders’ success. • Unlike other leadership styles, Servant leadership has a moral component not found in any other leadership style. • Servant leaders exhibit the trait of having a mirror reflection of themselves to stay realistic and avoid excessive pride. (Graham, 1991). The concept of Servant leadership involves two contrasting terms, "servant" and "leader", which have different meanings, roles, and responsibilities. However, the Servant leadership approach explains how these seemingly different roles can be integrated and executed as one leadership concept. This approach emphasizes the importance of serving and leading at the same time, whereby the leader serves their team while the team also looks up to the leader for direction. Despite the seemingly opposing nature of these roles, they are actually complementary and work together effectively. Many scholars have explored this paradoxical yet complementary aspect of Servant leadership (Bass, 2000; Farling et al., 1999; Graham, 1991; Russel, 2001; Senge, 1997; Spears, 1995). In today's corporate world, ethical and moral concerns have become increasingly prevalent, highlighting the need for leaders to establish clear guidelines for their subordinates. Antecedents and Consequences of Servant Leadership Antecedents and consequences of servant leadership have been widely studied in the past few decades. The antecedents of servant leadership can be classified into three categories: individual, organizational, and cultural factors. Individual factors refer to the personal traits and characteristics of the leader that make them inclined towards servant leadership. According to Stone, Russell, and Patterson (2004), such traits include empathy, humility, listening skills, and a desire to serve others. Similarly, Spears (2002) suggested that the leaders who possess the qualities of kindness, honesty, and a commitment to personal growth are more likely to exhibit servant leadership. Organizational factors refer to the organizational culture and practices that support and promote servant leadership. For instance, a culture that values teamwork, collaboration, and employee empowerment is likely to foster servant leadership (Liden et al., 2008). Moreover, organizations that provide leadership development programs and encourage leadership at all levels are more likely to have servant leaders (Ehrhart, 2004). Cultural factors refer to the societal values and beliefs that promote servant leadership. For example, in collectivist cultures, where group harmony and cooperation are highly valued, servant leadership is more likely to be exhibited (Hofstede, 2011). Similarly, in cultures that emphasize spirituality and social responsibility, servant leadership is more likely to be embraced (Fry, 2003). Understanding these antecedents can help organizations develop and promote servant leaders. The effects of servant leadership can be divided into three categories: individual, organizational, and societal outcomes. Individual outcomes refer to how servant leadership affects the employees being served, and it has been shown to have a positive impact on their job satisfaction, engagement, and performance (Liden et al., 2008; Walumbwa et al., 2010). Additionally, servant leaders tend to mentor their employees, leading to their personal and professional growth. Organizational outcomes refer to how servant leadership affects the organization as a whole, and it has been linked to positive outcomes such as organizational citizenship behavior, innovation, and financial performance. Servant leadership also fosters a positive organizational culture that values trust, collaboration, and employee empowerment (Ehrhart, 2004).. Societal outcomes refer to how servant leadership affects the broader community, and servant leaders are more likely to engage in socially responsible activities that benefit the community (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). They also promote social justice and equity, leading to a fairer society. Understanding the effects of servant leadership can help organizations recognize its value and promote a culture that encourages it. Servant Leadership during COVID-19 The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on various aspects of society, including businesses and organizations. In times of crisis, leadership plays a crucial role in steering organizations through uncertainties and challenges. Servant leadership, characterized by empathy, humility, and concern for others' well-being, has emerged as a valuable approach for guiding organizations during this crisis. Empathy is a crucial aspect of servant leadership, particularly during a crisis. Leaders who practice empathy can understand their followers' perspectives and needs, leading to appropriate responses. According to Van Dierendonck and Patterson (2015), servant leaders who demonstrate empathy create a sense of psychological safety and trust among their followers, which can enhance their motivation and resilience in difficult times. Humility is another vital trait of servant leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic. Leaders who show humility can recognize their limitations and mistakes and seek input and feedback from their followers. This approach can help leaders make better decisions, foster trust and respect among their followers, and promote a culture of continuous learning (Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2015). During the pandemic, servant leaders have focused on supporting and empowering their followers to overcome the challenges they face. Some organizations have offered financial aid to employees impacted by the pandemic or provided flexible work arrangements to accommodate their needs. By demonstrating support and empowerment, servant leaders can help their followers feel valued and motivated to contribute to the organization's success (Liden et al., 2008). Several examples illustrate how servant leadership has been applied during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, Tim Ryan, the U.S. chairman of PwC, prioritized his employees' health and safety by providing them with the resources and support necessary to work from home. He also supported the firm's clients by offering advice and guidance on how to navigate the crisis. Similarly, Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, emphasized empathy and compassion in responding to the crisis and implemented policies to support vulnerable populations, businesses, and workers affected by the pandemic (McGuire et al., 2020). Criticism of Servant Leadership This paper asserts that while servant leadership has benefits, it is essential for leaders to recognize its limitations and drawbacks. The criticisms of servant leadership, including the potential for creating an unhealthy power dynamic, promoting groupthink, and limitations in achieving organizational goals. Liu (2019) found that servant leaders who prioritize serving their followers can paradoxically increase their own power and influence over them, which can be problematic if the leader is using this approach to control their followers (Mittal and Dorfman, 2012). Additionally, servant leadership has been criticized for potentially promoting groupthink. Servant leadership emphasizes the importance of collaboration and consensus-building, but in some cases, this can lead to a lack of diverse perspectives and ideas. This can result in groupthink, where individuals prioritize harmony and consensus over critical thinking and independent decision-making. Cai et al., (2018) revealed that servant leadership can hinder group creativity and innovation due to the emphasis on collaboration and consensus, which may limit diverse thinking and discourage challenging the status quo. Additionally, servant leadership has been criticized for neglecting organizational goals, potentially causing harm to the organization. Servant leadership had a negative correlation with organizational performance in some contexts, particularly in highly competitive environments. It is important to adjust one's leadership style appropriately and consider the context when utilizing any leadership approach. Study objectives and approach Parris and Peachey (2013) have recognized servant leadership as the ethical foundation and leadership structure that is essential for tackling the challenges of the 21st century. Different societies and cultures may perceive Servant leadership differently. It is based on the idea that leaders should first desire to help, thus providing leadership to serve the group's needs. This statement may be understood with different notions among the different cultural groups. Hence, it becomes crucial to understand if the effect of Servant leadership varies among different cultures. Hence, this paper has an objective of addressing the following areas of research with the help of bibliometric analysis: The evolution of Servant leadership in the past 30 years, from 1991 to 2021. • The critical areas of research in the field of Servant leadership and understanding of which area of study (authors and their citations, countries, journals, different organizational concepts associated with the study of Servant leadership, organizations and institutes) has a significant contribution towards the study of Servant leadership • To understand the prevalence of Servant leadership worldwide by connecting the network formed by authors and organizations from different countries working together in Servant leadership. The above areas have been explored, as bibliometric analysis can bring us to a structured, quantitative, and objective analysis (Najam and Mustamil, 2020). These areas, when put together, give a holistic understanding of the concept and usage of Servant leadership in today's world. This paper shall use bibliometric analysis, a quantitative, structured and objective analysis (Donthu et al. 2021). Methodology Since this is a bibliometric analysis that focuses on quantitative data, the paper shall use descriptive analysis to understand the studies/research done in Servant leadership. For the same, the paper shall outline the studies on servant leadership focusing on: evolutionary history of Servant leadership and thematic evolution, clustering and factorial maps of servant leadership. Hence, we shall inferentially conclude the concept and execution of Servant leadership understood by different authors. The review process was divided into three stages: • The Planning Phase: List down the journals recognized by SCOPUS for the past 30 years. • The Working Phase: Conducting the review of the papers listed in the planning phase. • The Concluding Phase: This stage includes the findings of the review. Software VOS Viewer and Biblioshiny are the software used for bibliometric analysis in this paper. VOS Viewer and Biblioshiny can create maps such as journal maps, publication maps, and country maps based on a network (co-citation) visualizing and exploring scientific bibliometric maps (Van Eck & Waltman, 2010). Biblioshiny is used for clustering, thematic analysis and factorial analysis of bibliometric data. Database This paper studied the articles published in SCOPUS indexed journals for the past 30 years, starting 1991 to 2021. In order to ensure precision and relevance, keywords used to search the papers were "servant leadership" and "servant leader". A total of 1217 valid publications were used in the study. Evolutionary history of Servant Leadership in the past 30 years, 1991-2021 The evolution of servant leadership can be divided into three phases. The first phase, which lasted until 1999, was focused on the conceptualization of servant leadership. During this phase, scholars like Graham (1991), Spears (1993, 1995), Lloyd (1996), Wilson (1998, 1999) explored the theoretical basis of servant leadership and its potential application in organizations. Although the term "servant leadership" was coined by Greenleaf in 1970, it was during this period that organizations and researchers began to consider it as a novel leadership approach. The focus was on how servant leadership could be used to promote employee growth and commitment during organizational reengineering and reorganization. The second phase (2005-2015) of servant leadership was characterized by a focus on scale development, with researchers like Liden et al. (2008) and Dennis & Bocarnea (2005) developing multidimensional measures and assessment tools for servant leadership. The third phase (2015-2021) of servant leadership is marked by the development of models. Researchers like Bao, Li, & Zhao (2018) and Elche, Ruiz-Palomino, & Linuesa-Langreo (2020) have explored the relationship between servant leadership and organizational outcomes, highlighting the mediating effects of empathy and service climate. Further, the year-wise publications on Servant leadership is given below (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Evolutionary history based on the year wise publication. Source: SCOPUS Source list Authors and their Citations The first area of study in the paper is to understand the contribution of authors and the co-authorship that they have with other authors and the number of citations. The prominent authors and co-authorship are shown in Figure 2, which is overlay visualization. There are 5 different clustering of co-authorship. The top authors who have contributed to the study of Servant leadership are given in Table 1. Table 1. Top 10 Authors contribution/citations S. No. Authors Documents Author Citations 1 Robert C Liden 29 D Van Dierendonck 1912 2 A Newman 28 Robert C Liden 1883 3 R F Russell 27 S J Wayne 1252 4 G Schwarz 27 S Sendjaya 1000 5 K Patterson 25 R F Russell 896 6 D Van Dierendonck 24 A Gregory Stone 736 7 M J Neubert 22 M J Neubert 684 8 S Sendjaya 22 K Patterson 607 9 S J Wayne 21 Lawrence B Chonko 583 10 B Cooper 20 James A Roberts 547 Source: SCOPUS Source list Figure 2 represents the top authors contributing to the Servant leadership study. Different colors represent five clusters. The green cluster represents the authors working on servant leadership study around the year 2010 and has authors like Patterson, Russell, Gregory Stone, Winston and Field working around it. Then we have a purple cluster where we have Van Dierendonck as the significant contributor to the Servant leadership study during 2014; Dierendonck has worked with other authors like Liden, Patterson, Sendjaya, and N Eva. We then have the red cluster where R C Liden is the major contributor to the Servant leadership studies around 2016. This cluster also has other contributors like Henderson, Z Wang, S J Wayne and Cao. The blue cluster represents researchers like Cooper, Newman and Miao. The yellow cluster highlights the most recent contributors to the Servant leadership study like N Eva and M Robin, who have worked with authors like Sendjaya, Liden and Van Dierendonck. The second part presents a relationship between authors and their citations with a minimum of 50 citations as the benchmark. The author citation is represented in network visualization in Figure 2. There are a total of 71 items in 5 clusters. Figure 2. Authors’ citations clusters-servant leadership Source: SCOPUS Source list Countries across the globe working on Servant Leadership The second area of study was to analyze the countries contributing to the study of Servant leadership. This analysis has been represented in network visualization with a minimum of 10 documents for each country. It has been found that the United States has the maximum number of articles (549) and citations (2997), respectively. It leads to a substantial difference in the study of Servant leadership in the United States compared to any other country. The United States is followed by China, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, South Africa, Spain and India in the ninth position. There are 5 clusters identified. Cluster 1: the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada. Cluster 2: China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Cluster 3: South Korea, South Africa, Pakistan, Malaysia and Iran. Cluster 4: Australia, India and Indonesia. Cluster 5: Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, Netherlands and Turkey. However, the linkage of a particular country is not just limited to the cluster it belongs. We can see that most countries worldwide are working in collaboration with the United States, including countries like China, India, the Netherlands, South Korea, and Spain. Hence, this is a critical analysis that helps us understand that many countries worldwide have taken up the study of Servant leadership. People from different countries are coming together to study and analyze Servant leadership. The contribution of different countries to the study of Servant leadership is represented as a network visualization form in the Figure 3. Figure 3. Top countries working on Servant leadership Source: SCOPUS Source list Top Sources/Journals published the Servant Leadership research The third area of the study is analyzing the SCOPUS indexed journals publishing the servant leadership/servant leader research. Hence, the visualization of journals publishing the work in the said area is represented in the Table 2. Table 2. Top 5 Journals published on Servant leadership S. No. Source/Journals Document Citations SJR CiteScore 1 Leadership and Organization Development Journal 38 739 0.913 4.9 2 Journal of Business Ethics 34 1679 2.438 10.8 3 International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching 19 9 0.631 3.2 4 International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 14 417 2.288 11.1 5 Frontiers in Psychology 14 89 0.873 4.0 Source: SCOPUS Source list Keywords Associated with the Servant Leadership The next area of the study is to analyze the different keywords used in the study of Servant leadership. It is to understand the different areas in which the concepts of Servant leadership have been used. Employee job performance, job satisfaction, trust, ethical leadership and the hospitality industry seem significantly associated with Servant leadership. The linkage of Servant leadership with other keywords is given in figure 4 in the form of network visualization. The minimum number of occurrences of a keyword was taken as 10, so out of 3313 keywords used, 278 keywords met the threshold. It has been found that the Servant leadership studies are being linked with job performance, job satisfaction, trust, ethical leadership, organizational commitment, corporate social responsibility and the hospitality industry. The linkage of Servant leadership with other keywords is given in figure 6 in the form of overlay visualization. Figure 4. Overlay visualization of keywords in servant leadership Source: SCOPUS database However, there were other keywords with a higher number of occurrences; the keywords which seemed to have higher relevance to the study of Servant leadership have been listed. From our country-wise analysis, the United States has the highest number of Servant leadership studies. The occurrence of the United States in the list of keywords further reaffirms the same. The keywords have a significant linkage with the concept of Servant leadership. It also gives us further directions of permutations and combinations of different aspects/areas in which the study of Servant leadership can be further explored. Organizations/Universities The Figure 5 presents the organizations/universities working on Servant Leadership Studies. Some of the influential organizations/universities working on Servant leadership were analyzed as co-authors and organizations. Figure 5. Network Visualization of Co-authors and Organizations Source: SCOPUS database A minimum threshold of five papers per organization was considered. Baylor University had 32 documents under two different authors, i.e. Hunter and Neubert, with a count of 16 for each author. Emory and Henry College also had a count of 16 documents. There were 77 Universities/Organizations, which had a count of 8 documents per organization. Sixteen Universities/Organizations had a count of 7 documents each, and 2 Universities/Organizations had five documents each under them for Servant leadership. Besides the top two, some other vital universities are Widener University(US), Oklahoma State University(US), University of Central Florida (US), University of Quebec(Canada), Regent University (US), University of Johannesburg (South Africa) to name a few. Thematic Evolution of Servant Leadership The thematic evolution of the servant leadership theory in organizational context is divided into different time zones. In the last century the thematic focus was on leadership mainly in the United States. In 2001-2010 the thematic evolution enters mainly into health care industry to access the quality aspects. Leadership in nursing roles with their social behaviour was explored as main themes. From 2011-2021 servant leadership studies were aligned to various organizational and management factors of burnout and workplace management (see Figure 6). Figure 6. Thematic Evolution of Servant Leadership Source: Biblioshiny Clustering The Figure 7 shows authors coupling. The clustering shows four major areas. The coupling strength is higher in leadership and low in the niche area of job satisfaction, health and behavioral research. The article on servant leadership stated the gender applications. The behaviour research is significantly adopting servant leadership as a critical theme. Figure 7. Clusters by Authors Coupling Source: Biblioshiny Figure 8. Cluster Dendrogram Source: Biblioshiny The dendrogram in Figure 8, represents relationships and hierarchical order through clustering various items and concepts of servant leadership. The associations are presented in two main categories. First category presents the ‘healthcare’ and ‘review’. In the second category, employee, gender, workplace, occupation, psychology, wellbeing, perception, attitudes were weighted under sub categories. The second cluster deals with employee and human aspects. The sub-categories show interpersonal relationships, psychological aspects in healthcare employees. The servant leadership studies are significantly contributing toward employee motivation, social behaviour, empowerment and organizational culture theory. Conceptual Structure Map The contextual structure map presents the common words used in servant leadership studies. The red area and blue area present two different conceptual clusters. Figure 9. Conceptual Structural Map Source: Biblioshiny In the red area various sub contextual structure can identified. The United States presents work on organizational culture, humans, and personal management and motivation aspects. China is associated with leadership, social behaviour, perception, ethics and employment aspects. Servant leadership concepts are revolving more around healthcare, nursing, empathy and employee psychology (see Figure 9). Discussion and Conclusion In the past 30 years, organizations have shown a gradual shift in the adoption of Servant leadership. From 1991 to 1998, studies depict it as a new approach to leadership. The year 1999 onward focus shifted toward empirical studies presenting model development and Servant leadership measures. Servant leadership is explored across different cultures and analyzed its impact on followers' needs and work. The year 2011 to 2021 sees the study of Servant leadership with mediation and moderation effect; it analyzed the effect of Servant leadership on culture, employee performance, firm performance, and organizational citizenship behaviour. Hence, there are different organizational aspects from which we can study and explore the concept and applicability of Servant leadership. The Study of Servant leadership in India is still in the nascent stage. The contribution of Indians to the field of Servant leadership is less compared to countries like the United States, United Kingdom, China, Canada, South Africa and Australia. More than 20% of the Fortune magazine top 100 companies have asked for guidance from the Greenleaf Centre for implementing Servant leadership. Some of these companies are Starbucks – which believes that valuing its employees can only lead to shareholder values, Vanguard Investment Group, and Southwest Airlines (Parris & Peachey 2013). Companies that have adopted Servant leadership are Balfour Beatty, which focuses on its employees' personal and professional success, and Marriot International, which has a culture of serving its customers and employees. Nordstrom, a famous departmental store, places its sales and floor staff at the top (Sivasubramaniam J, 2017). Unlike the earlier understanding that Servant leadership only focuses on boosting employee morale, it has been proved that Servant leadership also helps increase the company's profit, according to the research from Emlyon Business School in France. This study was conducted on 55 stores of the same company in France. The growth of these stores was rated negatively. However, out of the 22 stores with a positive growth rate, 18 have Managers scoring higher on Servant leadership (Percy, 2020). In India, we have leaders like Shri Narayan Murthy, who implemented the concept of Servant leadership in Infosys, which makes it a CMM Level 5 company. Shri Azim Premji, the Chairman of Wipro, was an exemplary Servant leader who brought about professional excellence and economic success to the company. The Tata Group, led by Shri Ratan Tata, also has the Servant leadership style adapted to its organizational culture, making the company what it is today (Mishra and Mahapatra, 2018). Hence, in India, we can target more empirical research on Servant leadership to see its impact on organizations, employees, and profit margins. Servant leadership has applications in the actual work environment, which has already been seen in the western part of the world. Hence, in the new era of business, our focus should be on leaders leading the followers to the best by serving them in the truest sense of Servant leadership. Servant leadership is gaining acceptance in modern organizations. The problems in contemporary leadership styles are finding solutions in the aura of servant leadership. References Ambali, A. R., Suleiman, G. E., Bakar, A. N., Hashim, R., & Tariq, Z. (2011). Servant leadership’s values and staff’s commitment: policy implementation focus. American Journal of Scientific Research, 13(1), 18-40. Bao, Y., Li, C. and Zhao, H. (2018). Servant leadership and engagement: A dual mediation model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 33(6), 406-417. Barbuto Jr, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & organization management, 31(3), 300-326. Bass, B. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3), 18–40. Blanchard, K. (2002). “Foreword: The heart of servant-leadership.” In L. C. Spears & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Focus on leadership: Servant leadership for the twenty-first century (ix-xii). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Brownell, J. (2010). Leadership in the service of hospitality. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 51(3), 363-378. Cai, W., Lysova, E. I., Khapova, S. N., & Bossink, B. A. (2018). Servant leadership and innovative work behavior in Chinese high-tech firms: A moderated mediation model of meaningful work and job autonomy. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 1767. Carter, D., & Baghurst, T. (2014). The influence of servant leadership on restaurant employee engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(3), 453-464. Covey, S. R. (2002). Servant-leadership and community leadership in the twenty-first century. In L. C. Spears & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Focus on leadership: Servant leadership for the 21st century (27-33). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Cowan, J. (1996). Reflections on Leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's Theory of Servant-Leadership Influenced Today's Top Management Thinkers. Consulting to Management, 9(1), 67. Dennis, R. S., & Bocarnea, M. (2005). “Development of the Servant leadership assessment instrument.” Leadership & organization development journal, 26(8), 600-615. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296. Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit‐level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel psychology, 57(1), 61-94. Elche, D., Ruiz-Palomino, P., & Linuesa-Langreo, J. (2020). Servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: the mediating effect of empathy and service climate. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(6), 2035-2053. Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., Van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The leadership quarterly, 30(1), 111-132. Farling, M. L., Stone, A. G., & Winston, B. E. (1999). Servant leadership: Setting the stage for empirical research. Journal of leadership studies, 6(1-2), 49-72. Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The leadership quarterly, 14(6), 693-727. Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. The leadership quarterly, 2(2), 105-119. Greenleaf, R. (1970). The servant as leader. Indianapolis, IN: Robert K. Greenleaf Center. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online readings in psychology and culture, 2(1), 2307-0919. Kumar, S. (2018). Servant leadership: A review of literature. Pacific Business Review International, 11(1), 43-50. Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the servant organizational leadership assessment (SOLA) instrument. Florida Atlantic University. Lemoine, G. J. (2015). Closing the leadership circle: Building and testing a contingent theory of servant leadership (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1853/53862. 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. Liu, H. (2019). Just the servant: An intersectional critique of servant leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(4), 1099-1112. Lloyd, B. (1996). A new approach to leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17 (7), 29-32. McGuire, D., Cunningham, J. E., Reynolds, K., & Matthews-Smith, G. (2020). Beating the virus: an examination of the crisis communication approach taken by New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern during the Covid-19 pandemic. Human resource development international, 23(4), 361-379. Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012). Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. Academy of management journal, 55(1), 151-171. 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. Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Henderson, D. J. (2011, August). Is servant leadership always a good thing? The moderating influence of servant leadership prototype. In annual meeting of the Academy of Management, San Antonio, Texas. Mishra, A., & Mahapatra, M. (2019). Servant leadership in India: a journey from past to present. Review of Professional Management, 16(2), 79-87. Mittal, R., & Dorfman, P. W. (2012). Servant leadership across cultures. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 555-570. Mujtaba, B. G., & Cavico, F. J. (2020). COVID-19 and remote work: An update. Journal of Business Research, 118, 253-256. Najam, U., & Mustamil, N. (2020). Servant leadership: A bibliometric review. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 9(3), 138-155. Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of applied psychology, 93(6), 1220. Nyhan, R. C. (2000). Changing the paradigm: Trust and its role in public sector organizations. The American Review of Public Administration, 30(1), 87-109. Page, D., & Wong, T. P. (2000). A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership. The human factor in shaping the course of history and development, 69, 110. 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. Percy, S. (2020). How servant leaders boost profits and employee morale. https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypercy/2020/07/15/how-servant-leaders-boost-profits-and-employee-morale/?sh=27116b954b05 Reed, L. L., Vidaver-Cohen, D., & Colwell, S. R. (2011). A new scale to measure executive servant leadership: Development, analysis, and implications for research. Journal of business ethics, 101(3), 415-434. Robbins, S., Judge, T. A., Millett, B., & Boyle, M. (2013). Organisational behaviour: Pearson Higher Education AU. Rowe, W. G., & Guerrero, L. (Eds.). (2012). Cases in leadership. Sage Publications, Inc., USA. Russell, R. F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership & organization development journal, 22(2), 76-84. Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of applied psychology, 96(4), 863. Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application in organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2), 57-64. Senge, P. M. (1997). Communities of leaders and learners. Harvard Business Review, 75(5), 30-31. Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K., & Winograd, G. (2000). Organizational trust: What it means, why it matters. Organization Development Journal, 18(4), 35. Sivasubramaniam, J. (2017). 5 companies that embrace servant leadership. https://ideas.bkconnection.com/five-surprising-companies-that-embrace-servant-leadership Spears, L. C. (1993). Trustees as servant-leaders: A report and reference guide. International Journal of Value-Based Management, 6(1), 83-99. Spears, L. C. (1995). Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's theory of servant-leadership influenced today's top management thinkers (No. 658.4092 R333r). Wiley,. Spears, L. C. (2002). Tracing the past, present, and future of servant-leadership. In L. C. Spears, & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Focus on leadership: Servant leadership for the twenty-first century. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Spears, L. C. (2004). Practicing servant-leadership [Electronic version]. Leader to Leader, 34, 7-11. Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus Servant leadership: A difference in leader focus. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25(4), 349–361. Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of management, 37(4), 1228-1261. Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of business and psychology, 26(3), 249-267. Van Dierendonck, D., & Patterson, K. (2015). Compassionate love as a cornerstone of servant leadership: An integration of previous theorizing and research. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 119-131. Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538. 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. Journal of applied psychology, 95(3), 517. Wilson, R. T. (1998). Servant leadership.(Servant Leadership). Physician executive, 24(5), 6-13. Wilson, R. T. (1999). Servant leadership. Journal of Integrated Care, 3(2), 100-107. Yukl, G. A. (2013). Leadership in organizations. Pearson Education India.