Antecedents and consequences of servant leadership in local governance: Evidence from three case studies

• Published date: 01 November 2022
• Author: Pallavi Awasthi,Fred O. Walumbwa
• Date: 01 November 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13552

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Antecedents and consequences of servant leadership in local

governance: Evidence from three case studies

Pallavi Awasthi

1

| Fred O. Walumbwa

2

1

Department of Public Administration/Real

Estate Development, H. Wayne Huizenga

College of Business, Nova Southeastern

University, Davie, Florida, USA

2

Department of International Business, College

of Business, Florida International University,

Miami, Florida, USA

Correspondence

Pallavi Awasthi, Department of Public

Administration/Real Estate Development,

H. Wayne Huizenga College of Business, Nova

Southeastern University, Carl Desantis Building,

Suite 2088, 3301 College Ave, Davie, FL 33314,

USA.

Email: pawasthi@nova.edu

Funding information

Florida International University, Steven J. Green

School of International and Public Affairs; Robert

K. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership

Abstract

Although servant leadership has emerged as an important community-oriented

leadership approach that is desirable for public organizations, relatively less

research attention has been devoted to understanding its antecedents as well as

its organizational and community-level consequences. Drawing on self-

categorization and stakeholder theories, this study investigates the antecedents

and consequences of servant leadership in local government agencies using a

comparative analysis of three case studies (two counties and a city). Findings

highlight two frameworks of antecedents and consequences of servant leader-

ship in local governance: (1) the underlying mechanisms—translating anteced-

ents into servant leadership and (2) the intervening mechanisms—translating as

organizational and community-level consequences of servant leadership. These

findings have implications for both public sector leadership theory and practice.

Theoretically, servant leadership emergesasaninclusiveapproachthatfosters

stakeholder engagement and community prosperity in local governments.

Practically, the findings suggest a pathway for utilizing servant leadership as an

instrument for potential selection, training, succession planning, and servant

leadership development in local government managers.

Evidence for practice

•Antecedents such as servant identity and moral potency are vital to develop

local government managers and employees as servant leaders.

•Servant leadership framework for local governance consists of five dimensions:

(1) empathy and concern for people, (2) behaving ethically, (3) conceptual skills,

(4) creating value for the community, and (5) follower centric dimensions—

putting subordinates first, empowerment, and helping subordinates grow and

succeed.

•Servant leaders utilize listening, communication, and negotiation to achieve

organizational and community service goals in local government organizations.

•Servant leadership is a community focused approach which is inclusive to the

interests and concerns of both internal as well as external stakeholders in

local government organizations. This results in building trust and sustainable

partnerships with stakeholders and overall community well-being and

prosperity.

INTRODUCTION

Diminishing community service values and erosion of

public trust in government because of the self-serving

tendencies of some public sector leaders has been an

ongoing challenge in public service organizations (Hassan

et al., 2014; Mastracci, 2017). To address this challenge,

the proponents of the new public service (NPS) paradigm

argue that public administration needs a broader

approach in researching public leadership and develop-

ing public sector leaders focused on community-oriented

shared values. Such an approach augments empowering

the constituents with an overarching goal of creating a

culture of service, responsibility, and responsiveness

Received: 29 November 2021 Revised: 6 July 2022 Accepted: 11 July 2022

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13552

Public Admin Rev. 2022;82:1077–1094. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/puar © 2022 American Society for Public Administration. 1077

towards the community (Bryson et al., 2014; Crosby &

Bryson, 2018; R. B. Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000;J.V.

Denhardt & Denhardt, 2015; Nalbandian et al., 2013;

Ospina, 2017; Van Wart, 2013; Vogel & Masal, 2015).

In this regard, servant leadership—an emerging leader-

ship theory aligns with the need for a community-centric

leadership model in public administration (Crosby &

Bryson, 2018; R. B. Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000;Ospina,2017;

Vogel & Masal, 2015). Servant leaders empower their

employees and stakeholders to ensure communities are

served to their best (Eva et al., 2019;Greenleaf,1970;Liden

et al., 2008; Liden et al., 2014a; Liden et al., 2014b). Unfortu-

nately, although servant leadership might be instrumental

in creating a pathway for a stakeholder and a community-

focused leadership culture in public administration, very lit-

tle attention has been devoted to investigating the ante-

cedents as well as organizational and community-level

consequences of servant leadership. Understanding the

antecedents of servant leadership is vital to uncover why

some managers, and not others, engage in servant leader-

ship (Sun, 2013; van Dierendonck, 2011). Of more impor-

tance as well is to understand what the utility of servant

leadership is in predicting organizational and community-

based outcomes.

Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to examine

potential antecedents and consequences of servant lead-

ership in local government organizations. We chose local

governments—the closest agencies to the community—a

highly appropriate context to investigate the servant

leadership model given its community focus (P. Hart &

Tummers, 2019). For our empirical base, we utilize case

studies of three local government agencies (two counties

and one city) in one of the largest southern states in the

United States. The case study data were obtained from

semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and

archival document analysis.

We draw from the self-categorization and the stake-

holder theories (Freeman, 2010; Turner, 1985) to explain

the relationships suggested herein. The self-

categorization theory is particularly relevant in explaining

servant identity and moral potency as potential anteced-

ents of servant leadership. It focuses on identities, defini-

tions, descriptions, categories, and concepts that people

use to define and perceive themselves as individuals (per-

sonal identity) or as a collective (we or social identity).

The theory further suggests that depending on a situa-

tion’s salience, personal identity and interpersonal behav-

ior, social identity and intergroup behavior, or dynamic

interplay prevails (Hewstone et al., 2002; Leaper, 2011).

We argue that the more salient the servant identity and

moral potency is in a leader’s self-concept, the more likely

they will display servant leadership characteristics.

Stakeholder theory emphasizes the organization’s

relationship with the broader community and society—

“stakeholders are any individual or a group who can

affect or are affected by the actions, decisions, policies,

practices, or goals of the organization”(Carroll & Buch-

holtz, 2014 , p. 74). For example, typical stakeholders in

local governments are elected officials, employees, busi-

nesses, nonprofits, and the community (Buchholz &

Rosenthal, 2004). Therefore, stakeholder theory is relevant in

explaining servant leadership as an inclusive approach in

local governments to engage multiple stakeholders in

problem-solving while also considering their interests and

concerns.

GENESIS OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP

The servant leadership term was first coined by Greenleaf

(1970). The concept emerged from his long working rela-

tionship with many leaders and observing what made

these leaders and their organizations successful over

time. Service to the least privileged in society is a salient

feature of Greenleaf’s servant leadership theory (1977b,

p. 13–14); he described it as:

Servant-leader is servant first. It begins with

the natural feeling that one wants to serve,

to serve first. Then conscious choice brings

one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply

different from one who is a leader first, per-

haps because of the need to assuage an

unusual power drive or acquire material pos-

session. The leader-first and the servant-first

are two extreme types. Between them, there

are shadings and blends that are part of the

infinite variety of human nature. The differ-

ence manifests itself in the care taken by the

servant first to make sure that other people’s

highest priority needs are being served. The

best test, and difficult to administer, is this:

Do those served grow as persons? Do they,

while being served, become healthier, wiser,

freer, more autonomous, more likely them-

selves to become servants? And, what is the

effect on the least privileged in society? Will

they benefit or at least not be further

deprived?

Servant leaders focus on creating value for all stake-

holders, including the community (Lemoine et al., 2021;

Liden et al., 2014a; Liden et al., 2014b). This aspect of ser-

vant leadership is consistent with the NPS paradigm,

which advocates for community empowerment and

social well-being as the eventual goal of public adminis-

tration (Bryson et al., 2014; R. B. Denhardt &

Denhardt, 2000; King & Stivers, 1998; Ospina, 2017). The

most referred seven dimensions of servant leadership

given by Liden et al. (2008) are: putting subordinates first,

empowering, helping followers grow and succeed, emo-

tional healing, behaving ethically, conceptual skills, and

creating value for the community.

Servant leadership distinguishes itself from the widely

popular public service motivation (PSM) theory in public

administration. PSM is an underlying individual motive

1078 ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN LOCAL GOVERNANCE