Impacts of servant leadership style on organizational engagement of employees implications for research on leadership and employee engagement

2-4]. “How to achieve more for less in a A question raised here is how to enhance sustainable way?” is a big question for any employee engagement with their job and organization, especially for public organization. There are several ways to address organizations. This is because the answer for this question. One considerable factor that that helps to solve the dilemma faced by many affects employee engagement is leadership organizations, which is to have to offer services style. Specifically, leaders/managers with a at the highest standard while possessing limited proper leadership style may motivate their resources [1]. One suggested solution as the employees to engage in useful activities answer is enhancing employee engagement contributing to organizational success [5]. Thus, with their job and organization. This derives determining and developing the styles which from the positive influence of employee positively link to employee engagement have engagement on organizational outcomes, e.g. emerged into an attractive topic to both academics and practitioners. _______ Servant leadership style is not new but still  Corresponding author. Tel.: 84-24-35586013. interested by researchers because of its potential Email: nathu@vnu.edu.vn to improve employee engagement in the ever- https://doi.org/10.25073/2588-1116/vnupam.4112 challenging context to organizations. The 58 N.A. Thu, D.H. Anh / VNU Journal of Science: Policy and Management Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3 (2017)58-71 59 emergence of employees‟ need for supportive order to determine where servant leadership supervisors/managers/organization is style is positioned in the literature. Certainly, considered as one of the key psychological the section will provide details of servant needs of employees at work [6]. A leader can leadership style so that readers can understand work as a servant in the way that they are the link of the style to the remaining sections of always available to provide necessary supports the paper. and resources for their followers to work well. Starting with general understanding of Once employees‟ needs are satisfied, their leadership is to clarify the scope of the topic in engagement can be enhanced. this study. There have been different definitions Because of the rapid changes in most areas, of leadership. The variation of the definition is leaders may not stick to only one certain style mainly semantic [7]. Thus, this study adopts a during their working life. It is important to look definition of leadership adapted from Kreitner at different leadership styles to see their (2009) and Naylor (2004) statements, which relationship with employee engagement in states that leadership is the process of inspiring, order to consider if and how they need to influencing and guiding other people towards develop a proper leadership style for their achievement of organizational goals [7, 8]. subordinates and organization. Casimir (2001) claimed that “leadership As a result, the purpose of this paper is to style may be defined as a pattern of emphases, identify the link between servant leadership indexed by the frequency or intensity of style and employees‟ engagement with their specific leadership behaviors or attitudes, which organization. The study will address two main a leader places on the different leadership research questions as follows: functions” [9]. - How can servant leadership style impact Historically, the most typical theories about on employees‟ organizational engagement? leadership style include behavioural theories - What are the implications for the research (style theories), situational/contingency model, on the impacts in the future? and multidimensional analysis of leadership style. To address the research questions above, Since the World War II, behavioural the study will review the literature of leadership theories constructed leadership styles basing on styles and employees‟ organizational a leader‟s behavior pattern [7]. Accordingly, engagement through the method of document main types of leaders‟ behaviors are the origins analysis. Based on examining different of leadership styles. For example, authority perspectives and theories of leadership styles, centralization and decentralization behaviours particularly servant leadership style, as well as lead to authoritarian, democratic and laissez- employees‟ organizational engagement, the study faire styles (perspective of Universities of Iowa will infer how servant style can affect employee 1938); task-oriented and people-oriented engagement with their organization and the behaviours produce initiating structure and implication of the influence for the consideration styles (studied by University of future research. Michigan & Ohio State 1951, cited from [10]); the behavioural patterns of concern for production and for people result in the 2. Overview of Leadership styles and Servant leadership grid including impoverished leadership style management style (low in both concerns), country club management style (low in 2.1. Overview of leadership styles production concern, high in people one), authority-compliance style (high in production This section aims at reviewing the main concern, low in the other, team management perspectives and theories on leadership styles in 60 N.A. Thu, D.H. Anh / VNU Journal of Science: Policy and Management Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3 (2017) 58-71 style (high in both concerns) and middle of the Continuing to focus on contextual changes road management style (average of both within organizations and wider, James concerns) [11]. McGregor Burns (1978) proposes However, behavioural models are criticized transformational leadership style which is a because a leader‟s style does not usually style possessed by visionaries “who challenge include only one component, but is also people to achieve exceptionally high level of composed of both opposite components morality, motivation, and performance” (cited mentioned above [12]. Furthermore, to reflect from [7]). Burns even claims that only the whole leadership style, the essentials of a transformational leaders are able to master leader‟s real conception, values, belief and changes as one of the key characteristics of preference need to be included in the style modern organizations. Charisma is an attribute construction [13]. added to transformational style to emphasize the special power of transformational leaders in Based on an assumption that “no one best inspiring their subordinates to do the style of leadership exists” [7], situational or unexpected, above and beyond the plan [7]. contingency theories propose three components Besides, transactional style which is to focus on of a leadership style, including leaders‟ traits, motivating people to do the expected plan is behaviours and situational factors [14]. It is also necessary for organizations today [7]. important that for situational theorists, leaders‟ traits are internal qualities, namely personality, From the literature, servant leadership style physical and mental characteristics, which are has been proposed related to the perspectives inborn for effective leaders. Contingency focusing on ethical, moral, and spiritual theorists do not emphasize the behavioural leadership. This is because, over the time, the component because they focus on the flexibility changes in society and organizations from of situations and the match between behaviours short-term and personal bonus oriented to long- and situations to make successful leadership term societally responsible focus ask people to [7]. For instance, when situational factors, think about a sustainable leadership way by namely leader-member relation, task structure, which employees/followers are as respected as position power, change, leaders can have task- and by their leaders [16]. oriented or people-oriented styles (Fiedler 2.2. Overview of Servant leadership style model 1967, cited from [14]); or contingency factors such as the impact of decision on The term servant leadership was first performance, the willingness of the followers to coined by Greenleaf (1977) who defined it as accept the decision and the time needed to make follows: “The servant leader is servant first. It the decision vary, the leader‟s style can be begins with a natural feeling that one wants to autocratic or consultative or group (Vroom & serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice Yetton, cited from [8]). brings one to aspire to lead.” [17]. By saying Nevertheless, contingency theories have that, he emphasizes the willingness and desire been questioned whether a leader‟s style to serve as the fundamental characteristic of a remains when his/her context changes or not. servant leader who can gain leadership skills Hence, it is claimed that situational factors through serving their followers. should not be included as a component of The philosophy was stimulated and clarified leadership style [15]. However, the appearance with sets of servant leader attributes or of situational factors in leadership styles reflects multidimensional measures of servant the ever-changing status of society and leadership under different frameworks. Spears organizations. Thus, it should be considered as (1998) typified ten different qualities of a a factor affecting how to choose a suitable servant leader including: listening, empathy, leadership style. N.A. Thu, D.H. Anh / VNU Journal of Science: Policy and Management Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3 (2017)58-71 61 healing, awareness, persuasion, the key stakeholders (employees, organization, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, and community) is underlined [24]. commitment to the growth of people, and To serve the purpose of examining the building community [18]. Page and Wong impacts of Servant leadership on Organizational (2000) named empowering and fostering Engagement of Employee, the multidimensional followers, humility, service, vision, integrity, set of servant leadership behaviours proposed by sincerity, participative and inspirational Ekinci (2015) was adopted as the core model in elements as characteristics of servant leadership this study. Five attributes of a servant leader is [19]. According to Covey (2002), a servant described as follows: leader is required to possess following Empathy: According to Spears (2004), characteristics: humility, reverence, open- empathy requires the leader to form the mindedness, eagerness for learning, perspective of appreciating each employee‟s respectfulness, helpfulness, and determination value and caring about their needs and feelings [20]. In Patterson‟s (2003) study, seven factors [25]. It includes key elements such as helping, were concluded to construct a servant leader, active listening, sharing, social interactions, and namely humility, altruism, vision, trust, other altruistic behaviours. Such factors help empowerment, service, and follower‟s agape avoiding misunderstanding, miscommunication, [21]. It can be generalized that above- and misconceptions among members of an mentioned traits of servant leadership are organization. basically based on “behavioral, relational, and emotional concepts” [22]. Altruism: Altruistic behaviours, the basis of servant leadership approach, are based on the Instead of focusing on identifying leader‟s willingness to serve the followers, behavioral characteristics of servant leadership, focus on their needs and expectations, help Ng, Koh, & Goh (2008) switched the centrality solving their problems [17]. Altruism adjures to motivation to serve as the driving force the leader to set a model of respecting group behind as well as impacts on such leadership benefits and serving others, rather than being behaviors, aligned with the core of Greenleaf‟s selfish and purely giving orders and commands. (1977) philosophy of servant leadership [23]. It As a result, it will exert positive effects on is concluded that “motivation-to-serve is a organizational processes such as “worker‟s construct that exhibits both trait-like as well as commitment, sense of belonging, and state-like attributes”, which means individual dedication” [26]. personalities, value orientations, and experience with servant leaders decide the willingness to Humility: It is considered one of the most serve of a leader. To be more specific, important and significant qualities of a servant agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, leader because humble attitudes and behaviours self-enhancement values, self-transcendent can resolve the “social borders in values, and experience with servant leaders communication” between leaders and followers, exert significant impacts on individual servant generate “sincerity and respect to grow”, and leadership behaviors. Furthermore, the engage employees basing on “internal empowering climate of an organization is claimed commitment” [21]. to be a situational moderator that enables or Integrity: One of the most striking features discourages individual‟s motivation-to-serve. distinguishing servant leadership from other In general, servant leadership represents a leadership approaches is its emphasis on model of leadership in which the balance morality. The leader‟s consistency and between morality, mission achievement, and commitment to ethical values engender promoting the best interests and wellbeing of sincerity, build trust, and enable acceptability in 62 N.A. Thu, D.H. Anh / VNU Journal of Science: Policy and Management Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3 (2017) 58-71 the follower towards the leader and the Second, one striking factor that makes organization [17; 27; 28]. servant leadership distinctive is the priority of Justice: Servant leaders necessarily followers‟ individual growth and development acknowledge rights of individuals and manifest [36]. The commonly-shared focal behavior of fairness “in the organizational process with other leadership styles is inspiring and engaging tasks, sharing of sources, and evaluation of followers as a means to accomplish missions by workers” [22].There exists evidence of connecting individual values of the follower correlation between justice and employees‟ with common goals of the organization [33]. “acceptance of sacrifice, commitment, and More importantly, the needs and interests of dedication” [29 - 31]. stakeholders including employees, organization, and community are seriously considered in This framework bears some advantages servant leadership. Servant leaders lead through compared with previous models because service, instilling followers' voluntary overlapping attributes in Spears‟ (1998), Page commitment, cooperation, and responsibility. and Wong‟s (2000), Covey‟s (2002), and Patterson‟s (2003) can be avoided. Moreover, Finally, self-reflection to attenuate the Ekinci‟s (2015) model was employed in leader‟s hubris is necessary for a servant leader thoughtful consideration of educational context [37] while it is a behavior excluded in where moral values are expected to be more authentic, ethical, and transformational highlighted [22]. This correlates with the leadership. central focus of servant leadership which Traditional leadership models prioritizing emphasizes ethical aspects. corporate goals in the short term was suitable in the period of industrialization when employees 2.3. Servant Leadership and Related were considered as a means to achieve Leadership Theories organizational goals, but “has limitations in this period that requires continuous high In comparison with other idealized concepts performance” [16]. Therefore, servant of leadership, servant leadership shares some leadership, with sustainability-focused common traits such as: role modeling, approach and its above-mentioned inspirational communication, and altruism [32]. distinguishing features explains the However, servant leadership bears important proliferation of empirical studies in the field of differences from related leadership theories. servant leadership. Primarily, morality is one of the main components of servant leadership while it is not included in popular leadership theories, namely 3. Impacts of servant leadership style on charismatic and transformational leadership employees’ organizational engagement [33]. According to Wart (2003), servant leadership is identified as the first theory that 3.1. Overview of employees’ organizational highlights ethical orientation of leadership [34]. engagement In recent research, the concept of ethical leadership centering moral and ethical values in Employee engagement is defined in leadership behaviour has emerged [32]. Kaptein different ways. Most of the definition considers et al. (2005) claimed that ethical leaders can engagement as job or work engagement. influence followers more positively, which is One of the most widely-referenced exhibited in the results of their actions and definitions states that job/work engagement is the overall ethical condition of an described as the psychological presence of organization [35]. employees. Specifically, it refers to “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is N.A. Thu, D.H. Anh / VNU Journal of Science: Policy and Management Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3 (2017)58-71 63 characterized by vigor, dedication, and exhilarating, captivating and inspired by the absorption” [38]. Vigor can be described as organization as a member of the organization. “high level of energy and mental resilience Additionally, employees will possess the while working”; dedication involves one‟s feeling of being strong and energetic when strong feelings of significance, enthusiasm, and working in their organization as well as a challenge; and absorption refers to one‟s “being motivation to do the organizational works at the fully immersed in their work” [39]. highest level [42]. However, some authors differentiate job The second factor involves employees‟ engagement and organizational engagement. willingness to invest their discretionary effort to Based on the distinction, Meyer et al. (2010:64, solve organizational problems, make cited in [40]) offered a working definition as recognized contribution to organizational follows: “Engagement is experienced as success, and protect their organization from enthusiasm and self-involvement with a task or injustice (Schneider, Macey, Barbera & Martin collective (e.g., organization), is fostered by a 2009; Vance 2006; cited in [42]). corresponding dispositional orientation and Meyer (2014) distinguishes three types of facilitating climate, and manifests itself in organizational engagement, including proactive value-directed behavior”. In short, disengagement, contingent engagement, and one’s organizational engagement mainly full engagement [40]. Disengaged employees involves their enthusiasm and self-involvement seem to have little commitment to their with their organization. Saks (2006) organization and to be convenient to quit the emphasizes that organizational engagement organization; contingently engaged people have relates to one‟s attachment to their organization highly continuance involvement with their no matter what their work role is [41]. organization because of the exchange benefits It is noted again that this paper examines they receive from their organization or lack of the link between servant leadership style and opportunities with other employers, rather than employees‟ organizational engagement, not job thanks to their voluntary and positive feeling of engagement or organizational commitment. attachment to the current organization; and fully It is important to differentiate engaged employees possess strong affective organizational commitment from organizational and/or normative commitment with the feeling engagement. The former refers to “a person‟s of moral duty to contribute to organizational attitude and attachment towards their goals [40]. organization” [41]. The latter is not an attitude, Within the ever-changing environment as but “it is the degree to which an individual is today, organizations must develop solutions to attentive and absorbed in the performance of move their entire staff to full engagement [40]. their roles” [41]. The former focuses on Clarifying possible positive influences of employees‟ extra role and voluntary behaviours leadership in general, and servant leadership while the latter emphasizes the employee style in particular, on the components of formal role performance [41]. employees‟ organizational engagement can As a result, organizational engagement has suggest leaders/managers in practice how to been constructed with two factors: enhance their subordinate organizational organizational vigor and organizational engagement. dedication [42]. The first component refers 3.2. Impacts of servant leadership style on employees‟ high level of employee energy, employees’ organizational engagement inspiration, strength and joy in their workplace [43; 44]. Specifically, this factor is To get employees fully engaged, characterized by the feeling of being alive, organizations have to satisfy employees‟ basic 64 N.A. Thu, D.H. Anh / VNU Journal of Science: Policy and Management Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3 (2017) 58-71 psychological needs at work (BPNW) [40]. thus, they will motivate their subordinates‟ BPNW includes three needs, namely autonomy, dedication to the organization [26]. As a result, competence and relatedness. Autonomy refers the employee organizational engagement will to the need for having power to make decision increase. and to act in one‟s own way [45]. This need is Servant leaders who are highly empathetic characterized by the extent to which a person will focus on their relationship with their can make their own decision, use their subordinates, active listening and social judgement and their own ways to do their job, interactions (Spears 1998, cited in [22]). as well as take responsibilities in their work [6]. Because of active listening, servant leaders will Competence involves one‟s feeling of avoid misunderstanding, misconceptions and having knowledge, skills and supported problems with communications at work [49]. resources to do their job well (White 1959, Therefore, they can understand exactly the cited in [46]). This need can be measured by the messages in the communications. Additionally, extent of how available individual and thanks to the leaders‟ respect of collaborative organizational resources are for a person to relationship and interactions with their co- complete their job at high standard. workers/subordinates, they tend to build up the Relatedness is the need for the feeling of relationship/interactions rather than dictatorially belonging to a working community (Baumeister asking the followers to complete tasks. Thus, & Leary 1995, cited from [47]). This need servant leaders can understand the focuses on how employees feel being trusted, subordinates‟ needs and expectations, and be understood, listened, being a friend with and partners/supporters to solve the followers‟ supported by their colleagues at work [6]. problems. It is confirmed that “perceived organizational support predicts both job and Following Meyer‟s claim of the importance organization engagement” [41]. This leads to of employee need satisfaction in enhancing the increase in employees‟ feeling of being their organizational engagement, in this paper, understood and cared by important people in the impacts of servant leadership style on the organization and create respectful working employee organizational engagement will be environment, meaning that the employees‟ need drawn on the way that servant leadership can for relatedness is fulfilled [50]. By this way, satisfy each of the basic psychological needs at servant leaders will make employees satisfied work of employees. As such, the basic and exhilarating when being the organizational psychological needs at work play a mediating member (a dimension of organizational vigor); role in the relationship between servant and motivate them to contribute to the leadership style and employee organizational organizational goals (an element of engagement. This is modeled in Figure 1. organizational dedication). Like altruism Generally, servant leaders with the characteristic, this will contribute to the positive characteristic of altruism will take good care of changes of employees‟ organizational their followers‟ needs, expectation and commitment. problems [48]. This means they tend to position Humility is another important characteristic themselves in their employees‟ circumstance to of servant leaders which may impact understand the employees‟ needs for autonomy, significantly on employees‟ organizational competence and relatedness in order to try to engagement. This is because humility helps the satisfy the needs. By this way, employees can leaders remove any barriers between them and feel being satisfied, respected, alive, and their followers leading to a closer cooperation exhilarating when they work in the to obtain their shared goals [22]. Being not organization. Furthermore, servant leaders will arrogant and selfish, leaders can encourage their not be selfish but they focus on serving others, subordinates to raise ideas and use their own N.A. Thu, D.H. Anh / VNU Journal of Science: Policy and Management Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3 (2017)58-71 65 proper and effective judgement and ways to do autonomous at work and motivate them to do the job. This means employees‟ need for their best in order to solve organizational autonomy is considered and satisfied. This also problems and contribute to organizational relates to the need for relatedness which success. This means employees‟ engagement emphasizes the feeling of being understood and can be enhanced by the characteristic of trusted. Therefore, servant leadership can help humility of servant leadership style. employees feel strong and energetic when being Empathy Relations, Active listening, Social interactions Organizational Vigor - Feeling alive, exhilarating, captivating, inspired when being a member of the organization. Altruism - Motivation to do their best Focuses on the followers‟ - Feeling strong, satisfied, needs and expectations energetic Employee Humility Servant Psychological Employee Enables sincerity & respect Leadership needs at work Organizational - Autonomy to grow & causes followers Style Engagement to engage closely with their - Competence - Relatedness leader Organizational Dedication - Contribution: willingness, resource investment - Protecting their Integrity organization: defending Trust and internal confidence against injustice, solving about people, in consistent problems words, attitudes, and behaviors -->brings trust in the leader & organization Justice Understanding and observance of the rights of individuals to get what they deserve Figure 1. Model of impact of servant leadership style on employees‟ organizational engagement. 66 N.A. Thu, D.H. Anh / VNU Journal of Science: Policy and Management Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3 (2017) 58-71 Integrity is thought to be one of the factors making employees‟ feel being trusted and being that impact most on employees. This is because a friend of their co-workers, but also the need servant leaders with integrity can make for competence which refers to being able and employees trust the organizational management competent to complete the job well. This is so that they can be reassured about a moral because that employees always have a need to work environment. By honest behavior, servant sufficiently control their resources and their job leadership can encourage their subordinate in order to succeed (Maslach et al. 2001, cited develop the same behavior and attitude (Cassel in [50]). Hence, Saks (2006) advises that & Holt 2008, cited in [22]), leading to a mutual managers should determine the resources and trust between the leaders and their followers. benefits that employees desire most to try to This contributes to satisfy employees‟ need for provide them to get the employees higher relatedness of which focuses on the feeling of engaged [41]. being trusted and being a friend of their co- The two characteristics of servant workers. This may support to the employee leadership above will motivate employees to be feeling of being alive, exhilarating and satisfied willing to do their best at work and defend as an organizational member. This results in a against injustice (organizational vigor and willingness of employees to contribute to their dedication) leading to employees‟ full organization. Thus, their vigor and dedication engagement. Therefore, Malinen, Wright & will be enhanced. Cammock (2013) claim that trust in Integrity is usually accompanied by justice. management and perceived justice are These dimensions support each other in important drivers of employees‟ organizational creating ethical work environment. Moral engagement [52]. climate, in turn, forms the way that ethical In summary, servant leaders possess at least decisions should be made and behaviours five out of ten critical leadership capabilities should be developed within an organization which are essential to engaging employees [51]. As described earlier, servant leaders with (Taylor 2004, cited in [51]), including building justice characteristic will understand and obey trust, building esteem, communicating the rights of employees to get what they effectively, building an enjoying and fulfilling deserve (Cevizci 2010, cited in [22]). In other work environment, and flexibility in words, servant leaders see equality, fairness and understanding individual needs. Thus, respect for employees as core values of their theoretically, servant leadership can be a leadership activities. considerable style to improve employees‟ At work, justice will be mainly expressed in organizational engagement. being fair in sharing/allocating resources, evaluating performance [22] and rewarding. Specifically, servant leaders will be rational to 4. Implications for future research on servant provide how much resource among their leadership and employee engagement department in order to ensure that all employees can do their job well. Additionally, during the The section will draw the implications for process of performance appraisal and reward, future research on the topic from the approach the key criterion should be employees‟ to the impact of servant leadership style on contribution to organizational success rather employees‟ organizational engagement, the than other ones like relationship with managers challenges of the style itself, and the limitation or ages. This procedural justice can predict of previous studies and this study. organizational engagement [41]. First of all, the model of the impact Leaders‟ justice along with integrity will expresses an emerging approach to examine the satisfy not only the need for relatedness through relationship between servant leadership style N.A. Thu, D.H. Anh / VNU Journal of Science: Policy and Management Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3 (2017)58-71 67 and employee engagement with their perseverance of the leader. From that, future organization, which is using need satisfaction as research can look at the ways to enable leaders a media factor to connect the two objects. This to be a true listener and to really empathize; as approach appears from Self Determination well as solve the conflicts among different Theory in which the three basic psychological stakeholders‟ characteristics to ensure that needs at work are central concepts. Under the servant leadership can be realized. theory, the better the needs are satisfied, the Apart from the potential challenges, the higher the employee internal motivation is [40], previous researches of servant leadership leading to the higher level of their engagement received certain criticisms. Greenleaf (1977), at work. This is the rationale for Meyer‟s claims who first coined the term servant leadership, (2014) that organizations should meet the revealed that this concept was too ideal to be employee needs to get them fully engaged. This applied in reality [17]. Moreover, the word expresses a logical approach to the influence of „serve‟ has not been specifically defined, which organizational factors (servant leadership style explains the lack of agreement in defining the in this case) on employee engagement with concept of servant leadership. Furthermore, a their job and organization. Meanwhile there has need for reconstruction of verifiable models “by been a lack of works on the topic from this developing measurement scales and extracting approach, it has been potential for future elements in the reality” was raised by Kim, research using the approach to investigate more Kim, & Choi (2014) who claimed that although deeply the impact. servant leadership is empirically useful, its The positive impacts show that servant academic acknowledgement is deterred [54]. leadership style is a promising style which can These challenges may hinder leaders/managers help organizations solve problems regarding to from applying the style in practice. This may employee engagement. However, the style itself result to a higher level of difficulty to convince embeds challenges for both academic and the practitioners about the value of servant practitioners. Therefore, the second implication leadership style no matter how much useful the is that future research can focus on solutions to style is in theory. Hence, future research can overcome the challenges. Wilson (1998) focus on the measurement of servant leadership summarized three potential difficulties a servant style. This will facilitate how to measure the leader may have to face [53]. First, being an impact of servant leadership style on empathetic individual is challenging for leaders employees‟ organizational engagement. From when it requires them to be a true listener and the literature, empirical studies to examine the empathize with others. In fact, it is not easy for correlation between servant leadership and leaders to well complete the roles of listening employee engagement are in special need and and empathizing. Another difficulty comes highly recommended. By this way, it may be from the integration of being empathetic and easier to look for empirical evidence of the collaborative, which entails sharing something influence in order to better convince leaders of of himself or herself with others. This applying this style and be more attractive to requirement asks leaders to be really open- academics. minded to respect employees as their team Despite certain significance, our study still members or partners rather than their remains some limitation. Primarily, even subordinates who are always at the lower level though the difficulties in implementing servant to do what the leaders tell. The third challenge leadership, solution to address the above- revolves around collaborative process because mentioned challenges has not been proposed the involvement of many people with different within the limited scope of this study. The main viewpoints, values, personalities in such reason is that this study presents those problems processes requires great patience and in pure theoretical context basing on literature 68 N.A. Thu, D.H. Anh / VNU Journal of Science: Policy and Management Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3 (2017) 58-71 review rather than empirical data or evidence. It building an enjoying and fulfilling work is more critical for the correlation between environment, and flexibility in understanding servant leadership and organizational individual needs. Thanks to such attributes of a engagement of employees to be empirically servant leader, three basic psychological needs studied due to the lack of research in this issue. at work, namely autonomy, competence and Finally, the need for a reconstruction of servant relatedness, are satisfied, creating positive leadership model in relation with organizational changes of employees‟ organizational engagement has not been met and leaves a commitment and increasing their willingness of consideration gap for further research. This devotion and dedication. However, the impacts continues to confirm that developing empirical discussed in this study requires empirical studies on the topic will be interesting focus for evidence, can be examined through need future research. satisfaction approach, and should be studied in Additionally, how a set of criteria for moral specific contexts like higher education or and ethical aspects can be applied in evaluating organizations in public sector. Furthermore, servant leadership remains a question of debate. measurements of moral and ethical aspects of This suggest researchers to build the servant leadership, reconstruction of a servant comprehensive criteria to support the process of leadership model, and solution addressing measuring the impact of servant leadership style challenges in servant leadership implementation on employee engagement with their are potential subjects for further studies./. organization. Last but not least, the scope of further References studies can be either broaden to the extent of servant leaders‟ impacts on full aspects of [1] Storey, J. (editor) (2016), Leadership in employees‟ engagement specified in certain Organizations. Current issues and key trends, 3rd contexts and areas such as in higher education edn, Routledge, NY. in Vietnam or in organizations in both public [2] Gorgievski, M.J., Bakker, A.B. & Schaufeli, W.B. and private sectors in Vietnam so as to ponder (2010), “Work engagement and workaholisim: and propose implications for particular fields. comparing the self-employed and salaried employees”, The Journal of Positive Psychology, vol. 5, pp. 83-96. [3] Rich, B.L., LePine, J.A., Crawford, E.R. (2010), 5. Conclusion “Job Engagement: Antecedents and Effects on Job Performance”, Academy of Management Journal, In general, leadership factors are closely vol.53, no.3, pp.617-635. correlated with employee engagement because [4] Chunghtai, A.A. & Buckley, F. (2011), “Work circumstances, including organizational engagement antecedents, the mediating role of environment, leadership characteristics, job learning goal orientation and job performance.”, characteristics, under which “some would Career Development International, vol.16, no.7, actively engage while others would actively pp.684-705. disengage are particularly relevant to both the [5] Łukowski, W. (2017), “The Impact of Leadership employer and the employee” [50]. Servant Styles on Innovation Management”, Minib (Marketing of Scientific and Research leaders are theoretically proved to exert positive Organizations), vol.24, no.2, pp.105-136. impacts on organizational engagement of [6] Brien, M., Forest, J., Mageau, G.A., Boudrias, J- employees, with five key characteristics S., Desrumaux, P., Brunet, L. & Morin, E.M. (empathy, altruism, humility, integrity, and (2012), “The Basic Psychological Needs at Work justice) exhibited in five important capabilities Scale: Measurement Invariance between Canada to engage employees including building trust, and France”, Applied Psychology: Health and building esteem, communicating effectively, Well-Being, vol.4, no.2, pp.167-187. N.A. Thu, D.H. Anh / VNU Journal of Science: Policy and Management Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3 (2017)58-71 69 [7] Kreitner, R. (2009), Principles of Management, [22] Ekinci, A. (2015), “Development of the School International Student Edition, 11th edn, South- Principals‟ Servant Leadership Behaviors Scale Western Cengage Learning, Australia, p.436, 440, and Evaluation of Servant Leadership Behaviors 443, 445, 446. According to Teachers‟ Views”, Education and [8] Naylor, N. (2004), Management, 2nd edn, Pearson Science, vol.40, no.179, pp.341-360. Education, England, p.355, 364. [23] Ng, K.-Y., Koh, C., S.-K., & Goh, H.-C. (2008). [9] Casimir, G. (2001), “Combinative aspects of The heart of the servant leader. Leader‟s leadership style: The ordering and temporal motivation-to-serve and its impact on LMX and spacing of leadership behavior”, The Leadership subordinates‟ extra-role behavior. In G. B. Graen Quarterly, vol.12, no.3, p.246. & J. A. Graen (Eds.), Knowledge-driven [10] Robbins, S., Bergman, R., Stagg, I. & Coulter, M. corporation-complex creative destruction: 125- (2006), Management, 4th edn, Pearson Prince 144. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Hall, Frenchs Forest, NSW, p.570. [24] Roberts, G. (2014). Servant leader human [11] Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1964), The resource management – A moral and spiritual Managerial Grid III, Gulf Publishing, Houston, perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. p.136. [25] Spears, L. C. (2004). Practicing servant- [12] Monica E.L. (1986), Nursing Leadership and leadership. Leader to Leader, 34, 7–11. Management. An Experiential Approach, Jones [26] Avolio, B. J., & Locke, E. E. (2002). “Philosophies and Bartlett Publisher, USA, p.65. of leader motivation: Altruism versus egoism”. [13] Saxena P.K. (2009), Principles of Management: A Leadership Quarterly, 13(2) 169-191. Modern Approach, Global India Publications Pvt [27] Cassel, J. & Holt, T. 2008. The servant leader. Ltd, New Delhi, p.127. American School Board Journal October: 34–35. [14] Horner, M. (1997), “Leadership theory: past, [28] Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. (2005). A present and future”, Team Performance correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and Management, vol.3, no.4, p.271. organizational trust. Leadership & Organization [15] Nguyen, Anh Thu (2016), “Influences of Development Journal, 26(1), 6–22. Leadership Style on Talent Retention. [29] Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, D. S. (1994). Implications for the Public Universities in Citizenship behavior and social Exchange. Academy Vietnam”, VNU Journal of Science, Social of Management Journal, 37(3), 656-669. Sciences and Humanities, ISSN 0866-8612, [30] Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice vol.32, no.1, p.69. as a mediator of the relationship between methods [16] Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in Organizations. of monitoring and organizational citizenship Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. behavior. Academy of Management Journal, vol. [17] Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A 36(3), pp.527-556. journey into the nature of legitimate power and [31] Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of greatness. New York: Paulist Press, p.27. organizational citizenship behavior. Research in [18] Spears, L. (1998). Insights on leadership: Service, Organizational Behavior, 12, 43-72. stewardship, spirit, and servant leadership. New [32] Brown, M.E., & Treviño. L.K. (2006). Ethical York: Wiley. leadership: A review and future directions. [19] Page, D., & Wong, T. P. (2000). A philosophy Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595-616. conceptual framework for measuring servant [33] Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance leadership. In S. Adjibolosoo (Ed.), The Human beyond Expectations. New York: The Free Press. factor in shaping the course of history and [34] Wart, M.V. (2003). Public-sector leadership development. Lanham, MD: University Press of theory: An assessment. Public Administration America. Review, 63(2), 214-228. [20] Covey, S. (2002). Servant-leadership and [35] Kaptein, M., Huberts, L., Avelino, S., Lasthuizen, community leadership in the twenty-first century, in K. (2005), Demonstrating ethical leadership by Spears, L. (Ed.). Focus on Leadership: Servant measuring ethics: A survey of US public servants. Leadership for the 21st Century. New York: Wiley. Public Integrity, 7(4), 299-311. [21] Patterson, K. (2003). Servant leadership: A [36] Smith, B.N., Montagno, R.V., and Kuzmenko, theoretical model. Dissertation Abstracts T.N. (2004). Journal of Leadership and International, 64(2), 570 (UMI No. 3082719). Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-91. 70 N.A. Thu, D.H. Anh / VNU Journal of Science: Policy and Management Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3 (2017) 58-71 [37] Graham, J. (1991). Servant-leadership in Occupational and Organizational Psychology, organizations: Inspirational and moral. Leadership vol.83, p.1198. Quarterly, 2(2), 105–119. [47] Schreurs, B., Hetty van Emmerik, IJ., Van den [38] Schaufeli, W.B., Martínez, I.M., Pinto, A.M., Broeck, A. &, Guenter, H. (2014), “Work Values Salanova, M. & Bakker A.B. (2002), “Burnout and Work Engagement Within Teams: The and Engagement in University Students. A Cross- Mediating Role of Need Satisfaction”, Group National Study”, Journal of Cross-Culture Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, vol.8, Psychology, vol.33, no.5, p.474. no.4, pp.267-281. [39] Kanten, S. & Sadullah, O. (2012), An empirical [48] Sendjaya, S., & Cooper, B. (2011). “Servant research on relationship quality of work life and leadership behaviour scale: a hierarchical model work engagement, Procedia - Social and and test of construct validity”. European Journal Behavioral Sciences, vol.62, p.362. of Work and Organızational Psychology, 20(3), [40] Meyer, J.P. (2014), Employee Commitment, 416-436. Motivation and Engagement: Exploring the Links [49] Degraaf, D. G., Tilley, C., & Neal, L. L. (2001). in Gagné, M. (2014) (ed.), The Oxford handbook Servant-Leadership Characteristics In of work engagement, Motivation, and Self- Organizational Life. Voices of Servant- Determination Theory, Oxford University Press. Leadership Series, Booklet (6). Indianapolis: [41] Saks, A.M. (2006), „Antecedents and consequences Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership. of employee engagement‟, Journal of Managerial [50] Wildermuth, C.M.S. & Pauken, P.D. (2008), “A Psychology, vol. 21, no.7, pp.600-619. perfect match: decoding employee engagement – [42] Ünal, Z.M. (2015), “The Buzzword: Employee Part I: Engaging cultures and leaders”, Industrial Engagement. Does Person Organization Fit and Commercial Training, vol.40, no.3, pp.122- Contribute to Employee Engagement?”, Iranian 128. Journal of Management Studies (IJMS), vol.8, [51] Taghipour, A. & Dezfuli, Z.K. (2013), Designing no.2, pp.157-179. and Testing a Model of Antecedents of Work [43] Albrecht, S. L. (2010). Handbook of Employee Engagement, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Engagement Perspectives, Issues Research and Sciences, vol.84, p.145. Practice, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. [52] Malinen, S., Wright, S. & Cammock, P. (2013), [44] Macey, W. H. & Schneider, B. (2008). “The “What drives organisational meaning of employee engagement”. Industrial and engagement? A case study on trust, justice Organizational Psychology, vol.1, pp.3-30. perceptions and withdrawal attitudes”, Evidence- [45] Gagné, M. & Deci, E. (2005), “Self-determination based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical theory and work motivation”, Journal of Scholarship, vol.1, no.1, pp. 96-108. Organizational Behavior, vol.26, pp.331-362. [53] Wilson, R. T. (1998). Servant leadership. The [46] Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Witte, Physician Executive, 24(5), 6-13. H.D., Soenens, B. & Lens,W. (2010), “Capturing [54] Kim, S.J., Kim, K.S, Choi Y.G. (2014). A autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: literature review of servant leadership and Construction and initial validation of the Work- criticism of advanced research. International related Basic Need Satisfaction scale”, Journal of Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation, 8(4), 1154-1157. N.A. Thu, D.H. Anh / VNU Journal of Science: Policy and Management Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3 (2017)58-71 71 Tác động của phong cách lãnh đạo Người phục vụ tới sự gắn kết của nhân viên với tổ chức Một số gợi ý đối với các nghiên cứu về lãnh đạo và sự gắn kết của nhân viên Nguyễn Anh Thư1, Dương Hồng Anh2 1Trường Đại học Khoa học Xã hội và Nhân văn, ĐHQGHN, 336 Nguyễn Trãi, Hà Nội, Việt Nam 2Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ, ĐHQGHN, Phạm Văn Đồng, Cầu Giấy, Hà Nội, Việt Nam Tóm tắt: Qua việc xem xét mối quan hệ giữa phong cách lãnh đạo Người phục vụ và sự gắn bó của nhân viên với tổ chức, bài viết nhằm đánh giá trên lý thuyết ảnh hưởng của phong cách lãnh đạo này đến sự gắn bó của nhân viên với tổ chức. Theo đó, bài viết sẽ đề cập đến ba nội dung chính, gồm tổng quan về phong cách lãnh đạo Người phục vụ và sự gắn bó của nhân viên với tổ chức; phân tích tác động của phong cách này đối với sự gắn bó của nhân viên dành cho tổ chức; và đưa ra gợi ý cho các nghiên cứu về mối quan giữa hai yếu tố này trong trong tương lai. Từ khóa: Phong cách lãnh đạo, Lãnh đạo kiểu Người phục vụ, Sự gắn kết của nhân viên, Gắn kết với tổ chức.