J 1744-6570 2012 01253 X

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
2012, 65, 565596

CEO SERVANT LEADERSHIP: EXPLORING
EXECUTIVE CHARACTERISTICS AND FIRM
PERFORMANCE
SUZANNE J. PETERSON
Arizona State University
BENJAMIN M. GALVIN
University of Washington Bothell
DONALD LANGE
Arizona State University
This study offers an examination of the relationships between chief ex-
ecutive ofcer (CEO) servant leadership, the executive characteristics
of narcissism, founder status, and organizational identication, and rm
performance in a sample of 126 CEOs in technology organizations.
Analysis of data gathered over multiple periods revealed a negative
relationship between CEO narcissism and servant leadership, and a pos-
itive relationship between founder status (i.e., founder or nonfounder)
and servant leadership. Furthermore, CEO organizational identication
served as a partial mediating mechanism linking narcissism and founder
status to servant leadership. In turn, CEO servant leadership predicted
subsequent rm performance (measured as return on assets). The re-
sults of this study have implications for researchers interested in better
understanding the predictors and consequences of servant leadership
and for practitioners concerned with combating negative or selsh ex-
ecutive leadership behaviors and employing servant leadership for the
organizations benet.
Business organizations increasingly are seeking leadership that em-
phasizes ethics and a concern for society, in part as a reaction to the
numerous high-prole scandals involving greedy and selsh corporate
management (van Dierendonck, 2011). Chief executive ofcers (CEOs)
are central to this type of leadership. They set the tone for the organization
via the vision they express, decisions they make, policies they imple-
ment, and what they pay attention to, measure, and reward (Finkelstein,
Hambrick, & Cannella, 2009). Such choices and actions of the CEO
are critical to how well the members perform and to the rms overall
We thank Blake Ashforth, David Waldman, Fred Walumbwa, and Zhen Zhang for their
helpful comments on an earlier version of the paper.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Suzanne J. Peterson,
Department of Management, W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, P.O.
Box 874006, Tempe, AZ 85287-4006; suzanne.peterson@asu.edu
C
2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
565
566 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
direction, performance, reputation, and stakeholder relationships (Boal &
Hooijberg, 2001; Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Ireland & Hitt, 1999).
Coinciding with business interest in a more caring and responsible
style of leadership, organizational scholars have shifted their attention
away from leadership based on individualistic, self-serving tendencies to-
ward more relational styles of leadership (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber,
2009). This shift is in part reected by recent conceptual and empiri-
cal research focused on servant leadership (e.g., Ehrhart, 2004; Graham,
1991; Greenleaf, 2002; Hale & Fields, 2007; Hu & Liden, 2011; Liden,
Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008; Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, &
Roberts, 2008; Schaubroeck, Lam, &Penk, 2011; van Dierendonck, 2011;
Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010), a form of leadership that accentu-
ates personal integrity (Ehrhart, 2004), the needs of followers (Patterson,
2003), and a strong moral compass (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). As Hale
and Fields (2007) dene it, servant leadership places the good of those
led over the self-interest of the leader, emphasizing leader behaviours that
focus on follower development, and de-emphasizing glorication of the
leader (p. 397).
Despite the research that has been done on the nature and importance
of servant leadership, many questions need further exploration, including
a fuller understanding of what leads to servant leadership in organizations.
To date, research on servant leadership has largely emphasized its relation-
ship to important outcomes (e.g., Ehrhart, 2004; Hu & Liden, 2011; Liden
et al., 2008; Neubert et al., 2008; Schaubroeck et al., 2011; Walumbwa
et al., 2010) rather than its determinants. From a theoretical standpoint,
this is problematic given that current theories explaining predictors of
other popular forms of leadership (e.g., transformational leadership) may
not necessarily apply to servant leadership. It would seem that different
models are needed to explain the development of this unique form of
leadershipleadership that differs from other forms of leadership in its
balance of a high need for power with a high need to serve (Greenleaf,
1977; van Dierendonck, 2011) and its emphasis on social responsibil-
ity (Graham, 1991). Indeed, gaining a better understanding of the an-
tecedents of servant leadership as a unique form of leadership responds
to recent calls by researchers (e.g., Avolio, 2007; DeRue, Nahrgang,
Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011) for studies that conceptually and empiri-
cally distinguish the antecedents and consequences of various forms of
leadership.
Practitioners would also benet from a better understanding of what
leads to servant leadership. That understanding would help in leader selec-
tion processes, as organizations attempt to determine who is more likely
to display behaviors consistent with servant leadership, and would help
SUZANNE J. PETERSON ET AL. 567
organizations plan for how such leadership might be encouraged among
incumbent executives. Selecting for and fostering servant leadership are
relevant topics for businesses concerned that selsh corporate leadership
not only can cause the organization harm but also can easily transcend the
boundaries of the rm to spread harm among external stakeholders and
society in general (Kellerman, 2004; Mintzberg, Simons, & Basu, 2002).
Accordinglyin addition to the question of what leads to servant lead-
ership in organizationsanother interesting yet underexplored question
is, what are the organizational-level implications of servant leadership be-
haviors? At the individual and teamlevels of analysis within organizations,
researchers have demonstrated a variety of important servant leadership
outcomes, including organizational commitment, organizational citizen-
ship behaviors, creativity, and performance (e.g., Erhart, 2004; Hu &
Liden, 2011; Liden et al., 2008; Neubert et al., 2008; Schaubroeck et al.,
2011; Walumbwa et al., 2010). However, researchers have largely over-
looked the possible organizational-level outcomes of servant leadership.
Given suggestions that the performance impact of leadership found at
lower levels of the hierarchy should be equally possible at the top (Agle,
Nagarajan, Sonnenfeld, & Srinivasan, 2006; Pawar & Eastman, 1997), it
is worthwhile to examine the link between CEO servant leadership and
an important organizational-level outcome like rm performance. Indeed,
servant leadership should be especially important to rm performance
given that a concern for society increasingly is expected of rms and con-
sequently is often a matter of company policy (van Dierendonck, 2011).
As noted by van Dierendonck (2011, p. 1228), It may be that paying at-
tention to all stakeholders is the key to long-term prots. Understanding
the organizational-level implications of servant leadership will highlight
the benets and applicability of this form of leadership.
An examination of the relationship between servant leadership and
rm performance is particularly important in light of the mixed re-
sults in prior empirical studies examining the effect of other forms of
leadership (especially transformational leadership) on rm performance
(e.g., Ensley, Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006; Ling, Simsek, Lubatkin, &
Veiga, 2008a; Tosi, Misangyi, Fanelli, Waldman, & Yammarino, 2004;
Waldman, Javidan, & Varella, 2004; Waldman, Ramirez, House, &
Puranam, 2001). Undoubtedly, there are aspects of leadership relevant
to rm performance that are not captured when a single form of lead-
ership is under study. The value of expanding the scope of leadership
types studied and their relationship to rm performance, as we do in this
study with respect to servant leadership, is to extend our understanding
of what aspects of leadership are ultimately most important to the rm
performance outcome (DeRue et al., 2011).
CEO
Narcissism
CEO Founder
Status
CEO
Organizational
Identification
Time 1
(CEO self-report)
Time 2
(CEO self-report)
Time 3
(CFO assessment of CEO behavior)
Time 4
(Objective data)
(-)
(-)
(+)
(+)
(+) (+)
CEO Servant
Leadership
Behavior
Firm
Performance
Figure 1: Conceptual Model of Antecedents and Outcomes of Servant
Leadership Behavior.
Note. Control variables used in the empirical analyses are not depicted in the
model.
Building from these ideas, we expand on work in the domain of
upper echelons theory (Hambrick & Mason, 1984) and executive per-
sonality (e.g., Hiller & Hambrick, 2005; Peterson, Smith, Martorana, &
Owens, 2003; Resick, Whitman, Weingarden, & Hiller, 2009), as well
as on prior research and theory on servant leadership (e.g., Bass, 2000;
Graham, 1991; Greenleaf, 2002; Liden et al., 2008; Mayer, Bardes, &
Piccolo, 2008; Walumbwa et al., 2010), by proposing that three ex-
ecutive characteristicsnarcissism, founder status, and organizational
identicationprovide insights into CEO servant leadership style. First,
we propose that those CEOs with low narcissism or who are company
founders are more likely to engage in servant leadership. Second, we pro-
pose that organizational identication is a useful mechanism for explain-
ing the linkages between CEO narcissism or founder status and servant
leadership. In turn, we suggest that CEO servant leadership is related
to rm performance. Importantly, we examine the relationship between
servant leadership and rm performance while controlling for transfor-
mational leadership. Doing so allows us to expand our contribution to
the leadership literature by answering recent calls for more integrative
research comparing the relative inuence of these two forms of leader-
ship (e.g, Avolio, 2007; DeRue et al., 2011). We tested this model with
multiple waves of data using a sample of 126 CEOs in predominately
small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the technology industry.
We have depicted our conceptual model and data collection stages in
Figure 1.
Theory and Hypothesis Development
Servant Leadership
Servant leadership, as rst articulated by Greenleaf (1977), is dened
as a leadership style that emphasizes the leaders responsibility to the
success of the organization as well as his or her moral responsibility to
subordinates, customers, and other organizationally relevant stakeholders.
Liden et al. (2008) identied seven dimensions composing servant lead-
ership: acting ethically, showing sensitivity to others personal concerns,
putting subordinates rst, helping subordinates growand succeed, empow-
ering others, creating value for the community, and having the conceptual
skills and knowledge of the organization and tasks at hand necessary to
effectively support and assist followers. Despite some conceptual com-
monalities with other forms of leadership, particularly transformational
leadership, Graham (1991) argued that it is distinct in two primary ways.
First, servant leaders acknowledge their responsibility not just to the orga-
nizations goals and to the personal development of followers but also to
a wider range of organizational stakeholders, including the larger society.
Second, servant leadership adds a moral dimension to the idea of transfor-
mational leadership, in that servant leaders encourage followers to engage
in moral reasoning. Bass (2000) offered a similar distinction between the
two leadership styles, suggesting that servant leaders focus on assessing
the needs of others and serving them, whereas transformational leaders
aim to align others interests with the good of the group, organization, or
society. In short, servant leaders distinguish themselves from other types
of leaders by focusing on the needs and interests of others as ends in and
of themselves (e.g., Mayer et al., 2008; Walumbwa et al., 2010).
Growing empirical evidence conrms the conceptual distinctions of
servant leadership from related leadership theories. For example, Ehrhart
(2004) predicted and found that servant leadership affected variance in
organizational commitment, supervisory satisfaction, and procedural jus-
tice above and beyond the variance caused by transformational leadership
and leadermember exchange. Similarly, Liden et al. (2008) found that
servant leadership explained variance in organizational citizenship behav-
iors and in-role performance beyond that explained by transformational
leadership and leadermember exchange. These studies suggest that ser-
vant leadership is a distinct formof leadership that is relevant to important
work outcomes.
Executive Characteristics and Servant Leadership
Upper echelons theory (Hambrick & Mason, 1984) and the literature
on executive personality (e.g., Hiller & Hambrick, 2005; Peterson et al.,
2003; Peterson, Walumbwa, Byron, & Myrowitz, 2009; Resick et al.,
2009) suggest that the leadership behaviors of senior executives are inu-
enced both by demographic characteristics such as background, expertise,
tenure, and age and by psychological characteristics such as personality.
As Hogan and Kaiser (2005) note, who we are determines how we lead
(p. 175). However, research has largely ignored the impact of executive
characteristics in promoting or inhibiting servant leadership. As a result,
we know very little about how to identify people who are most likely to
engage in servant leader behaviorsthose that promote personal integrity
and the interests of others over and above the leaders self-interest. In
this study, we extend prior research by proposing and testing the effect
on servant leadership behaviors of three executive characteristics: nar-
cissism, company founder status, and organizational identication. We
chose to study these particular executive characteristics for two reasons.
First, these characteristics have recently been linked to CEO leadership or
CEO stewardship behaviors (e.g., Boivie, Lange, McDonald, & Westphal,
2011; Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007; Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006; Ling
et al., 2008a; Resick et al., 2009). Second, each of these variables has the
potential to explain the most central characteristic of servant leadership,
the tendency for the leader to display leadership behaviors that transcend
self-interest.
Narcissism and Servant Leadership
Narcissists are generally considered to be egotistical, manipula-
tive, and exploitive in their interactions with others (Hogan, Raskin, &
Fazzini, 1990), characteristics that may hinder effective leadership. How-
ever, narcissists in leadership roles abound (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006),
and there may be some upsides to narcissism such as boldness and a
high need for inuence and achievementcharacteristics that are consid-
ered almost prerequisites for leadership (Bass, 1990; Galvin, Waldman, &
Balthazard, 2010; Maccoby, 2003). As Galvin et al. (2010) contend, the
passion, boldness, daring, and risk taking, and condence that tend to
be associated with narcissists, could be inspiring to others (p. 511).
Such inspirational inuences can be a precursor of leader effectiveness
(Maccoby, 2003). For example, using a historiometric approach, Deluga
(1997) showed that among 39 American presidents, narcissism is posi-
tively related to charisma and perceived performance.
In total, however, empirical support is limited for a positive inu-
ence of narcissism on leadership (e.g., Judge et al., 2006). Resick et al.
(2009) found a negative relationship between narcissism and elements of
leadership such as leaders use of contingent rewards, concluding that,
Because narcissistic individuals have little concern for others, they are
unlikely to be concerned about developing equitable exchange relation-
ships with members of their organizations (p. 1374). Resick et al. (2009)
also found a null inuence of narcissism on transformational leadership,
contrary to the negative relationship they hypothesized. This null relation-
ship has also been found in other recent research looking at narcissism
and leadership (e.g., Galvin et al., 2010), supporting conceptual sugges-
tions that perhaps narcissism is not decidedly negative when explaining
leadership behaviors. At minimum, these ndings suggest the need for
further exploration to develop a clearer and more nuanced picture of the
role of narcissism in leadership. Such an exploration is perhaps made
more important by the notion that the relative importance of traits associ-
ated with leadership will vary depending on the specic form or style of
leadership being studied (DeRue et al., 2011). As such, the relationship
found previously between narcissism and charismatic or transformational
leadership may not necessarily be the same as that found between narcis-
sism and servant leadership. Here, we pursue that notion by exploring the
relationship between narcissism and servant leadership, a relationship not
proposed and tested previously to our knowledge.
In developing our arguments about the relationship between narcis-
sism and servant leadership, we note that, despite some possible positive
effects of narcissism, the inability or unwillingness of narcissistic lead-
ers to subordinate their personal interests is central to theory underlying
the narcissism and leadership relationship (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006).
Narcissistic CEOs are described as having an inated sense of self, see-
ing themselves as superior to others, and being obsessed with recognition
and having their self-appraisals conrmed (Campbell, Goodie, & Foster,
2004; Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007; Kernberg, 1989). Given this preoc-
cupation with self, it is likely to be difcult for narcissistic CEOs to relate
to or identify with others such as subordinates or other organizational
stakeholders. CEOs with higher levels of narcissism will take more of an
I rather than a we perspective in their communications, relationships,
and interactions (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007; Galvin et al., 2010).
We argue that such a pervasive self-focus, including self-
aggrandizement, self-promotion, and self-admiration, results in an un-
willingness of the leader to engage in servant leadership behaviors such
as empowering and helping followers, offering emotional support, and
assisting others in the community (Liden et al., 2008). Consistent with
our reasoning, it has been suggested that arrogance, a core disposition of
narcissism, may detract from the narcissistic top executives desire and
ability to effectively manage relationships (Conger, 1990; Resick et al.,
2009; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006).
Together, these arguments lead us to predict that CEOs who are less
narcissistic will engage in more servant leadership behaviors than will
CEOs who are more narcissistic.
Hypothesis 1: CEO narcissism is negatively related to servant leadership.
Founder Status and Servant Leadership
Founder CEOs are unique among corporate leaders in that they are
likely to hold a special psychological bond with their organizations that
follows from having brought the organization into existence (Arthurs &
Busenitz, 2003; Nelson, 2003). The mindset of the founder CEO is rooted
in the formative stages of the organization when the interests of the or-
ganizations owners and managers were necessarily fully aligned because
the owners and managers were not different people (Nelson, 2003). As
part of that mindset, founder CEOs may see the rm as holding responsi-
bilities beyond a strict obligation to provide returns to investors. Although
prot motivation plays a role in the starting of a business, it is unlikely
that founder CEOs see their companies only in terms of garnering short-
term nancial rewards (Arthurs & Busenitz, 2003). Even more than other
CEOs, founder CEOs, because of their experience and stature within the
rm, are likely to play an extraordinary role in dening the mission,
structure, and behavior of the rm (Nelson, 2003, p. 710). In turn, they
are apt to feel a special responsibility for sheparding and safeguarding
the implentation of the blueprint that they have laid out for the rm
(Baron, Hannan, & Burton, 1999, p. 532; Nelson, 2003). Founder CEOs
may tend to see their organizations as part of their individual and/or family
legacies and be especially interested in developing positive social capital
(e.g., by ensuring the development of employees and by establishing a
philanthropic presence in the community; Handler, 1990). In addition,
founder CEOs may feel an especially high degree of discretion to en-
gage in behaviors with a long-term orientation that benet the collective
(cf. Ling, Zhao, & Baron, 2007).
These attributesincluding a strong psychological bond with the or-
ganization, a stewardship mindset, a long-term orientation that goes be-
yond the strict pursuit of nancial returns, and an orientation toward the
collectivewhich are likely to characterize founder CEOs, are also en-
tirely consistent with a servant leadership orientation (cf. Bass, 2000;
Graham, 1991). For this reason we argue that, relative to nonfounder
CEOs, founder CEOs are likely to be especially oriented toward the be-
haviors associated with servant leadership, including being sensitive to
the concerns and development of others and being interested in creating
value for the community (Liden et al., 2008).
These arguments lead us to predict that founder CEOs will be more
likely to engage in servant leadership behaviors than will nonfounder
CEOs.
Hypothesis 2: CEO founder status is positively related to servant
leadership.
The Mediating Role of Organizational Identication
In our development of Hypotheses 1 and 2, we imply a conceptual
linkage between low narcissism, or between status as rm founder, and
a resultant high ability or desire to identify with others. This ability or
desire to identify with others may help explain why CEOs with low
narcissism, or CEOs who are the rms founder, may engage in servant
leadership. Indeed, we argue that narcissism and founder status inuence
servant leadership partially through the mediating effect of organizational
identication, dened as the degree to which the CEO perceives his/her
self-identity as intertwined with the organizations identity or denes
him/herself in terms of the attributes of the organization (cf. Ashforth
& Mael, 1989; Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002). We develop this
argument in two parts, rst discussing reasons that narcissismand founder
status may foster organizational identication and then discussing reasons
that organizational identication may contribute to servant leadership.
Narcissismdecreases organizational identication because narcissistic
CEOs are preoccupied with the self and the need to retain power, superi-
ority, and position above all else (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1985; Rosenthal
& Pittinsky, 2006). As such, it is unlikely that narcissistic leaders will
think of themselves as part of a greater collective organizational identity.
Narcissists prefer a strong self-reference (Kernberg, 1989), leading them
to separate their needs and desires from those of the organization. That
separation reects a narcissism-based reluctance to depersonalize into the
group prototype, whereas individuals with lownarcissismmay nd it more
natural to depersonalize themselves into the group for self-enhancement
purposes or simply to reduce uncertainty by blending in (Hogg & Terry,
2000). Because narcissists emphasize their own interests and accomplish-
ments over others, they often struggle to think of themselves as part of
a greater collective (Blair, Hoffman, & Helland, 2008; Judge, Piccolo, &
Kosalka, 2009).
In contrast, founder CEOs are apt to consider themselves very much a
part of the greater collective and the rm as integral to their own identity.
Because they tend to have a long-term orientation and make substantial
sacrices for their organizations, and because they have a high degree
of exposure to and control over their organizations, it is likely that they
will see their organizations as an extension of their self-concept (Handler,
1990; Wasserman, 2006). Because of the personal stake they have in their
companys origination, they develop a deep sense of psychological own-
ership and emotional attachment to the organizations they lead (Pierce,
Kostova, & Dirks, 2001). As Isaacs (1933) observed, what is mine be-
comes (in my feelings) part of ME (p. 255).
1
Evidence of this fact can be
found in comments made by CEOs in the popular business press. Accord-
ing to an article in Fortune magazine, Angelo Mozilo, who cofounded
Countrywide Financial noted, Im emotionally attached to this company,
which means Im going to do whatever it takes to protect its nancial
integrity. Costco founder Jim Sinegal has similar comments. It would
be truly devastating to me if this company ever failed (Birger, 2006).
Given a strong sense of organizational identication, CEOs will be less
likely to delineate their own personal needs from those of the organization
and its members.
Having argued that narcissism and founder status are related to CEO
organizational identication, we further argue that organizational iden-
tication plays at least a partial mediating role as it in turn contributes
to servant leadership. Organizational identication theory and empirical
research suggest that members with a high overlap between their self-
identities and the identity of their organization will tend to make little
distinction between what is benecial for the organization and what is
benecial for the self. They will therefore eagerly pursue actions that help
their organization and its members (e.g., Ashford & Barton, 2007; Bartel,
2001; Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Boivie et al., 2011; Dukerich et al.,
2002; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Riketta, 2005).
Leadership behaviors are an avenue by which leaders may protect and
promote the interests of the organizations members. Because higher orga-
nizational identication will lead the CEO to perceive less of a distinction
between his or her needs and those of the organizationand by extension,
between his or her needs and those of the other organizational members
the leadership behaviors of CEOs who more strongly identify with their
organizations will likely be other-focused, and centered on the growth and
development of followers and on the long-termprosperity of the organiza-
tion and its stakeholders. A CEO with higher organizational identication
is therefore more likely to enact transcendence of self-interest in the
pursuit of a service orientation. Supporting this assertion, Boivie et al.
(2011) found that organizational identication was predictive of reduced
self-serving outcomes with respect to both compensation and perquisites
among the CEOs studied. Their theory and ndings led to the conclusion
that a greater interconnection between the CEOs identity and the rms
1
Quoted in Pierce et al. (2001, p. 299).
identity leads the CEO to do what is right for the rm, because helping the
rm is tantamount to helping him/herself (Boivie et al., 2011, p. 566).
In summary, we expect that narcissism and founder status will directly
inuence servant leadership. However, we also anticipate that narcissism
and founder status will indirectly affect servant leadership through their
respective relationships with CEO organizational identication.
Hypothesis 3a: CEO narcissism is negatively related to servant leader-
ship through the partial mediating mechanism of orga-
nizational identication.
Hypothesis 3b: CEOfounder status is positively related to servant lead-
ership through the partial mediating mechanism of or-
ganizational identication.
Servant Leadership and Firm Performance
Strategic management theory has become increasingly focused on
CEOs and their effects on rm-level outcomes. For example, upper eche-
lons theory suggests that the CEOs decisions and actions have a profound
impact on the strategic direction and performance of the rm (Hambrick
& Mason, 1984; Peterson et al., 2003). In terms of the CEOs leadership
behaviors, researchers have argued that they are of serious consequence to
the bottom line of the rm (e.g., Finkelstein et al., 2009). Still, empirical
research linking CEOleadership behaviors to rmperformance is limited.
The few extant studies focus almost exclusively on the rm-level impact
of charismatic and transformational forms of leadership (e.g., Agle et al.,
2006; Ensley et al., 2006; Tosi et al., 2004; Waldman et al., 2001), with
those studies revealing only minimal support for the relationship between
leadership and rm performance.
Given the suggestive but not overwhelming support in the literature for
the leadership and rmperformance relationship, it is valuable to consider
that there may be aspects of leadership relevant to rm performance that
have remained relatively unexamined so far. In this study, we explore the
possibility that servant leadership may contain overlooked critical aspects
of leadership important to rm performance. Furthermore, by control-
ling for transformational leadership in our study of servant leadership,
we ensure that we are examining the effect of servant leadership behav-
iors on rm performance that is distinct from transformational leadership
behaviors. This also allows for an empirical comparison of the strength
of servant versus transformational leadership on the rm performance
outcome.
We draw our arguments that servant leadership may be important for
rm performance from both practical and theoretical evidence. From a
practical standpoint, anecdotal evidence from the business press suggests
that a focus on community relationships and service, and consideration
of a broad range of stakeholders, may be a key to rm success in todays
environment (Burlington, 2005; van Dierendonck, 2011). Theoretically,
although CEO servant leadership has not received research attention, re-
search has indicated that CEO leadership that takes into account a range
of stakeholders may be particularly inspiring to followers, ultimately re-
sulting in higher levels of rm performance (Sully de Luque, Washburn,
Waldman, & House, 2008). According to servant leadership theory, fol-
lower inspiration is not created through charisma and emotions, as is the
case for transformational leadership, but instead through an emphasis on
creating a learning organization where each individual feels appreciated
and can add value (van Dierendonck, 2011), and on fostering high levels
of trust in management resulting in smooth organizational functioning
(Ehrhart, 2004).
More specically, borrowing from research on the team-level impact
of servant leadership, we suggest that by engaging in behaviors such as
putting subordinates rst, empowering and helping subordinates grow
and succeed (Liden et al., 2008), servant leaders trigger a process of
reciprocal exchange whereby they support employees by asserting their
strengths and by providing support for their growth and development
(Ehrhart, 2004; Liao & Chuang, 2007; Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam,
2010; Walumbwa et al., 2010). Employees reciprocate these benets by
putting forth effort directed toward performance of the collective (Hu &
Liden, 2011; Liden et al., 2008). Furthermore, because servant leaders
have strong conceptual skills, they emphasize clarity around problems,
goals, and strategic direction, thereby giving employees a focus on where
they are going and how to achieve success (Liden et al., 2008). Having
a clear sense of direction not only inspires condence in the followers
own abilities but also encourages them to respond in kind by exerting the
requisite effort needed to perform at high levels. Finally, by emphasizing
the importance of personal integrity and honesty, servant leaders promote
a spiritual climate (Liden et al., 2008) that encourages collaboration and
a stronger commitment to the collectives success.
Extending these ideas to the level of the rm, we reason that the
unique behaviors of servant leader CEOs can facilitate the atmosphere of
growth, development, and trust that encourages followers to reciprocate
by performing at the highest levels (Greenleaf, 1998). This exchange re-
lationship may be especially salient among the members of the CEOs top
management team (TMT). Indeed, Hambrick argued that TMT behavior
is reective of CEO leadership style, suggesting that the top group leader
has a disproportionate, sometimes nearly dominating inuence, on the
groups various characteristics and outputs (1994, p. 180). Empirical
research conrms this idea. Recent research found that CEO leader-
ship style inuenced TMT collaboration and information exchange (Ling,
Simsek, Lubatkin, & Veiga, 2008b) both of which have been shown to
positively impact performance outcomes at the team and organizational
level (Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling, & Veiga, 2006; Zhang & Peterson, 2011).
Whether CEO servant leadership behavior has its biggest impact at
the level of the TMT or whether that inuence permeates the entire orga-
nization, the effect of that leadership should be evident in enhanced rm
performance. CEO servant leaders, because they help subordinates reach
their own potential, provide clarity of focus and direction to followers, and
empower followers to make their own decisions, will in turn be highly sup-
ported by followers who reciprocate servant behavior by working hard to
ensure the leaders and organizations success (Greenleaf, 1998). Based
on the above arguments, we therefore predict that organizations led by
CEOs with higher levels of servant leadership behaviors will show bet-
ter rm nancial performance than will organizations led by CEOs with
lower levels of servant leadership behaviors.
Hypothesis 4: Servant leadership is positively related to rm performance.
Method
Sample and Procedure
We tested the above hypotheses using a sample of 126 CEOs based
in the western United States from the software and hardware technology
industries. The CEOs were part of a consortium of CEOs who gather four
times a year to discuss industry trends and engage in peer networking. One
meeting per year, each rms chief nancial ofcer (CFO) also attends.
Given our access to both the CEOs and the CFOs, the sample afforded us
the opportunity to adopt a survey methodology with multiple sources of
data and different time periods of data collection, helping us to meet the
unique challenges of collecting data from CEOs while maximizing the
validity of the study (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
The majority (86%) of the companies involved in the study were
dened by the consortiumas SMEs. Largely consistent with howprevious
research has dened SMEs (e.g., Ling et al., 2008a), these rms had a
maximum of 500 employees with annual sales less than $5 million. Some
of the rms in our sample were considerably smaller (11%) and some
much larger (3%). The smaller rms had fewer than 100 employees and
sales less than $1 million, and the larger rms had more than 1,000
employees and sales over $10 million. The average number of employees
for each rm was 98. Average sales was $7.8 million, mean rm age was
11 years, and TMTs averaged 5.2 members (including the CEO).
The survey data for this study were collected onsite during three con-
secutive quarterly technology conferences. The rst wave of data was
collected at the end of the last quarter of a recent year (labeled in Figure 1
as Time 1). A member of the research team personally administered a
survey to the CEOs. The researcher verbally explained the purpose of
the research project, encouraged participation, and promised to supply
a complimentary executive summary of the ndings. During this initial
time period, CEOs responded to survey items measuring their narcissistic
tendencies and gathering demographic characteristics, such as founder
status, CEO tenure, gender, and age.
The second wave of data collection occurred 3 months later, at the end
of the next quarter (Time 2). During this time period, CEOs responded
to survey items measuring their degree of organizational identication.
The third wave of data was collected another 3 months later, at the end of
the subsequent quarter (Time 3). At this time period, the CFOs responded
to survey items evaluating the leadership style of their CEO. Finally, we
collected an accounting measure of rmnancial performance subsequent
to Time 3. We had access to three quarters of subsequent rmperformance
data, meaning that the rm nancial performance data were time lagged
at 3, 6, and 9 months after nal survey data collection. As described later,
we averaged those three quarters, and we label them together in Figure 1
as Time 4.
Our initial sample frame consisted of a total of 308 CEOs. We dropped
CEOs if they did not complete either the Time 1 or Time 2 surveys, or if
their CFO did not complete the Time 3 survey. Although a total of 215
CEOs completed Time 1 of the survey, we were left with a nal sample
of 126 CEOs and their respective CFOs who completed all aspects of
the data collection process. Subsequent analyses revealed no signicant
differences in terms of any of the gathered study variables between the
CEOs who were dropped from the sample and those who were not. Ap-
proximately 90% of the CEOs in the nal sample were male, 82% were
Caucasian, and they ranged in age from 32 to 63 years old, with a mean
age of 47 years. Of the CFOs, 95% were male, 59% were Caucasian, and
they ranged in age from 31 to 59 years old, with a mean age of 43 years.
Measures
Narcissism. In the Time 1 survey, CEOs responded to the Ames,
Rose, and Anderson (2006) 16-item Narcissistic Personality Inventory
(NPI-16). The NPI-16 is a short version of Raskin and Terrys (1988)
Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI-40). The scale has shown strong
internal, discriminant, and predictive validity (Ames et al., 2006). Each
CEO responded to 16 paired statements. The pairs included a statement
that represents a narcissistic self-view and a statement that represents
a nonnarcissistic self-view. Example pairs include, I know that I am
good because everybody keeps telling me so/When people compliment
me I sometimes get embarrassed, and I am more capable than other
people/There is a lot that I can learn from other people. We computed the
NPI-16 score as the mean across the 16 items, with narcissism-consistent
responses coded as 1 and narcissism-inconsistent responses coded as 0.
The mean score was 0.31, and the reliability of the scale was = 0.82.
Founder status. At Time 1, CEOs also responded to a simple question
in the survey as to whether they had founded or cofounded the rm: 23
CEOs answered yes (coded as 1) and 103 CEOs answered no (coded
as 0).
Organizational identication. In the Time 2 survey, CEOs responded
to the nine-item Organizational Identication scale from Boivie et al.
(2011), which adapts the items from Mael and Ashforths (1992) measure
of organizational identication and includes both items from Bergami
and Bagozzis (2000) measure of organizational identication. Each item
was assessed on a ve-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to
5 = strongly agree). Sample items are When someone criticizes [name
of your organization], it feels like a personal insult, and [name of your
organization]s successes are my successes. One of the questions asks
respondents to assess the degree of overlap between their self-denition
and that of the rm as represented pictorially in the survey by a series
of paired Venn-style circles ranging from far apart to complete overlap.
We computed the Organizational Identication score as the mean across
items. The mean score was 3.64, and the reliability of the scale was
= 0.96.
Servant leadership. At Time 3, CFOs completed survey measures
rating their CEOs servant leadership behaviors. Because of constraints in
the time we had available for CFOs to answer the survey questions, we had
to be concise. As a result, we measured servant leadership using only 16
of the 28 items fromLiden et al.s (2008) scale. We selected these 16 items
based on relevancy to the CEOlevel. To ensure relevance, we sought input
from a small sample of the CFOs (n = 15). After receiving this input, we
were careful that all dimensions articulated in the Liden et al. (2008) scale
remained represented. The items were reworded so that the responding
CFO would be referencing his/her CEO. Sample items that were retained
were The CEO seems to care more about the organizations success than
his/her own, The CEO values honesty more than prots, and The
CEO emphasizes the importance of giving back to the community. Items
were assessed on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to
7 = strongly agree). The mean score for servant leadership was 3.81, and
the reliability of the scale was = 0.94.
Despite the practical reasons for shortening the scale, we recognize
the need to provide evidence that the 16-item shortened scale adequately
represents the 28-item full scale developed by Liden et al. (2008). Con-
sequently, we further investigated the construct validity of the shortened
scale. Using a web-based survey, we administered the full 28-itemmeasure
to a sample of 103 executive MBA students at a large, public university.
Both the short and the long version had acceptable levels of reliability,
short, = 0.90; long, = 0.94. In addition, the short correlated r = 0.96
with the long.
Firm performance. An accounting measure of rm nancial perfor-
mance, return on assets (ROA), was made available to us by the technology
symposiumwith the permission of the company CEOs. The ROAmeasure
consists of annual income before extraordinary items and discontinued op-
erations, divided by net assets. Although there are many potential ways
to measure rm performance, ROA was the measure for which we were
granted complete access. ROA is also perhaps the most commonly used
accounting measure of organizational performance in management re-
search (Miller & Lee, 2001). In line with prior recommendations when
using ROA as a performance outcome, we calculated averages over time
on ROA to reduce bias caused by single-quarter outliers (Agle, Mitchell,
& Sonnenfeld, 1999; Cannella, Park, & Lee, 2008). Specically, we av-
eraged ROA over three quarters. Because all rms in our sample were
from the technology industry, it was not necessary to control for industry
differences.
Control variables. To rule out alternative explanations, we collected
several CEO demographic variables such as age, gender, and tenure. We
selected these variables because research has shown that demographic
characteristics may inuence CEO orientation to the organization and
others perceptions of the CEO (Finkelstein et al., 2009). CEO tenure
was measured as the number of years a CEO had held the position at the
time of data collection (Herrmann & Datta, 2002). We also collected data
pertaining to the relationship tenure between the CEO and CFO. Because
the CFO represented the sole informant of CEO servant leadership, we
wanted to rule out the possibility that the number of years working together
between the CEO and CFO was driving the relationship between servant
leadership and other constructs. We measured relationship tenure as the
amount of time the CEO and CFO had worked together.
Following previous researchers (Agle et al., 2006; Ling et al., 2008a;
Waldman et al., 2001), we also included prior rm performance as a
control variable. Prior rm performance has been shown to affect em-
ployee perceptions of leadership (Agle et al., 2006) as well as subsequent
performance (Chen, Kanfer, DeShon, Mathieu, & Kozlowski, 2009). We
assessed prior rm performance as ROA for the quarter directly prior to
our rst survey period.
Finally, at Time 3, CFOs also completed survey items rating their
CEOs transformational leadership using the short formof the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5X; Avolio &Bass, 2004). Sample items
are Talks about his/her most important values and beliefs and Spends
time teaching and coaching. Transformational leadership is thought to
have a positive inuence on performance at the organizational level, thus
its inclusion as a control variable allows us to demonstrate the unique
contribution of servant leadership (Avolio & Bass, 2004).
Results
Table 1 includes descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations,
and scale reliabilities) and bivariate correlations among the variables in
the study. We began our analyses by running a conrmatory factory anal-
ysis (CFA) using EQS software to check the discriminant validity of the
servant leadership and transformational leadership measures. Although
these were both existing measures, evidence of discriminant validity in
our sample would be useful because we used a slightly shortened measure
of servant leadership and collected both ratings of leadership in the same
survey. The hypothesized factor model demonstrated relatively good t
with the data,
2
(451, N = 126) = 846.00, P 0.05, root mean-square
of approximation = 0.08, comparative t index = 0.94, incremental t
index = 0.94. All of the items loaded signicantly onto their respective
traditional subdimensions and onto the two latent factors (i.e., servant
and transformation leadership behaviors), with loadings ranging between
0.81 and 0.96. We ran a second model in which we loaded all of the items
onto their respective traditional subdimensions and onto the two latent
factors, and further loaded the two latent factors onto a single factor. This
alternative model demonstrated poor t with the data,
2
(452, N = 126)
= 1315.81, P 0.05, root mean-square of approximation = 0.12, com-
parative t index = 0.86, incremental t index = 0.86. A
2
difference
test, (1, N = 126) = 469.81, P 0.05, indicated that the hypothesized
model t the data signicantly better than the alternative model. Together
this evidence is supportive of the discriminant validity of the two lead-
ership measures. We then tested Hypotheses 1 through 4 using ordinary
least squares (OLS) regression analyses. The results of those analyses are
reported in Table 2.
To test Hypothesis 1, predicting a negative relationship between CEO
narcissism and servant leadership, and Hypothesis 2, predicting a posi-
tive relationship between CEO founder status and servant leadership, we
T
A
B
L
E
1
M
e
a
n
s
,
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
M
e
a
n
S
D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
.
F
i
r
m
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
1
0
.
5
1
2
.
8
8
(
0
.
9
1
)
2
.
S
e
r
v
a
n
t
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
3
.
8
1
1
.
5
6
0
.
3
0
(
0
.
9
4
)
3
.
C
E
O
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
d
e
n
t
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
3
.
6
4
1
.
1
1
0
.
2
4
0
.
6
8
(
0
.
9
6
)
4
.
C
E
O
n
a
r
c
i
s
s
i
s
m
0
.
3
1
0
.
2
4
0
.
2
3
0
.
1
5
0
.
1
9
(
0
.
8
2
)
5
.
F
o
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
t
u
s
(
0
=
n
o
;
1
=
y
e
s
)
0
.
1
8
0
.
3
9
0
.
1
0
0
.
3
0
0
.
3
1
0
.
3
4
6
.
C
E
O
a
g
e
4
6
.
7
9
6
.
3
1
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
5
7
.
G
e
n
d
e
r
(
0
=
f
e
m
a
l
e
;
1
=
m
a
l
e
)
0
.
9
0
0
.
3
1
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
9
8
.
C
E
O
t
e
n
u
r
e
4
.
0
8
0
.
9
5
0
.
1
3
0
.
2
4
0
.
4
0
0
.
2
1
0
.
5
0
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
3
9
.
C
F
O
t
e
n
u
r
e
w
i
t
h
C
E
O
3
.
3
3
1
.
6
1
0
.
0
1
0
.
1
0
0
.
2
9
0
.
1
3
0
.
1
9
0
.
1
0
0
.
0
4
0
.
5
9
1
0
.
P
r
i
o
r
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
1
1
.
4
6
3
.
4
3
0
.
6
5
0
.
2
0
0
.
3
2
0
.
3
1
0
.
1
7
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
3
0
.
1
3
0
.
0
0
(
0
.
9
1
)
1
1
.
T
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
3
.
3
9
0
.
9
7
0
.
1
6
0
.
3
2
0
.
3
3
0
.
2
0
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
6
0
.
0
9
0
.
3
3
(
0
.
9
7
)
N
o
t
e
.
N
=
1
2
6
;
W
h
e
r
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
,
a
l
p
h
a
c
o
e
f
c
i
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
i
n
p
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
d
i
a
g
o
n
a
l
;
0
.
1
0
;
0
.
0
5
;
0
.
0
1
.
TABLE 2
Regression Analyses Results
Variable Regression 1 Regression 2 Regression 3 Regression 4
Firm performance (ROA) Y
Servant leadership Y Y 0.28
Organizational identication Y 0.66
0.10
CEO narcissism 0.23
0.26
0.05 0.02
CEO founder status 0.33
0.27
0.15
0.02
CEO age 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.01
CEO gender 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.01
CEO tenure 0.18 0.37
0.02 0.09
CFO tenure with CEO 0.04 0.11 0.09
Prior performance (ROA) 0.22
0.33
0.00 0.65
Transformational leadership 0.11

Adjusted R
2
0.17 0.35 0.45 0.43
Overall F 4.70
12.42
13.83
10.35
Change in R
2
from eq.(1)(3) 0.28
Note. N = 126; Y designates the outcome being predicted in the regression;

P 0.10;
P 0.05;

P 0.01; All tests are two-tailed. Standardized beta coefcients are shown.
regressed servant leadership on CEO narcissism, founder status, and the
control variables as shown in Table 2, Regression 1. In support of Hy-
pothesis 1, CEO narcissism negatively predicted servant leadership ( =
0.23, P0.05). Supporting Hypothesis 2, CEOfounder status positively
predicted servant leadership ( = 0.33, P 0.01).
Next, we tested Hypotheses 3a and 3b, predicting that organizational
identication partially mediates the relationship between the antecedents
(CEO narcissism and founder status) and the outcome of servant leader-
ship. We followed the traditional four-step approach outlined by Baron
and Kenny (1986) for testing mediation. The rst step was to demon-
strate a signicant relationship between the predictors and the outcome
(supported by the signicant results for the test of Hypotheses 1 and 2).
Although this step is no longer considered to be requisite in some cases
(for overview, see Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004), it was conrmed in this
instance. Step 2 involved establishing a relationship between the predic-
tors and the potential mediator. In order to establish this relationship,
we regressed CEO organizational identication on CEO narcissism, CEO
founder status, and the control variables as shown in Table 2, Regression
2. CEO narcissism ( = 0.26, P 0.01) and CEO founder status ( =
0.27, P 0.01) each signicantly predicted organizational identication
in the expected direction.
The third step involved demonstrating a relationship between the medi-
ator and outcome variable. In a third regression (Table 2, Regression 3), we
TABLE 3
Selig and Preacher Indirect Effect Analysis Inputs and Condence Interval
Results
95%
condence
Regression 2 Regression 3 interval
Variable Beta Std. error Beta Std. error Lower Upper
Servant leadership Y
Organizational identication Y 0.93
0.12
CEO narcissism 1.22
0.37 0.35 0.51 1.91 0.44

CEO founder status 0.76
0.25 0.59
0.34 0.24 1.23

Note. N = 126. Y designates the outcome being predicted in the regression. All tests are
two-tailed. Relevant unstandardized coefcients from Regression 2 and 3 are shown.

P
0.10;

P 0.01.
reran Regression 1, this time including CEO organizational identication
as a predictor. This regression allowed us to demonstrate the positive re-
lationship between organizational identication and servant leadership.
CEO organizational identication signicantly predicted servant leader-
ship ( =0.66, P 0.01). Regression 3 also allowed us to determine if the
requirements of Step 4 in the Baron and Kenny approach were met. Step 4
involved demonstrating that the relationships between the predictors and
outcome variable were diminished when the mediator was introduced.
Because we hypothesized partial mediation, we anticipated that the paths
between the antecedents and servant leadership would be reduced yet
remain signicant. In fact, the empirical relationship was even stronger
than we predicted in Hypothesis 3(a), as organizational identication fully
mediated the relationship between CEOnarcissismand servant leadership
rather than partially mediating the relationship. The inclusion of organi-
zational identication reduced the beta weight for the narcissism servant
leadership relationship from = 0.23 (P 0.05) to 0.05 (P = ns),
suggesting full mediation. Hypothesis 3(b), which hypothesized that orga-
nizational identication would partially mediate the relationship between
CEO founder status and servant leadership was also supported. The in-
clusion of organizational identication reduced the beta weight for the
relationship between founder status and servant leadership from =0.33
(P 0.01) to = 0.15 (P 0.10), suggesting partial to full mediation.
As reported in Table 3, as a robustness check in order to quantify
the mediated effects via organizational identication, we also calcu-
lated the 95% condence intervals of the indirect effects using Selig and
Preachers (2008) Monte Carlo simulation approach. This approach uti-
lized the unstandardized coefcients for the betas and standard errors from
Regressions 2 and 3. The results from this approach supported our pre-
vious ndings from the Baron and Kenny approach. The generated 95%
condence intervals for the indirect effect of narcissism (lower = 1.91,
upper =0.44) and founder status (lower =0.24, upper =1.23) both ex-
cluded zero, indicating that both variables had a signicant indirect effect
on servant leadership through organizational identication.
Finally, to test Hypothesis 4, predicting a positive relationship between
servant leadership and rm performance, we regressed rm performance
on servant leadership and the variables fromRegression 3, which included
prior performance. We also included transformational leadership as a con-
trol variable. The results are shown in Table 2, Regression 4. In support of
Hypothesis 4, servant leadership signicantly predicted rm performance
( = 0.28, P 0.01).
Discussion
Anchored in upper echelons theory and executive personality research,
this research provides empirical evidence that, among CEOs, low levels
of narcissism and being the company founder encourages CEO servant
leadership behaviors. Moreover, organizational identication acts as a
mediating mechanism through which those characteristics affect CEO
servant leadership behaviors. We also found initial indications that CEO
servant leadership may positively inuence rm performance even after
controlling for transformational leadership. We elaborate on those ndings
and their implications below.
Theoretical Implications
Our ndings draw attention to previous research emphasizing the
importance of executive characteristics to leadership behaviors (House,
Spangler, & Woycke, 1991; Peterson et al., 2009; Resick et al., 2009).
Prior research has focused primarily on executive characteristics as deter-
minants of transformational leadership. In this study, we respond to the
growing concern among leadership scholars (e.g., Avolio, 2007; DeRue
et al., 2011) that our knowledge of which traits predict leadership is lim-
ited by the simple fact that the majority of studies are too narrowly focused
on one form of leadership at the expense of others.
Specically, we predicted and found a negative relationship between
CEO narcissism and servant leadership. Our ndings suggest that, despite
any upsides that may be associated with narcissistic leadership, such as
passion, boldness, and vision (Paunonen, L onnqvist, Verkasalo, Leikas, &
Nissinen, 2006; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006), the upsides may be partic-
ularly relevant to visionary forms of leadership such as transformational
or charismatic leadership but less so to servant leadership. Based on our
ndings, in terms of its effects on servant leadership, the downsides of
narcissism appear to override potential upsides. The desire for narcissists
to promote themselves above all else is inconsistent with spirit of servant
leadership.
Although this relationship may not seem unexpected given the me
focus of narcissism and the we focus of servant leadership, scholars
have cautioned against assuming that servant leaders are simply stewards
for others who do not desire power for themselves. As discussed by van
Dierendonck (2011, p. 1231) It should be noted that working from a
need to serve does not imply an attitude of servility in the sense that
the power lies in the hands of followers or that leaders would have low
self-esteem. Instead, servant leaders have a high need for power but
differentiate themselves fromother types of leaders by using that power in
a more seless or benecial way (Greenleaf, 1998). Given that narcissists
also have a strong desire for power, it is certainly possible that narcissistic
CEOs may engage in servant leadership behaviors for inauthentic or selsh
reasons (i.e., to garner more power and admiration from others). Indeed,
according to recent research, narcissists are especially motivated to engage
in actions that drive applause and adulation (Wallace &Baumeister, 2002).
Although this notion is beyond the scope of this paper, future research
should consider the motives of narcissists in order to get a clearer picture
regarding the relationship between narcissism and servant leadership.
Furthermore, because the relationship between narcissism and servant
leadership may be inuenced by external factors, future research should
consider the role of context in this relationship. CEOs have access to
a variety of resources in terms of stature, money, power, and relation-
ships, and are subject to various constraints such as governance structures
(Dalton, Hitt, Certo, & Dalton, 2007; Finkelstein et al., 2009). Because
such factors can affect the degree of managerial discretion, the associa-
tion between narcissism and servant leadership may depend upon these
resources and constraints. For example, a narcissistic CEO with access to
ample nancial resources may nd it easy to engage in servant leadership
behavior such as giving funds to the community. Narcissistic motives may
underlie what appear to be servant-leadership-oriented behaviors. In con-
trast, a less narcissistic CEO who is constrained in terms of what policies
he/she can implement or who does not have access to the funds necessary
to invest in the community may fail to engage in servant leadership not
because of lack of desire but because of structural or resource constraints.
In addition to narcissism, we also predicted and found a positive re-
lationship between CEO founder status and servant leadership. Our nd-
ings support our theoretical assertion that in comparison to their non-
founder counterparts, founders may especially focus on behaviors that
acknowledge the needs of broader stakeholder groups and develop the
long-termassets and relationships of the organization. Similar to our com-
ments above regarding the narcissism-servant leadership relationship, this
relationship may seem somewhat intuitive. It is reasonable to assume that
those who found an organization would identify more strongly with it.
However, researchers (e.g., Wasserman, 2008) have suggested that the
relationship between a founder and his/her company may be particularly
complex. According to Wasserman (2008), 50% of founders are no longer
CEOafter 3 years. As Wasserman suggests, founder CEOs face a dilemma
whereby they have to choose between making money or wanting to lead
and own the organization. Those who choose money typically leave (or
are asked to leave). Therefore, it is possible that founder CEOs whose
desire to make money supersedes their desire for ownership may not feel
the need to serve. In contrast, those who desire to lead and build a strong
organization more than they desire money may naturally engage in servant
leadership. Future researchers are encouraged to consider founder motives
to better elucidate the impact of founder status on servant leadership.
Focusing on the role of CEOorganizational identication in the servant
leadership process, we argued that narcissistic CEOs, preoccupied with
self and with distinguishing the self from others, would be less likely to
adopt the characteristics of the organization as a means of dening them-
selves. We further argued that CEOs who conceptualized and launched
their organizations would have a strong sense of psychological ownership,
leading to the feeling that the organization is an extension of self. Based
on this reasoning, we proposed that CEOs whose identities are more inter-
twined with their organizations identities would nd it natural to engage
in servant leadership behaviors. We hypothesized organizational identi-
cation as a partial mediator because we believed other potential mediating
links between narcissism or founder status and servant leadership were
plausible. Although we were not able to test for additional mechanisms
in this study, future research should explore additional mechanisms that
may serve to explain why or how narcissists or founders may engage in
servant leadership behavior. For example, as discussed earlier, future re-
search should consider leader motives or authenticity. If the narcissist or
founder has a selsh reason to engage in servant leadershipfor example,
if doing so will increase his/her compensation or make him/her look good
to othersperhaps he or she will do so.
Despite the plausibility of other mediating links, we were intrigued
by our observation of a null relationship between CEO narcissism and
servant leadership behaviors when organizational identication was in-
cluded in the regression. These ndings may indicate that organizational
identication plays a stronger mediating role than we had anticipated.
Our ndings support our original arguments that CEO narcissism may
be inconsistent with servant leadership behaviors but suggest that the
negative relationship between those two factors may be fully mediated by
CEO organizational identication. This result is well worth considering.
Along with the ndings of other research suggesting a complex inuence
on leadership behaviors of the narcissistic personality (e.g, Galvin et al.,
2010; Resick et al., 2009), it points to the need for further study.
Finally, our results have implications at the level of the rm. We found
a positive relationship between servant leadership and rm performance
even when controlling for transformational leadership. Although these
results are promising, we interpret them with caution until future research
replicates these ndings with different samples and additional measures
of rm performance. We also note that other, nonaccounting measures
of rm performance would be particularly interesting to study as they
relate to servant leadership. For example, rm performance as indicated
by corporate social responsibility (CSR) or market expansion might follow
from servant leaders focus on creating a learning organization, building
trust in management, and delivering value to the community. Possibly
servant leadership would have an especially strong impact on these types
of metrics. Given the old adage that you get what you reward, servant
leaders who not only role model behaviors associated with giving back
to the community and promoting customers but who also incentivize
employees based on these ideas are likely to see better CSRperformance or
customer satisfaction, as well as an increase in the value of their company
brand.
By going beyond previous empirical work that has focused almost
exclusively on transformational and charismatic leadership as predictors
of rm performance, our work suggests that servant leadership should be
included in conversations surrounding leadership and rm performance.
Although we are not making any claims regarding the relative superiority
of one form of leadership over another, the fact that in our study servant
leadership predicted rm performance over and above transformational
leadership adds support to the suggestion that leadership research may
benet from more theoretical integration (Avolio, 2007; DeRue et al.,
2011). We encourage leadership scholars to likewise enhance research
models by comparing different forms of leadership in the same study.
Doing so will allowresearchers to better discern what aspects of leadership
are uniquely important to predicting particular outcomes.
The signicant, positive relationship that we found in this study be-
tween CEO servant leadership and rm performance might be indica-
tive of a business shift toward CSR that has increased the relevancy of
servant leadership. This raises the question of what factors might mod-
erate or mediate the relationship between servant leadership and rm
performance. Future research should explore such factors and do so in
comparison with other forms of leadership that may share particular
conceptual overlap with servant leadershipnamely, transformational
leadership, ethical leadership, or authentic leadership. One potential area
of future research is exploring culture or climate as a mediating mechanism
linking servant leadership to rmperformance. By creating an atmosphere
that encourages followers to develop, learn, and reach their potential, the
rm may indirectly reap the benets. Another potential mediator relevant
to CEO research in particular is TMT behavioral integration (Hambrick,
1994). Given their focus on ensuring followers success, servant leaders
may be particularly effective at encouraging TMT members to work to-
gether more collaboratively to ensure organizational success. Regarding
moderators, the role of context must be considered in the servant lead-
ership and performance relationship. Our sample is comprised of largely
SMEs. Because previous researchers (e.g., Ling et al., 2008a) found the
effects of leadership in SMEs to be stronger than what was found by
others studying larger organizations, future research should consider con-
textual variables such as leader discretion or board inuence related to
governance structures to determine if they serve as boundary conditions.
Practical Implications
Our results have important implications for practicing managers and
organizations. First, our results suggest that CEOs (at least those in the
technology industry) may potentially improve their rms performance
through more inclusive forms of leadership, such as servant leadership,
that take into account a broader number of stakeholders and that are more
other focused. Servant leadership may be particularly effective at improv-
ing performance by motivating and empowering knowledge workers to
reach their full potential and feel engaged in a greater cause that benets
a wide range of stakeholders.
To foster servant leadership and consequently rm performance, it is
helpful for CEOs to identify strongly with their organizations. Although
there is only one CEO, the increasing emphasis on CSR and stakeholder
management in todays organizations suggests that organizations may be
looking for ways to foster a servant leadership mentality. For example,
organizations should promote people into their TMTs who have a we
rather than me mentality (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007), which could
be related to the likelihood that they have developed a strong identication
with the organization (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Our results suggest this
desire to identify with the organization may be highly relevant to the
candidates later likelihood of developing servant leadership behaviors.
In addition, those looking to promote or recruit a new CEO would be
advised to seek individuals who have demonstrated a strong connection
with their current organizations identity, as evidenced by their positive
evaluations of the rm, the degree to which they showed a desire to have
a great amount of contact and interaction with it and its members, their
eagerness to be supportive of organizational members, their competitive-
ness with individuals outside of the organization, and their organizational
citizenship behaviors (Dutton et al., 1994). The selection of the right
type of leader for the organization is critical because senior leaders, espe-
cially CEOs, are in a position to imprint their leadership values, as well
as to recruit, retain, and socialize employees and other stakeholders who
identify with these values (Ling et al., 2008a). If a servant leadership
mentality is desired, the behaviors begin with the CEO.
Finally, our results suggest that CEO personality and demographic
characteristics are relevant to predicting servant leadership. A clear im-
plication of our study is that organizations desiring servant leadership
behaviors are well advised, to the degree possible, to be aware of individ-
ual differences during selection processes. Even simple indicators such as
a candidates clearly evident arrogance, which could be related to narcis-
sism (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006), could make a difference in whether
they adopt a strong organizational identity and desire to be a steward of
the organization and hold it in trust (Reinke, 2004). Moreover, listening
for cues that reveal the candidates sense of ownership of their projects,
teams, and even failures may indicate a stronger likehood to behave with
a deeper sense of ownership in the new role. Although it would be un-
realistic to assume orgaizations could completely avoid selecting those
with narcissistic tendencies or, alternatively, that they would have unlim-
ited access to those with a founders mentality, developing an awareness
for these characteristics may prove informative in terms of the types of
behaviors to expect from leaders and how to circumvent or mitigate any
potential downsides.
Limitations
Despite the strengths of our studyfor example, multisource data
collected over several time periods and the inclusion of objective rm
performance dataas with all research our study has some potential limi-
tations. Although our study provides valuable insight into the determinants
of servant leadership behaviors among the CEOs we observed, we are un-
able to make rm conclusions about the generalizability of our ndings
to the broader population of all CEOs. It could be that some feature
of our samplesuch as industry (technology), rm size (predominately
small to medium), or CEO motivation for gathering at the quarterly con-
sortium (e.g., self or company improvement)implied heterogeneity that
we could not observe between our sample and the broader population of
CEOs but that was systematically related to our measures. Another poten-
tial limitation to the generalizability of our ndings relates to the relatively
small size of our sample. As is common with leadership research that in-
volves top managers (e.g., CEOs and CFOs), it was somewhat difcult to
generate a very large sample. We encourage future research that replicates
our ndings in other CEO samples, or that is able to generate a larger
sample of CEOs, to provide evidence that the results we observed were in
no way unique to the sample we studied.
Our measure of CEO servant leadership may have been enhanced in
two ways. First, ideally, we would have used all 28 items of the Liden et al.
(2008) scale. Second, by having more than a single rater. Getting access to
this level of respondent is difcult in TMT research. Our CFO raters were
credible as they were all members of the TMT and therefore were direct
and frequent observers of the CEOs leadership behaviors. However, it is
possible that their ratings of the CEOwere potentially biased by the length
of their tenure working with the CEO or the prior performance of the or-
ganization. In an effort to provide additional robustness to our ndings,
as stated earlier, CFO tenure with the CEO and prior performance were
included as control variables in the regression predicting CFOperceptions
of CEO servant leadership. Still, it is clearly desirable and would provide
additional condence about reliability to have multiple raters. We encour-
age future research that replicates our ndings with a multirater format.
In addition, researchers could control for relationship quality (e.g., LMX)
between the leader and subordinate.
Finally, we acknowledge that variables other than those studied here
may inuence servant leadership. Our work here simply offers a start-
ing point for the exploration of characteristics that may encourage or
discourage servant leadership among executives. Not only might there
be additional predictors, but additional mediating mechanisms should be
explored.
Conclusion
Our results highlight the importance of the executive characteristics
of CEOs in fostering servant leadership and rm performance. We hope
that these results spur additional research encompassing CEO attributes,
various forms of leadership, and rm performance. Such research could
further our understanding of the antecedents of various forms of leadership
as well as of the mechanisms underlying the relationship between CEO
individual differences, leadership, and rm performance.
REFERENCES
Agle BR, Mitchell RK, Sonnenfeld JA. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation
of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values.
Academy of Management Journal, 42, 507525.
Agle BR, Nagarajan NJ, Sonnenfeld JA, Srinivasan D. (2006). Does CEO charisma matter?
An empirical analysis of the relationships among organizational performance, en-
vironmental uncertainty, and top management team perceptions of CEO charisma.
Ames DR, Rose P, Anderson CP. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism.
Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 440450.
Arthurs JD, Busenitz LW. (2003). The boundaries and limitations of agency theory and
stewardship theory in the venture capitalist/entrepreneur relationship. Entrepreneur-
ship Theory and Practice, 28, 145162.
Ashford SJ, Barton MA. (2007). Identity-based issue selling. In Bartel CA, Blader S,
Wrzesniewski A (Eds.), Identity and the modern organization (pp. 223244).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ashforth BE, Mael F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 2039.
Avolio BJ. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building.
American Psychologist, 62, 2533.
Avolio BJ, Bass BM. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire (3rd ed.). Menlo Park,
CA: Mind Garden.
Avolio BJ, Gardner WL. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 215228.
Avolio BJ, Walumbwa FO, Weber TJ. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and
future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421449.
Baron JN, Hannan MT, Burton MD. (1999). Building the iron cage: Determinants of
managerial intensity in the early years of organizations. American Sociological
Review, 64, 527547.
Baron RM, Kenny DA. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182.
Bartel C. (2001). Social comparisons in boundary-spanning work: Effects of community
outreach on members organizational identity and identication. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 46, 379413.
Bass BM. (1990). Bass & Stogdills handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and man-
agerial applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass BM. (2000). The future of leadership in the learning organization. Journal of Leader-
ship Studies, 7, 1838.
Bergami M, Bagozzi RP. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group
self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 39, 555577.
Birger J. (2006). Do company founders make better CEOs? Fortune, April 18.
Blair CA, Hoffman BJ, Helland KR. (2008). Narcissism in organizations: A multisource
appraisal reects different perspectives. Human Performance, 21, 254276.
Boal KB, Hooijberg R. (2001). Strategic leadership: Moving on. The Leadership Quarterly,
11, 515550.
Boivie S, Lange D, McDonald ML, Westphal JD. (2011). Me or we: The effects of CEO
organizational identication on agency costs. Academy of Management Journal, 54,
551576.
Burlington B. (2005). Small giants: Companies that choose to be great instead of big. New
York, NY: Penguin.
Campbell WK, Goodie AS, Foster JD. (2004). Narcissism, condence, and risk attitude.
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 297311.
Cannella AA, Jr., Park JH, Lee HU. (2008). Top management team functional back-
ground diversity and rm performance: Examining the roles of team member
collocation and environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 51,
768784.
Chatterjee A, Hambrick DC. (2007). Its all about me: Narcissistic chief executive ofcers
and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 52, 351386.
Chen G, Kanfer R, DeShon RP, Mathieu JE, Kozlowski SWJ. (2009). The motivating
potential of teams: Test and extension of Chen and Kanfers (2006) cross-level model
of motivation in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
110, 4555.
Conger JA. (1990). The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19, 4455.
Dalton DR, Hitt MA, Certo ST, Dalton CM. (2007). The fundamental agency problem and
its mitigation. Academy of Management Annals, 1, 164.
Deluga RJ. (1997). Relationship among American presidential charismatic leadership,
narcissism, and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 8, 4965.
DeRue DS, Nahrgang JD, Wellman N, Humphrey S. (2011). Trait and behavioral theo-
ries of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity.
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 64, 752.
Dukerich JM, Golden BR, Shortell SM. (2002). Beauty is in the eye of the be-
holder: The impact of organizational identication, identity, and image on the
cooperative behaviors of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 507
533.
Dutton JE, Dukerich JM, Harquail CV. (1994). Organizational images and member identi-
cation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239263.
Ehrhart MG. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level
organizational citizenship behavior. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 57, 6194.
Ensley MD, Hmieleski KM, Pearce CL. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared lead-
ership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance
of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 217231.
Erhart MG. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level
organizational citizenship behavior. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 57, 6194.
Finkelstein S, Hambrick DC, Cannella AA, Jr. (2009). Strategic leadership: Theory and
research on executives, top management teams, and boards. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Frazier PA, Tix AP, Barron KE. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in coun-
seling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115134.
Galvin BM, Waldman DA, Balthazard P. (2010). Visionary communication qualities as
mediators of the relationship between narcissismand attributions of leader charisma.
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 63, 509537.
Graham JW. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. The
Leadership Quarterly, 2, 105119.
Greenleaf RK. (1977). Servant leadership. New York, NY: Paulist Press.
Greenleaf RK. (1998). The power of servant-leadership. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehler.
Greenleaf RK. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power &
greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Hale JR, Fields DL. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A study of
followers in Ghana and the USA. Leadership, 3, 397417.
Hambrick DC. (1994). Top management groups: A conceptual integration and re-
consideration of the team label. In Staw BM, Cummings LL (Eds.), Re-
search in organizational behavior (Vol. 16, pp. 171214). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Hambrick DC, Mason PA. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reection of its
top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193206.
Handler WC. (1990). Succession in family rms: A mutual role adjustment between en-
trepreneur and next-generation family rms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
15, 3751.
Herrmann P, Datta DK. (2002). CEO successor characteristics and the choice of foreign
market entry mode: An empirical study. Journal of International Business Studies,
33, 551569.
Hiller NJ, Hambrick DC. (2005). Conceptualizing executive hubris: The role of (hyper-)
core self-evaluations in strategic decision making. Strategic Management Journal,
26, 297319.
Hogan R, Kaiser RB. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychol-
ogy, 9, 169180.
Hogan R, Raskin R, Fazzini D. (1990). The dark side of charisma. In Clark KE, Clark MB
(Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 343354). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library
of America.
Hogg MA, Terry DJ. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organiza-
tional contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121140.
House RJ, Spangler WD, Woycke J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the US presidency:
A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly,
36, 364396.
Hu J, Liden RC. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An ex-
amination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96, 851862.
Ireland RD, Hitt MA. (1999). Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the
21st century: The role of strategic leadership. Academy of Management Executive,
13, 4357.
Isaacs S. (1933). Social development in young children. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Judge TA, LePine JA, Rich BL. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of the
narcissistic personality to self- and other perceptions of workplace deviance, lead-
ership, and task and contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,
762776.
Judge TA, Piccolo RF, Kosalka T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: Areview
and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The Leadership Quarterly,
20, 855875.
Kellerman B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kernberg OF. (1989). The narcissistic personality disorder and the differential diagnosis of
antisocial behavior. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 12, 553570.
Kets de Vries MFR, Miller D. (1985). Narcissism and leadership: An object relations
perspective. Human Relations, 38, 583601.
Liao H, Chuang A. (2007). Transforming service employees and climate: Amultilevel, mul-
tisource examination of transformational leadership in building long-term service
relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 10061019.
Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Zhao H, Henderson D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of
a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly,
19, 161177.
Ling Y, Simsek Z, Lubatkin MH, Veiga JF. (2008a). The impact of transformational CEOs
on the performance of small- to medium-sized rms: Does organizational context
matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 923934.
Ling Y, Simsek Z, Lubatkin MH, Veiga JF. (2008b). Transformational leaderships role
in promoting corporate entrepreneurship: Examining the CEO-TMT interface.
Ling Y, Zhao H, Baron RA. (2007). Inuence of founder-CEOs personal values on rm
performance: Moderating effects of rm age and size. Journal of Management, 33,
673696.
Lubatkin MH, Simsek Z, Ling Y, Veiga JF. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in
small- to medium-sized rms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral
integration. Journal of Management, 32, 646672.
Maccoby M. (2003). The productive narcissist: The promise and peril of visionary leader-
ship. New York, NY: Broadway.
Mael F, Ashforth BE. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: Apartial test of the reformulated
model of organizational identication. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103
123.
Mayer DM, Bardes M, Piccolo RF. (2008). Do servant-leaders help satisfy follower needs?
An organizational justice perspective. European Journal of Work and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 17, 180197.
Miller D, Lee J. (2001). The people make the process: Commitment to employees, decision
making, and performance. Journal of Management, 27, 163189.
Mintzberg H, Simons R, Basu K. (2002). Beyond selshness. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 44, 6775.
Morgeson FP, DeRue DS, Karam EP. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach
to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36,
539.
Nelson T. (2003). The persistence of founder inuence: Management, ownership, and
performance effects at initial public offering. Strategic Management Journal, 24,
707724.
Neubert MJ, Kacmar KM, Carlson DS, Chonko LB, Roberts JA. (2008). Regulatory focus as
a mediator of the inuence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 12201233.
Patterson KA. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, ATT No. 3082719, Regent University
Paunonen SV, L onnqvist J, Verkasalo M, Leikas S, Nissinen V. (2006). Narcissism and
emergent leadership in military cadets. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 475486.
Pawar BS, Eastman KK. (1997). The nature and implications of contextual inuences on
transformational leadership: A conceptual examination. Academy of Management
Review, 22, 80109.
Peterson RS, Smith DB, Martorana PV, Owens PD. (2003). The impact of chief executive
ofcer personality on top management team dynamics: One mechanism by which
leadership affects organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
795808.
Peterson SJ, Walumbwa FO, Byron K, Myrowitz J. (2009). CEO positive psychological
traits, transformational leadership, and rmperformance in high-technology start-up
and established rms. Journal of Management, 35, 348368.
Pierce JL, Kostova T, Dirks KT. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26, 298310.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879903.
Raskin R, Terry H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the narcissistic personality
inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54, 890902.
Reinke SJ. (2004). Service before self: Towards a theory of servant-leadership. Global
Virtue Ethics Review, 3, 3057.
Resick CJ, Whitman DS, Weingarden SM, Hiller NJ. (2009). The bright-side and dark-side
of CEO personality: Examining core self-evaluations, narcissism, transformational
leadership, and strategic inuence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 13651381.
Riketta M. (2005). Organizational identication: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 66, 358384.
Rosenthal SA, Pittinsky TL. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17,
617633.
Schaubroeck J, Lam SSK, Penk AC. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as
mediators of leader behavior inuences on team performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96, 863871.
Selig JP, Preacher KJ. (2008). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interac-
tive tool for creating condence intervals for indirect effects [computer software].
Retrieved from http://www.quantpsy.org.
Sully de Luque M, Washburn NT, Waldman DA, House RJ. (2008). Unrequited prot: How
stakeholder and economic values relate to subordinates perceptions of leadership
and rm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 626654.
Tosi HL, Misangyi VF, Fanelli A, Waldman DA, Yammarino FJ. (2004). CEO charisma,
compensation, and rm performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 405420.
van Dierendonck D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Man-
agement, 37, 12281261.
Waldman DA, Javidan M, Varella P. (2004). Charismatic leadership at the strategic level: A
new application of upper echelons theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 355380.
Waldman DA, Ramirez GG, House RJ, Puranam P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO
leadership attributes and protability under conditions of perceived environmental
uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134143.
Wallace HM, Baumeister RF. (2002). The performance of narcissists rises and falls with
perceived opportunity for glory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82,
819834.
Walumbwa FO, Hartnell CA, Oke A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice cli-
mate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior:
A cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 517529.
Wasserman N. (2006). Stewards, agents, and the founder discount: Executive compensation
in new ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 960976.
Wasserman N. (2008). The founders dilemma. Harvard Business Review, 86, 102109.
Zhang Z, Peterson SJ. (2011). Advice networks in teams: The role of transformational
leadership and members core self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96,
10041017.

J 1744-6570 2012 01253 X

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J 1744-6570 2012 01253 X

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

2012, 65, 565596

Organizational identication Y 0.66

Transformational leadership 0.11

0.37 0.35 0.51 1.91 0.44

0.34 0.24 1.23

You might also like