Management Research Review

Motivating language as a mediator between servant leadership and employee

outcomes
Sandra Gutierrez-Wirsching Jacqueline Mayfield Milton Mayfield Wei Wang
Article information:
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 22:10 16 January 2017 (PT)

To cite this document:

Sandra Gutierrez-Wirsching Jacqueline Mayfield Milton Mayfield Wei Wang , (2015)," Motivating
language as a mediator between servant leadership and employee outcomes ", Management
Research Review, Vol. 38 Iss 12 pp. 1234 - 1250
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-01-2014-0009
Downloaded on: 16 January 2017, At: 22:10 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 65 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1194 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2014),"The impact of servant leadership and subordinates' organizational tenure on trust in
leader and attitudes", Personnel Review, Vol. 43 Iss 2 pp. 272-287 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
PR-08-2011-0125
(2015),"Seeking and measuring the essential behaviors of servant leadership", Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, Vol. 36 Iss 4 pp. 413-434 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
LODJ-10-2013-0135

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:537778 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm

MRR
38,12
Motivating language as a
mediator between servant
leadership and employee
1234 outcomes
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 22:10 16 January 2017 (PT)

Received 9 January 2014 Sandra Gutierrez-Wirsching, Jacqueline Mayfield,

Revised 21 May 2014
3 October 2014 Milton Mayfield and Wei Wang
Accepted 20 November 2014
Division of International Business and Technology Studies,
Texas A&M International University, Laredo, Texas, USA

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose motivating language as a mediator to increase the
positive effects of servant leadership on subordinates outcomes. The authors propose that motivating
language acts as a mediator to transmit servant leadership traits and enhances the positive impact that
servant leadership verbal behavior has on employees performance.
Design/methodology/approach By developing a conceptual model, the authors propose a
connection between servant leadership and motivating language.
Findings In the proposed model, motivating language acts as a full and a partial mediator. The authors
further categorize three distinct outcome sets that should be improved from this relationship. The first set
includes improved worker performance, job satisfaction, absenteeism and worker innovation. The second set
is composed of self-efficacy, organizational citizenship behavior and employee commitment. Finally, the
third set includes trust, satisfaction with the leader and inspiration to become servant leaders.
Research limitations/implications Empirical research needs to be conducted to test this model.
Practical implications The positive effects of servant leadership through the use of motivating
language could be operationalized in multiple ways. First, potential servant leaders could take the
well-established, reliable and valid motivating language scale to diagnostically identify their
leader-member communication strengths and weaknesses. Then, tailored motivating language
trainings could be implemented which target motivating language weaknesses and key strategic
outcomes in the proposed model. Furthermore, motivating language training would be a valuable
instrument for transmission of a servant leadership culture.
Social implications Servant leadership style responds to the demand for positive ethical behavior
that is much needed during these times when emphasis is given to profitability and lack of concern for
people is the norm rather than the exception. It is also synchronized with the current benefits of
organizational citizenship behaviors that have recently emerged in the field of managerial research.
Originality/value This paper aims at addressing a gap in the literature by developing a model of how
leader strategic language, namely, motivating language, mediates between servant leadership and worker
outcomes.
Keywords Employee outcomes, Motivating language, Servant leadership
Paper type Conceptual paper

Management Research Review

Vol. 38 No. 12, 2015
pp. 1234-1250
Introduction
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-8269
Todays business environment is fraught with ethical scandals. At the same time, much
DOI 10.1108/MRR-01-2014-0009 more public scrutiny is cast on the ethical behavior of employees and the quality of their
 work life (Carroll and Buchholtz, 2012; Cascio, 2010). One emergent remedy to these Servant
dilemmas is the growing presence of servant leadership (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Yet leadership and
despite such progress, the construct of servant leadership is not well defined, including
key inherent processes such as leader communication (Yukl, 2013). This paper
employee
addresses this gap by developing a model of how leader strategic language mediates outcomes
between servant leadership and worker outcomes. According to Spears (1998), leaders
ability to communicate has always been valuable. However, very little attention has 1235
been paid to communications role in the servant leadership process. In sum, there is lack
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 22:10 16 January 2017 (PT)

of process models that incorporate well-tested leader communication constructs into

servant leader theory (Mayfield and Mayfield, 2012). There is also little research to
illustrate what aspects of servant leadership will be transmitted through
communication. For this reason, we assert that a viable way for servant leaders to
communicate will be through motivating language. Our contribution to the literature is
to propose a servant leadership model that includes how, through the different
dimensions of communication, the leader can help subordinates in their development
and growth, as well as to achieve organizational outcomes. The rest of the paper is
organized as follows:
an overview of servant leadership;
a synopsis motivating language theory;
a subsequent model and propositions;
implications and future directions for research and practice; and
concluding remarks.

Servant leadership
It is well known that in the present time, the access to capital is necessary but not a
determinant factor of success when compared to the access to imagination, creativity
and skills (Spears, 1998). Van Dierendonck (2011) points out the relevance of servant
leadership to the modern workplace. He argues that there is a:
[] current demand for more ethical, people-centered management [] [and since] innovation
and employee well being are given high priority, a leadership that is rooted in ethical and
caring behavior becomes of great importance (Van Dierendonck, 2011, p. 1228).
In light of ethical failures, such as the Enron and the recent Madoff scandal, there is a
compelling reason to explore the servant leadership style, which adds a humane, ethical
component to the management of people. After all, organizations facilitate outcomes
through people, and these workers must also be regarded as stakeholders due to their
crucial role in achieving high productivity levels. Additionally, employee sentiments
can directly impact the customer as well as other job-related outcomes. Greenleaf (1977)
advocated that one of organizations main objectives should encompass social
responsibility and that servant leaders should advocate this vision.
Greenleaf (1977, p. 13) coined the term servant leadership. His most salient quote
about servant leadership is as follows:
The Servant-Leader is servant first []. It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to
serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead []. The best test, and
difficult to administer is this: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served,
become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, and more likely themselves to become
 MRR servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit, or at least
38,12 not further be harmed?
In spite of the relevance of servant leadership, Greenleaf never gave a precise definition.
It is clear though, that Greenleaf did not imply that being a servant leader was the
equivalent of being a martyr; contrary to that assumption, a servant leader uses the
appropriate amount of power and knows when to use the word no accordingly (Spears,
1236 2002). Servant leadership is not a leadership characterized for being powerless or
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 22:10 16 January 2017 (PT)

passive, because the personal power is consciously controlled and generously shared,
not foregone (Molyneaux, 2003, p. 360). Servant leadership is not only about serving,
and it is much more than a feel good concept (Spears, 2002, p. 139). It is about serving
in a manner that makes people independent of that leader and with a growing desire to
serve others (Spears, 2002). These leaders are confident about how their role as servants
contributes to the welfare of the organization; in Spears words, they walk the talk
(Spears, 1998, p. 63). In sum, servant leaders transcend personal self-interest and aspire
to fulfill the physical, spiritual, and emotional needs of others (Birkenmeier et al., 2003,
p. 376) and represent the highest commitment of management to the employee
(Jaramillo et al., 2009b, p. 352).
Nair (1994) claimed that as long as power dominates our thinking about leadership,
we cannot move toward a higher standard of leadership; we must place service at the
core (Nair, 1994, p. 59). Servant leaders are committed to serve employees, customers
and communities, and this servanthood surpasses any egotistical desires (Liden et al.,
2008). Servant leadership is a theory that encompasses both an altruistic behavior and
moral excellence (Dennis and Bocarnea, 2005). These are virtues that possess ethical
characteristics; therefore, a servant leader is he/she who is guided by virtues within
(Dennis and Bocarnea, 2005, p. 601). Most of the current leadership trainings focus on
developing skills to manipulate the external world instead of on gaining skills to go
within (Spears, 1998, p. 201). Contrary to these trainings, servant leadership is
conceptualized in a way that goes beyond considering leaders solely based on
extroversion, knowing that this can come at a cost of failure to internalize and know
what is going on within themselves (Spears, 1998). Because how valuable this type of
leadership is, prominent scholars have developed diverse interpretations of servant
leadership (Van Dierendonck, 2011; Barbuto and Wheeler, 2006; Dennis and Bocarnea,
2005; Patterson, 2003; Russell and Stone, 2002; Page and Wong, 2000; Laub, 1999), but it
is Spears who captures the essence of servant leadership. Spears worked alongside
Greenleaf for many years. He listed ten characteristics of a servant leader: healing,
foresight, empathy, awareness, listening, persuasion, stewardship, conceptualization,
building community and commitment to the growth of people (Spears, 1998). A servant
leader is motivated by the desire to serve those within an organization, works in a
collaborative and interdependent manner, gives credit to subordinates rather than
taking their credit, understands peoples motivations, is open about sharing information
and knows that accountability does not mean blaming others, but to actually learn from
mistakes (Spears, 2002).
Communication is a vital component of servant leadership. Servant leaders know
that it is only by opening to people and sharing vital information that they can obtain
input from employees (Spears, 1998). Additionally, a servant leader also understands
the importance of dialogue. This is in spite of the fact that dialogue is often put aside due
its counterintuitive nature of slowing down to go fast. Benefits that arise from dialogue
 include building independent thinking, openness and insight (Spears, 1998, p. 338). Servant
Dialogue requires people to consciously analyze their actions retrospectively. It is a rare leadership and
dynamic, as it is not customary to waste time in reflection; yet doing things twice is
always acceptable (Spears, 1998). However, a servant leader knows the value that
employee
dialogue can bring to problem solving and to long-term organizational success and, outcomes
therefore, always encourages it.
Furthermore, a servant leader knows how important it is for employees to have a 1237
balanced life and knows that activity does not necessarily mean productivity. Often,
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 22:10 16 January 2017 (PT)

peers view people who do not work long after-hours as disloyal to the organization. But
a servant leader recognizes that productivity is a result of visionary planning and
efficient action, not of continuous activity (Spears, 1998, p. 220). Workaholic people
could be addicted to activity, but this activity without productivity can only yield to
endless crises that are always in need of attention (Spears, 1998). A servant leader
acknowledges that a balanced life can prevent many illnesses, and therefore, this will
result in a win-win situation. Moreover, not only there is a need for a balance in
employees life, it is also important that there is a balance between the job demands and
the employee skills. Spears (1998) defines it as flow, which is a balance between the
challenges faced and the employees preparation and abilities. When the challenges
presented are greater than the skills possessed, the employee might exhibit anxiety and
depression (Spears, 1998). This showcases the importance of developing each and every
employee on their technical and human competence and being committed to their
growth.
Servant leaders also recognize how important is creativity to obtain and sustain
competitive advantage. A servant leader fosters creativity by treating employees with
dignity and empowering them (Spears, 1998). He/she knows that mistakes are necessary
to achieve this creativity and, therefore, is tolerant to these mistakes to strive for success.
Finally, one of the most important roles of a servant leader is to bring meaningfulness of
work (Spears, 1998). Servant leaders know how important it is for employees to feel that
their contribution is meaningful. As Spears mentions:
[] the work exists for the person as much as the person exists for the work [] the business
exists as much to provide meaningful work to the person, as it exists to provide a product or
service to the customer (Spears, 1998, p. 244).
Employees will tend to work more enthusiastically and productively if they feel their
efforts make a difference.
Many other benefits emanate when leaders exercise their role as servants. This
leaders subordinates will go beyond their potential and, therefore, have more valuable
contributions. Because servant leaders provide more autonomy and encourage sharing,
employees utilize this freedom to work in a smarter manner and will collaborate with
their peers, resulting in synergistic outcomes. Organizational outcomes such as reduced
problem-solving cycle, optimal organizational systems, better quality customer service
and better employee health are achieved as a result of this leadership style, influencing
not only the economic value but also the humanitarian one (Spears, 1998).
Based on the literatures broad taxonomy, critics argue that servant leadership is
very similar to other forms of leadership, for example, transformational, ethical,
authentic, charismatic and spiritual leadership. It is important to distinguish servant
leadership as an independent construct by illustrating the difference between it and
 MRR other leadership styles. Servant leadership includes a moral component, which is not
38,12 present in charismatic and transformational, even though it is included in authentic and
ethical leadership. Servant leadership is genuinely concerned with the success of
followers (Walumbwa et al., 2010). Additionally, servant leadership does not use
manipulative behavior, as leaders act in the best interest of the follower; therefore, such
leaders do not try to involve followers with the sole purpose of achieving organizational
1238 ends, such as would be the case with charismatic and transformational styles
(Walumbwa et al., 2010). Furthermore, while transformational leaders exert their
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 22:10 16 January 2017 (PT)

influence from experience and charisma, servant leaders do so by serving their

subordinates (Stone et al., 2004). The distinctiveness of servant leadership lies on two
basic assumptions. First, a servant leader is not only responsible for organizational
performance but also for the stakeholders involved, including society at large; and
second, it encompasses a moral dimension, as the leaders actions are guided by values
such as honesty and integrity, with the end purpose of inspiring subordinates to
implement moral reasoning (Graham, 1991; Jaramillo et al., 2009b). Finally, the most
unique characteristic of servant leadership is the practice of self-reflection to diminish
the arrogance that often comes with power; this element is not practiced in the authentic,
ethical and transformational leadership styles (Walumbwa et al., 2010).
There has been an increase in academic interest in servant leadership and a growing
amount of both theoretical and empirical research. For example, Rai and Prakash (2012)
propose servant leadership as a facilitator of knowledge creation through behaviors
such as sharing leadership and caring relationships. Duff (2013) argues that there is a
relationship between servant leaderships individually focused style and performance
management coaching. Yukl (2013) posits that servant leaders concern for the
subordinates would yield to an increase in trust, loyalty, commitment and satisfaction
with the leader. In the global arena, Gupta (2013) claims that to pursue a marketing
strategy in which the target is at the bottom of the pyramid (BOP), multi-national
enterprises need to embrace a servant leader culture. This would ensure that the
primary focus is on serving the BOP and achieving sustainability. Additionally, some
scholars argue that this type of leadership is beneficial during economic downturn. For
example, Doraiswamy (2012) advocates for a servant leadership style as a possible
solution to the economic recession and as a viable path to sustainable growth.
Servant leadership has also been analyzed through different cultural taxonomies.
Riverstone (2004) attributes the rise on servant leadership to Ingleharts (1981)
cultural shift from material to postmaterial values (Riverstone, 2004, p. 114). Hannay
(2009) discusses the application of servant leadership in a cultural context using
Hofstedes cultural dimensions. Mittal and Dorfman (2012) analyze how different
dimensions of servant leadership, such as empathy, humility, moral integrity,
egalitarianism and empowering, fit the GLOBE cultural clusters. The authors conclude
that attitudes such as empathy and humility are practiced within the Asian cultures,
while egalitarianism and empowering are characteristically displayed in the European,
especially the Nordic, cultures. Winston and Ryan (2008, p. 212) also examine servant
leadership using the GLOBE study and conclude that this style is more global than
Western.
Empirical research is also on the rise. For instance, Kool and van Dierendonck (2012)
find that servant leadership positively affects interactional justice, optimism and,
subsequently, commitment to change. According to Yukl (2013), empirical research has
 found positive relationships between servant leaders and employee commitment, Servant
self-efficacy and organizational citizenship behavior. Senjaya and Pekertis (2010) leadership and
findings suggest servant leadership is a powerful antecedent of organizational trust.
Dannhauser and Boshoff (2007) find a positive relationship between servant leadership,
employee
trust and team commitment. Joseph and Winston (2005) show a positive link between outcomes
servant leadership, leader trust and organizational trust. Ehrhart (2004) illustrates how
servant leadership is positively related to procedural justice climate, and this in turn 1239
affects unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Mayer et al. (2008) pose the
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 22:10 16 January 2017 (PT)

question of whether servant leaders satisfy or not their followers needs, and find that in
spite of this relation being mediated by organizational justice, is still had a direct
positive significant effect on followers needs satisfaction. Jaramillo et al. (2009b, 2009a)
evidences servant leadership having an impact on salespersons turnover intention,
customer orientation and sales force performance. Neubert et al. (2008) find that servant
leadership is related to promotion focus, creative behavior and helping behavior. Liden
et al. (2008) findings suggest that servant leadership enhances performance and
commitment to the organization. Hu and Liden (2011) empirically test the effect servant
leadership has on team potency and effectiveness and conclude that not only is this
effect positive, but also it yields to team performance and organizational citizenship
behavior. The authors also find that servant leadership acted as a moderator between
goal and process clarity and team potency. This illustrates how embedded effective
communication is on servant leadership.
On an international setting, Wu et al. (2013) examine the impact of servant leadership
on Chinese hotel employees servant behavior, and find that this type of leadership
positively contributes to customer-oriented organizational citizenship behavior. The
authors conclude that servant leadership matters in the hospitality industry (Wu et al.,
2013, p. 383). Choudhary et al. (2013) find evidence of servant leadership having a
positive influence on organizational learning in the Turkish service sector. Goh and
Zhen-Jie (2014) find a positive relationship between servant leadership and
organizational commitment in Malaysian market research firms. Harwiki (2013)
findings indicate that servant leadership has a positive impact on organizational
culture, organizational commitment and employees performance in outstanding
cooperatives in the East Java Province, Indonesia.
Finally, in their systematic literature review, Parris and Peachey (2013) conclude that
even though there is no agreed-upon definition of servant leadership and multiple
measures are being used to assess this construct; the theory is being analyzed in many
different contexts, and in sum, servant leadership is a viable leadership theory that
helps organizations and improves the well-being of followers (Parris and Peachey,
2013, p. 337).

Motivating language
The manner in which a leader communicates with subordinates affects their motivation
(Sullivan, 1988). In times when motivational theorists had their focus on uncertainty
reducing managerial speech acts, Sullivan (1988) addressed communication dimensions
that otherwise had been overlooked. Motivating language, as Sullivan (1988) defines it,
is composed of three types of speech acts:
(1) uncertainty-reducing and increasing knowledge (perlocutionary or direction
giving);
 MRR (2) reaffirming the subordinates sense of self-worth as a human being (illocutionary
38,12 or empathetic); and
(3) facilitating the subordinates construction of cognitive schemas (locutionary or
meaning making), which then will be used as a guidance to perform his/her job
duties in cultural context.
1240 Overall, the main purpose of motivating language is to bridge the gap between leader
intent and employee outcomes through verbal communication (Mayfield and Mayfield,
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 22:10 16 January 2017 (PT)

2012, p. 357).
Specifically, direction-giving language occurs when the leader engages in clarifying
objectives and tasks. In turn, this communication yields improved subordinates
performance (Mayfield et al., 1998). It is transmitted through the oral portion of such
managerial practices as goal setting, management by objectives and performance
feedback, and it is being used when leaders clarify priorities, objectives, and rewards
(Mayfield and Mayfield, 2009, p. 459). Empathetic language involves leaders concerns
about subordinates. Leaders use empathetic language to praise subordinates
accomplishments or provide aid and understanding related to their personal
frustrations (Mayfield and Mayfield, 2009). Finally, meaning making language takes
place when leaders explain the symbolisms of the organizational culture through stories
and metaphors. This type of language is crucial during orientation, training phases and
times of organizational change (Mayfield and Mayfield, 2009), and is well suited to
leadership roles that encourage employee engagement through the communication of
innovative future goals which involve cultural change (Mayfield and Mayfield, 2012).
Moreover, meaning making language does not stop at explaining and making meaning
of the organizational culture. It goes a step further and also expresses recognition of a
followers unique contribution to organizational goals (Mayfield and Mayfield, 2012;
Sullivan, 1988).
Four critical assumptions serve as foundations for motivating language theory:
motivating language will increase employee motivation only if leaders words
match their actions (a term called walking the talk);
the three types of speech encompass most of the communication from leader to
employee;
even though motivating language only addresses the communication from leader
to employee, the employee has to be able to perceive the message the leader is
trying to convey; and
the three types of speech need to be combined and appropriately used in a
strategic manner to optimize predicted outcomes (Mayfield and Mayfield, 2012;
Sullivan, 1988).

To date, there is a valid reliable scale to operationalize motivating language theory, and
has been tested to support the significantly positive effects that it has with employee on
job satisfaction, job performance, subordinates communication satisfaction, perception
of leader effectiveness and communication competence, self-efficacy, retention,
attendance, innovation, team creativity and creative performance and e-leadership
effectiveness on virtual team settings (Mayfield and Mayfield, 2007, 2009; Mayfield
et al., 1995, 1998; Mayfield and Mayfield, 2004; Sharbrough et al., 2006; Simmons and
 Sharbrough, 2013; Wang et al., 2009; Kai-Tang et al., 2014). Additionally, researchers in Servant
Australia (Luca and Gray, 2004) and Taiwan (Kuo, 2009) have successfully adapted this leadership and
scale to address the cultural differences in motivation.
employee
outcomes
Model and propositions
It is evident that servant leadership places a lot of emphasis in communication and
dialogue, as mentioned previously. Also, genuinely caring about subordinates is explicit 1241
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 22:10 16 January 2017 (PT)

in both servant leadership and motivating language. The two coincide in believing a
leader should walk the talk and bring meaning to work. Furthermore, we believe there
are several characteristics of servant leadership that can be transmitted through the use
of motivating language (which will be discussed later in this section in terms of current
research on leader communication and servant leadership). In certain instances,
motivating language can only partially transmit servant leadership behavior. There are
also some aspects of servant leadership that are not verbal. These can be personal traits
or behaviors, and therefore, motivating language has no impact on them. We will
analyze each factor one by one.
For example, listening is one of the ten characteristics of servant leadership (Spears,
1998). Spears (1998) defines it as the ability to intently listen attentively to what people
say what is they do not say. It is well known that listening is a vital component of
communication. However, motivating language does not take into consideration the
interaction between the communicators, meaning that this is a unilateral
communication from the leader to the subordinate (Zorn and Ruccio, 1998). Therefore,
motivating language is not expected to have an impact on the listening characteristic.
Regardless, motivating language can readily compliment servant leadership through
strategic leader responses.
Other characteristics of servant leadership, such as awareness, which is the ability to
look at situations in a holistic manner; conceptualization, which is thinking beyond
day-to-day realities (Spears, 1998, p. 5); and foresight, which is anticipating the most
likely outcome of a situation by understanding the lessons of the past, the reality of the
present (Spears, 1998, p. 5) and the future consequences of decisions taken are
considered to be personal traits and, therefore, do not appear to have a direct link with
motivating language. These behavioral components of servant leadership, which are
active listening, awareness, conceptualization and foresight, will instill trust in the
leader. A servant leader gains the subordinates trust because they know he/she is
genuinely concerned about their best interests (Goh and Zhen-Jie, 2014). Ultimately, the
leader will inspire employees to become servant leaders themselves. This can be seen
through the glass of social exchange theory. Because this theory implies that employees
will give something in return for their leaders support, they will try to emulate the
leaders behavior in exchange (Ehrhart, 2004).
Although commitment to the growth of people (personal, professional and spiritual
growth) is a behavioral component of servant leadership, there is also a communication
factor to this commitment. Spears (1998, p. 6) lists some leaders actions that can be used
to achieve peoples growth, such as making available funds for personal and
professional development, encouraging worker involvement in the decision making,
and actively assisting laid off workers to find other employment. These actions can be
transmitted through direction giving and meaning making language. A servant leaders
empowering behavior will instill a sense of fairness in employees, and these will exhibit
 MRR a greater organizational citizenship behavior (Ehrhart, 2004; Liden et al., 2008; Wu et al.,
38,12 2013). Additionally, because leaders will invest in employees personal and professional
development, individuals will have a better perception of their own aptitudes and
abilities, increasing self-efficacy in turn (Mayfield and Mayfield, 2012).
Similarly, stewardship, which is defined as the responsible management of
something entrusted and is characterized by the commitment to serving the need
1242 of others (Spears, 1998, p. 5), can be also classified as being a behavioral component of
servant leadership. Yet it is only in the presence of communication that stewardship can
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 22:10 16 January 2017 (PT)

be transmitted. Stewardship messages can be sent through motivating language.

Because servant leadership is not about recognition, position, prestige or status [] not
about how to control the followers, but to bring out the full potential of the followers,
employees will feel more committed to the organization (Goh and Zhen-Jie, 2014, p. 18).
Similarly, subordinates will perceive the leader as being competent, and this will lead to
satisfaction with the leader (Sharbrough et al., 2006).
Empathy is exercised when the leader makes an effort to understand and identify
with his/her subordinates, accepting and recognizing them for their unique
characteristics (Spears, 1998). This attribute can be enhanced through the use of
empathetic language, which, as mentioned previously, demonstrates concern about
subordinates well-being and can be expressed by praising the subordinates
achievements or showing compassion for his/her problems. Empathy, expressed
through motivating language, can boost worker performance, increase job satisfaction
and reduce absenteeism (Jaramillo et al., 2009a; Liden et al., 2008; Mayfield et al., 1998;
Mayfield and Mayfield, 2009). Healing behaviors are also transmitted through
communication. Healing is the capability to heal not only others, but also the self and
help make people whole (Spears, 1998, p. 4). Greenleaf stated:
[] there is something subtle communicated to one who is being served and led if, implicit in
the compact between servant leader and led, is the understanding that the search for
wholeness is something they share (as cited in Spears, 1998, p. 4).
The process of healing can be executed through the use of empathetic language. This
can lead to an increased satisfaction with the leader and increased worker performance.
Building community is yet another attribute bestowed on servant leaders (Spears,
1998). Leaders know the positive impact that local communities have on workers, so it is
in the leaders best interest to build, re-build and maintain communities. There is a
growing need for leaders who can build community while avoiding hindering
productivity, and who can embrace diversified potential instead of opting for
conventional and hierarchical approaches (Ferch, 2005). Spears (1998, p. 6) quotes
Greenleaf by saying that:
[] all is needed to rebuild a community as a viable life form for various large numbers of
people is for enough servant leaders to show the way, not by mass movements, but by each
servant-leader demonstrating his own unlimited liability for a quite specific
community-related group.
We believe that a servant leader can build community through the use of empathetic and
meaning making language, and this can result in better worker performance,
incremented job satisfaction and decreased absenteeism (Jaramillo et al., 2009a; Liden
et al., 2008; Mayfield et al., 1998; Mayfield and Mayfield, 2009).
 Finally, servant leaders use persuasion in lieu of relying solely in their authority. Servant
Instead of coercion, the servant leader wants to convince others and build consensus leadership and
among teams (Spears, 1998). This characteristic differentiates servant leadership from employee
authoritarian leadership models. To persuade subordinates, the servant leader can use
the three types of motivating language: direction giving, empathetic language and outcomes
meaning making. By using motivating language, leaders persuasively elicit workers
engagement because they feel valued, share the organizational vision and understand 1243
its directives. In doing so, employees will exhibit exploratory behaviors such as
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 22:10 16 January 2017 (PT)

creativity and innovation (Neubert et al., 2008, p. 1220) (Table I).

For the purpose of developing our model, we divided servant leadership into verbal
and non-verbal characteristics to integrate motivating language as a mediator. Because
motivating language encompasses direction giving, empathetic and meaning making
speech acts, it will only mediate the verbal characteristics of servant leadership. These
characteristics are commitment to the growth of people, stewardship, empathy, healing,
building community and persuasion. The servant leadership characteristics that are not
mediated by motivating language are listening, awareness, conceptualization and
foresight.
Thus, the verbal characteristics of servant leadership, such as stewardship,
empathizing with subordinates, healing and helping make people whole, committing to
the growth of people, building community and using persuasion to direct people (as
opposed to relying in personal authority), when channeled through motivating language
will produce enhanced outcomes, such as better worker performance, job satisfaction,
decreased absenteeism and worker innovation. When leaders engage in actions that
make subordinates feel that they are more highly regarded, they will be more satisfied
with their jobs and will avoid missing work because of the sense of cohesiveness
between the leader and the follower (Jaramillo et al., 2009a; Liden et al., 2008; Mayfield
et al., 1998). These employees will feel comfortable enough to express their ideas, which
will in turn foster innovation (Neubert et al., 2008; Mayfield and Mayfield, 2004). We
therefore propose the following:
P1. Motivating language will fully mediate servant leaders actions (verbal
characteristics) and subordinate-related outcomes, resulting in set of improved
outcomes, such as worker performance, job satisfaction, less absenteeism and
worker innovation (as shown in the model below).

Servant leadership characteristics Verbal Non-verbal

Listening X
Awareness X
Conceptualization X
Foresight X
Commitment to the growth of people X X
Stewardship X X
Empathy X Table I.
Healing X Verbal and non-
Building community X verbal characteristics
Persuasion X of servant leadership
 MRR Furthermore, the combination of the verbal characteristics mediated by motivating
38,12 language and the non-verbal characteristics should result in a second set of outcomes.
The non-verbal characteristics of servant leadership in this relationship imply the
aforementioned component of walking the talk. Subordinates will feel satisfied with
the leader because he/she is abiding by the same principles the leader is advocating.
Employees will feel more committed to the organization and will engage in activities
1244 that promote the well-being of the same one, even if these activities are not explicitly
rewarded (organizational citizenship behavior) because they will feel compelled to fulfill
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 22:10 16 January 2017 (PT)

the standards that the leader is exemplifying. This will also improve employees
self-efficacy, because they will be more willing to engage in challenging tasks, thus
increasing their confidence in their abilities. All of these outcomes have been
hypothesized to be influenced by both servant leadership and motivating language
(Ehrhart, 2004; Goh and Zhen-Jie, 2014; Liden et al., 2008; Sharbrough et al., 2006;
Simmons and Sharbrough, 2013; Wu et al., 2013; Yukl, 2013).
Our second proposition goes as follows:
P2. Motivating language will partially mediate servant leaders actions (verbal
characteristics) and the subordinate-related outcomes, but there will also be an
influence of non-verbal servant leadership characteristics, therefore yielding to
the second set of improved subordinate outcomes, such as self-efficacy,
organizational citizenship behavior, satisfaction with the leader and employee
commitment.
Finally, non-verbal characteristics of servant leadership behavior, such as listening
receptively at what is being said and not being said, awareness of the situations,
conceptualization or looking beyond the day-to-day activities and anticipating the most
likely outcome, should yield positive results such as trust and inspiration to become
servant leaders. This will be achieved through the non-verbal characteristics of servant
leadership and not through verbal communication, because subordinates will learn from
observing role models behavior (Bandura, 1986). Through leading by example and
making wise choices with the available information, servant leaders will create an
environment in which subordinates trust their leader and are inspired to become servant
leaders themselves (Spears, 2002; Dannhauser and Boshoff, 2007). This brings us to our
last proposition:
P3. Motivating language will not mediate the non-verbal aspects of servant
leadership. Therefore, servant leaderships non-verbal characteristics will yield
to direct outcomes, such as trust and inspiration to become servant leaders
(Figure 1).

Implications, future directions for research and concluding remarks

Although we believe our model gives a detailed explanation of the positive impact that
motivating language has on servant leadership, empirical research needs to be
conducted to test this model. As with any complex model, it is unlikely that a single
study can fully address all issues required to establish the validity of our proposed
model. Therefore, we propose testing this model through a series of stages, each of
which is better suited to test different potential validity and generalizability issues.
Initially, the model should be tested through questionnaires to test the proposed
construct relationships. Analyzing survey-based responses would allow for the use of
 Servant
leadership and
employee
outcomes

1245
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 22:10 16 January 2017 (PT)

Figure 1.
Servant leadership,
motivating language,
and employee
outcomes

already developed and tested instruments: Lidens et al. (2008) measure of servant
leadership constructs, Mayfield and Mayfields motivating language survey (Mayfield
et al., 1995) and other established measures exist for the models dependent constructs.
Such a study would provide a method for testing the links between the constructs, as a
requirement for establishing causality is to demonstrate a correlation between
constructs (Pearl, 2009). The data obtained can be analyzed through the use of structural
equation modeling. We feel this would be the most appropriate statistical analysis
because of its ability to analyze multiple dependent variables and dependence
relationships (Shook et al., 2004), to analyze the strength of the relationships between
variables and to test for mediating variables (Little et al., 2007).
Once correlation has been established (and the model modified based on empirical
results), the next step to establish the models validity is to conduct experimental design
studies where parts of the model could be manipulated (perhaps through training) to
determine if the model functions as proposed. Such manipulation and control would help
establish the other two requirements of causality statements temporal precedence and
ruling out competing model explanations (Pearl, 2009). In addition to these quantitative
analyses, qualitative analysis could be used to create a mixed-research method that
would lead to a richer understanding of the model, and perhaps generate insights that
could be used to enhance our understanding of the extant processes (Holmes, 2012).
Additionally, these tests should be replicated in differing work conditions, and
cultures to examine the generalizability of the findings. Generalizability issues may
arise from either the model constructs or linkages. Motivating language has been tested
in multiple work situations and cultures and, therefore, has been (to some degree) tested
for generalizability. This robustness is likely due to it being a measure of how a worker
perceives a leaders communications rather than specific leader communication actions.
 MRR As such, the effects of a specific communication may differ across settings, but the level
38,12 of motivating language is expected to have similar results. However, both motivating
language and servant leadership constructs still need to be tested in a wider range of
settings to fully establish their generalizability.
It is most likely that generalizability issues will arise in the linkages between
constructs. Contextual factors are not included in the scope of our model. It seems
1246 unlikely that these linkages will be invariant across all possible settings although we
do feel that the direction of these linkages will remain the same. As such, there is a need
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 22:10 16 January 2017 (PT)

for empirical examinations to compare these linkages, how these linkages might vary
and what are the potential setting influences that might cause such differences.
Nevertheless, if a significant positive relationship between these two constructs is
found, then the effects of servant leadership through the use of motivating language
could be operationalized in multiple ways. First, potential servant leaders could take the
well-established, reliable and valid motivating language scale to diagnostically identify
their leader-member communication strengths and weaknesses (Mayfield et al., 1995).
Then, tailored motivating language trainings could be implemented which target
motivating language weaknesses and key strategic outcomes in the proposed model.
Furthermore, motivating language training would be a valuable instrument for
transmission of a servant leadership culture. Certainly, learning is a critical process that,
Bandura (2008) asserts, can change behaviors.
Beyond shadow of a doubt, servant leadership style responds to the demand for
positive ethical behavior that is much needed during these times when emphasis is
given to profitability, and lack of concern for people is the norm rather than the
exception. It is also synchronized with the current benefits of organizational citizenship
behaviors that have recently emerged in the field of managerial research. Undoubtedly,
more research needs to be conducted to support the positive effects that servant
leadership style has in the business environment as well as in societies, and a more
comprehensive construct definition needs to be attained. Furthermore, motivating
language itself is a powerful tool that servant leaders can use to communicate effectively
with their subordinates to increase desirable subordinate attitudes and behaviors.
Therefore, testing the effects of servant leadership and motivating language on
employees outcomes in a complementary model can make beneficial contributions to
the management research field as well as to managerial practice.

References
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (2008), Observational learning, in Donsbach, W. (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of
Communication, Blackwell, Oxford, Vol. 7, pp. 3359-3361.
Barbuto, J.E. and Wheeler, D.W. (2006), Scale development and construct clarification of servant
leadership, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 300-326.
Birkenmeier, B., Paula, P.C. and Carson, K.D. (2003), The father of Europe: an analysis of the
supranational servant leadership of Jean Monnet, International Journal of Organization
Theory and Behavior, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 374-400.
Carroll, A.B. and Buchholtz, A.K. (2012), Business & Society, Cengage Learning, New York, NY.
Cascio, W.F. (2010), Managing Human Resources, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
 Choudhary, A.I., Akhtar, S.A. and Zaheer, A. (2013), Impact of transformational and servant Servant
leadership on organizational performance: a comparative analysis, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 116 No. 2, pp. 433-440.
leadership and
Dannhauser, Z. and Boshoff, A.B. (2007), Structural equivalence of the Barbuto and Wheeler
employee
(2006) servant leadership questionnaire on North American and South African samples, outcomes
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 148-168.
Dennis, R.S. and Bocarnea, M. (2005), Development of the servant leadership assessment 1247
instrument, The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 26 No. 8,
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 22:10 16 January 2017 (PT)

pp. 600-615.
Doraiswamy, I.R. (2012), Servant or leader? who will stand up please?, International Journal of
Business and Social Science, Vol. 3 No. 9, pp. 178-182.
Duff, A.J. (2013), Performance management coaching: servant leadership and gender
implications, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 204-221.
Ehrhart, M.G. (2004), Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level
organizational citizenship behavior, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 61-94.
Ferch, S. (2005), Servant-leadership, forgiveness, and social justice, International Journal of
Servant-Leadership, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 97-113.
Goh, S. and Zhen-Jie, L. (2014), The influence of servant leadership towards organizational
commitment: the mediating role of trust in leaders, International Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 17-25.
Graham, J.W. (1991), Servant leadership in organizations: organizational and moral, Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 105-119.
Greenleaf, R.K. (1977), Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and
Greatness, Paulist Press, New York, NY.
Gupta, S. (2013), Serving the bottom of pyramid a servant leadership perspective, Journal of
Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 98-106.
Hannay, M. (2009), The cross-cultural leader: the application of servant leadership theory in the
international context, Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 1-12.
Harwiki, W. (2013), The influence of servant leadership on organization culture, organizational
commitment, organizational citizenship behavior and employees performance (study of
outstanding cooperatives in east java province, Indonesia), Journal of Economics and
Behavioral Studies, Vol. 5 No. 12, pp. 876-885.
Holmes, W.T. (2012), The motivating language of principals: a sequential transformative
strategy, Unpublished Dissertation, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Hu, J. and Liden, R.C. (2011), Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: an
examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 4, pp. 851-862.
Inglehart, R. (1981), Post-materialism in an environment of insecurity, The American Political
Science Review, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 880-900.
Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D.B., Chonko, L.B. and Roberts, J.A. (2009a), Examining the impact of
servant leadership on sales force performance, The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 257-275.
Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D.B., Chonko, L.B. and Roberts, J.A. (2009b), Examining the impact of
servant leadership on salespersons turnover intention, The Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 351-365.
 MRR Joseph, E.E. and Winston, B.E. (2005), A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and
organizational trust, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1,
38,12 pp. 6-22.
Kai-Tang, F., Yuan-Ho, C., Ching-Wen, W. and Chen, M. (2014), E-leadership effectiveness in
virtual teams: motivating language perspective, Industrial Management Data Systems,
Vol. 114 No. 3, pp. 421-437.
1248 Kool, M. and van Dierendonck, D. (2012), Servant leadership and commitment to change, the
mediating role of justice and optimism, Journal of Organizational Change Management,
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 22:10 16 January 2017 (PT)

Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 422-433.

Kuo, C.W. (2009), The effects of leader-member exchange on communication satisfaction and
creative performance: motivating language as a moderator, Unpublished masters thesis,
Chaoyang University of Technology.
Laub, J.A. (1999), Assessing the servant organization: development of the servant organizational
leadership (SOLA) instrument, Florida Atlantic University UMI Pro Quest Digital
Dissertations, AAT 9921922.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Zhao, H. and Henderson, D. (2008), Servant leadership: development of a
multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19
No. 2, pp. 161-177.
Little, T.D., Card, N.A., Bovaird, J.A., Preacher, K.J. and Crandall, C.S. (2007), Structural equation
modeling of mediation and moderation with contextual factors, Modeling Contextual
Effects in Longitudinal Studies, pp. 207-230.
Luca, E. and Gray, J.H. (2004), Validating the Motivating Language Scale Among Australian
Knowledge Workers, Presented at the ANZCA (Australian & New Zealand Communication
Association), Sydney.
Mayer, D.M., Bardes, M. and Piccolo, R.F. (2008), Do servant-leaders help satisfy follower needs?
An organizational justice perspective, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 180-197.
Mayfield, J. and Mayfield, M. (2007), The effects of leader communication on a workers intent to
stay: an investigation using structural equation modeling, Human Performance, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 85-102.
Mayfield, J. and Mayfield, M. (2009), The role of leader motivating language in employee
absenteeism, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 455-479.
Mayfield, J. and Mayfield, M. (2012), The relationship between leader motivating language and
self-efficacy: a partial least squares model analysis, Journal of Business Communication,
Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 357-376.
Mayfield, J., Mayfield, M. and Kopf, J. (1995), Motivating language: exploring theory with scale
development, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 329-344.
Mayfield, J., Mayfield, M. and Kopf, J. (1998), The effects of leader motivating language on
subordinate performance and satisfaction, Human Resource Management, Vol. 37 Nos 3/4,
pp. 235-248.
Mayfield, M. and Mayfield, J. (2004), The effects of leader communication on worker innovation,
American Business Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 46-51.
Mittal, R. and Dorfman, P.W. (2012), Servant leadership across cultures, Journal of World
Business, Vol. 47 No. 4, p. 555.
Molyneaux, D. (2003), Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth an aspiration
applicable to business?, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 347-363.
 Nair, K. (1994), A Higher Standard of Leadership: Lessons from the Life of Gandhi, Servant
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
leadership and
Neubert, M.J., Kacmar, K.M., Carlson, D.S., Chonko, L.B. and Roberts, J.A. (2008), Regulatory
focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on
employee
employee behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 6, pp. 1220-1233. outcomes
Page, D. and Wong, T.P. (2000), A Conceptual Framework for Measuring Servant-Leadership,
University Press of America, Lanham MD. 1249
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 22:10 16 January 2017 (PT)

Parris, D.L. and Peachey, J.W. (2013), A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory
in organizational contexts, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 113 No. 3, pp. 377-393.
Patterson, K. (2003), Servant leadership a theoretical model, Servant leadership Research
Roundtable, School of Leadership Studies, Regent University, VA Beach.
Pearl, J. (2009), Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, New York, NY.
Rai, R. and Prakash, A. (2012), A relational perspective to knowledge creation: role of servant
leadership, Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 61-85.
Riverstone, L. (2004), Servant leadership: a manifistation of postmaterialism?, Global Virtue
Ethics Review, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 95-119.
Russell, R.F., and Stone, A.G. (2002), A review of servant leadership attributes: developing a
practical model, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 145-157.
Senjaya, S. and Pekerti, A. (2010), Servant leadership as antecedent of trust in organizations,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 643-663.
Sharbrough, W.C., Simmons, S.A. and Cantrill, D.A. (2006), Motivating language in industry: its
impact on job satisfaction and perceived supervisor effectiveness, Journal of Business
Communication, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 322-344.
Shook, C.L., Ketchen, D.J. Jr, Hult, G.T. and Kacmar, K.M. (2004), An assessment of the use of
structural equation modeling in strategic management research, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4, p. 397.
Simmons, S.A. and Sharbrough, W.C., III. (2013), An analysis of leader and subordinate
perception of motivating language, Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 11-27.
Spears, L.C. (1998), Insights on Leadership: Service, Stewardship, Spirit, and Servant-Leadership,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Spears, L.C. (2002), Focus on Leadership: Servant-Leadership for the 21st century, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY.
Stone, A.G., Russell, R.F. and Patterson, K. (2004), Transformational versus servant leadership: a
difference in leader focus, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 349-361.
Sullivan, J. (1988), Three roles of language in motivation theory, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 104-115.
Van Dierendonck, D. (2011), Servant leadership: a review and synthesis, Journal of
Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1228-1261.
Walumbwa, F.O., Hartnell, C.A. and Oke, A. (2010), Servant leadership, procedural justice
climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: a
cross-level investigation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 517-529.
 MRR Wang, C., Fan, K., Hsieh, C. and Menefee, M.L. (2009), Impact of motivating language on team
creative performance, The Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 50 No. 1,
38,12 pp. 133-140.
Winston, B.E. and Ryan, B. (2008), Servant leadership as a humane orientation using the GLOBE
study construct of humane orientation to show that servant leadership is more global than
western, International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 212-222.
1250 Wu, L., Tse, E.C., Fu, P., Kwan, H.K. and Liu, J. (2013), The impact of servant leadership on hotel
employees servant behavior, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 383-395.
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 22:10 16 January 2017 (PT)

Yukl, G. (2013), Leadership in Organizations, Pearson, New York, NY.

Zorn, T.E., Jr and Ruccio, S.E. (1998), The use of communication to motivate college sales teams,
Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 468-500.

Corresponding author
Sandra Gutierrez-Wirsching can be contacted at: lupegut@dusty.tamiu.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
 This article has been cited by:

1. William T. Holmes, Michele A. Parker. 2017. Communication. International Journal of Business

Communication 54:1, 70-82. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY IN PAKISTAN At 22:10 16 January 2017 (PT)