- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
This article introduces a new scale to measure executive servant leadership, situating the need for this scale within the context of ethical leadership and its impacts on followers, organizations and the greater society. The literature on servant leadership is reviewed and servant leadership is compared to other concepts that share dimensions of ethical leadership (e.g., transformational, authentic, and spiritual leadership). Next, the Executive Servant Leadership Scale (ESLS) is introduced, and its contributions and limitations discussed. We conclude with an agenda for future research, describing ways the measure can be used to test hypotheses about organizational moral climate, ethical organizational culture, corporate responsibility, and institutional theory.
Recent scandals in business, government, sports, nonprofits, and other institutions raise questions regarding the quality of organizational leadership. Indeed, the worldwide economic crisis erupting in mid-2008 has challenged organizational scholars to question deeply held assumptions about effective business strategy and to define new models of ethical leadership that can more adequately respond to the demands of a profoundly interdependent global society.
Implicit in the ongoing conversation regarding ethical leadership is the notion that leaders hold tremendous power, and that those leaders who perceive organizations and people beyond the ‘‘competency inputs’’ and ‘‘performance outputs’’ traditionally used to measure leader effectiveness are increasingly important in a profoundly interdependent society. As this perspective challenges most established models of business management, ethical leadership also demands profound psychological and moral courage on the part of business leaders. While the practice of servant leadership described in this article clearly embodies such courage, it is not a ‘‘quick fix.’’ Rather it is a developmental process for executives, employees, and the organization as a whole. Leaders must therefore decide if this paradigm is even consistent with ‘‘who we really are’’ or rather, an idealized representation of ‘‘whom we would like to be.’’