J Bus Ethics (2014) 124:453464
DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-1882-0
The Influence of Servant Leadership on Restaurant Employee
Engagement
Danon Carter Timothy Baghurst
Received: 13 March 2013 / Accepted: 26 August 2013 / Published online: 10 September 2013
 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract Servant leadership is a leadership philosophy
which addresses the concerns of ethics, customer experi-
ence, and employee engagement while creating a unique
organizational culture where both leaders and followers
unite to reach organizational goals without positional or
authoritative power. With employees viewed as one of the
greatest assets for organizations, maintaining loyal, pro-
ductive employees while balancing profits becomes a
challenge for leaders, and drives the need to understand
employee engagement drivers. Thus, the purpose of this
study was to qualitatively explore servant leadership from
the perspective of employees. Participants were 11
employees from a servant leadership led restaurant who
took part in two focus groups. The modified van Kaam
method (Moustakas 1994) contributed to data analysis,
which examined employee responses for comparison and
assessment. Several themes emerged including servant
leader experience, servant leader traits, the impact of ser-
vant leadership, the application of servant leadership, and
limited employee attrition. The themes revealed servant
leadership positively influences employee engagement
while contributing to employee loyalty to the workplace.
Based on the servant leader experience, participants were
more committed, built healthy work relationships, and
D. Carter
Danon Enterprises, PO Box 112086, Carrollton, TX 75011, USA
e-mail: danonrcarter@gmail.com
T. Baghurst (&)
Health and Human Performance, Oklahoma State University,
Stillwater, OK 74078, USA
e-mail: tbaghurst@live.com
actively participated in achieving organizational goals.
Findings are discussed in light of current research and
practical applications are provided.
Keywords Servant leadership
Employee
engagement
Restaurant employees
Customer
satisfaction
Loyalty
Introduction
Servant leadership is a philosophy attributed to Greenleaf
(2002) that is steadily gaining attention from scholars and
practitioners based on the unique approach of leading
through serving. This is supported by the 50 % of the top
10 companies in 100 Best Companies to Work For that
have implemented servant leadership as a foundational
organizational guiding philosophy, including the number
one company on the list (Arkin 2009; CNN Money 2011;
Lichtenwalner 2011). The trend is driven by the growing
need for leaders [who are] not motivated by self-interest
and the pursuit of power (Arkin 2009, p. 27). Followers
also seek leaders who invest in their personal relationships
in an effort to build loyalty, trust, commitment, and growth
(Antelo et al. 2010; Rofcanin and Mehtap 2010). Com-
mitted followers contribute to organizational success and
typically have longer tenure with individual companies
(Wefald and Downey 2009).
According to Greenleaf (1998, 2002), servant leadership
begins with a heart that seeks to minister to the needs of
others, and through this service, people follow. Servant
leaders focus on how to help their followers achieve
established organizational goals. These leaders differ from
other leaders through a focus on the development and
growth of others as a first priority versus a result or need to
123
454
attain other goals. Servant leaders are both authentic and
ethical and enhance followership through unique leader-
ship characteristics (Autry 2001; Greenleaf 1998). The
focus often connects emotionally to followers, which is
also one characteristic of employee engagement (Furness
2008; Hemsley 2007; Loehr and Groppel 2004). Employee
engagement describes employees who display a passion for
their work and organization, which reflects in commitment
and contribution to organizational success (Ayers 2008).
Engaged employees are involved, provide better customer
service, and protect the company through ethical and
focused input.
Servant leadership is a leadership philosophy, which
addresses the concerns of ethics, customer experience, and
employee engagement while creating a unique organiza-
tional culture, where both leaders and followers unite to
reach organizational goals without positional or authorita-
tive power. Researchers have proposed employee engage-
ment as a key link to organizational success (Ayers 2008;
Bryce 2009; Federman 2009; Groppel and Loehr 2004).
Employee engagement has several drivers that either
increase or decrease engagement. With employees viewed
as one of the greatest assets for organizations, maintaining
loyal, productive employees while balancing profits
becomes a challenge for leaders, further stressing the
importance of the adoption of a resilient and effective
leadership philosophy. Servant leadership just may be that
philosophy.
Servant Leadership and Employee Engagement
In assessing the characteristics of employee engagement
and of servant leadership, an overlap of attributes exist,
which could imply that servant leadership may have a
positive influence on employee engagement. The first
research question sought to specifically explore the expe-
rience of servant leadership through lived-experiences;
how leaders and followers described their experiences, and
what impact their experiences had on both personal and
professional development. The second research question
explored the experience and perception of employees who
had firsthand experience working in a servant leader
organization from the perspective of followers. The level of
engagement of these employees was unknown. Through
the study, questions were asked to determine their level of
engagement, if servant leadership influenced their level of
engagement, and if so, to what extent. These questions
required a phenomenological study to gain insight and
personal testimony from the participants through open and
honest responses. Research does not confirm or deny if
servant leadership influences employee engagement,
although research suggests leadership within an organiza-
tion does possess an important role in the employee/
123
D. Carter, T. Baghurst
manager relationship and with the employees overall
feelings toward an organization (Ayers 2008; Esty and
Gewirtz 2008; James and Kowske 2009; Mannelly 2009).
Servant leadership tends to be more prevalent in non-
profit and religious organizations, as these establishments
are typically more accepting of servants as leaders. A
contradiction with servant leadership is with leaders whose
primary objective is to serve versus lead (Greenleaf 1998,
2002). Controversy with servant leadership arises over this
label of a leader being a servant, which creates healthy
discussion within the business realm of the pros and cons
of having leaders whose primary focus is meeting the needs
of followers as a top priority, especially their emotional
needs (Sipe and Frick 2009). Employees who have an
emotional investment, particularly within service organi-
zations, tend to provide better customer service (Chan and
Wan 2012).
Servant leadership empowers employees through
development and trust. It places a value on people by
serving their needs and building their confidence (Keith
2008). This in turn sends a positive, inspiring message to
those who interact with customers and make thousands of
decisions each day that affect the future of the organiza-
tion (Keith 2008, p. 51).
The concern and need for committed employees is
steadily becoming a necessity. Employee engagement has
increasingly become a major focus in many organizations.
Kowske et al. (2009, p. 50) defined employee engagement
as the extent to which employees are motivated to con-
tribute to organizational success and are willing to apply
discretionary effort to accomplishing tasks important to the
achievement of organizational goals. The effort often
takes either a mental and emotional attachment or alle-
giance to the leader for employees to go beyond basic
expectations. For full or high engagement, employees must
connect both their hearts and heads to the vision and goals
of the organizations, which in turn encourages their hands
(Blanchard and Hodges 2003). In contrast, disengaged
employees can have the adverse effect of contributing to
the destruction of the company through nonparticipation,
absenteeism, unethical behavior, providing poor customer
service, and often infecting other employees with their
negative attitude.
Early employee research sought to understand the rela-
tionship between an employees personal self and the
employees work (Kahn 1990). Within the last 10 years,
several articles have attempted to understand what drives
employee engagement and consequently what fuels disen-
gagement within the workplace. Leaders in each organi-
zation have the challenge of determining what drives high
engagement and what causes disengagement. By under-
standing these key drivers, leaders can both drive perfor-
mance and create an organizational culture that breeds
Servant Leadership
commitment in all areas of success. Leaders are responsible
for determining these drivers for their individual organi-
zations or groups of people.
Very limited research is available on the relationship of
employee engagement to servant leadership specifically.
The numerous articles and research available on employee
engagement all generally seek to link engagement to
employee commitment and performance in the workplace,
which translates often into profits for the company (Lawson
2008; Schneider et al. 2009). As employee engagement
deals with the emotional attachment of employees to their
organizations, understanding the values and needs of
employees becomes essential.
The study contributes to the overall body of knowledge
regarding servant leadership and to a lesser extent, employee
engagement. Through a phenomenological study, this
research aims to explore servant leadership from both a
follower and leader perspective through personal examples
in an effort to gain an understanding of the influence of
servant leadership on employee engagement (Bloom 2009;
Garza 2007; Lindseth and Norberg 2004).
Method
Celebration Restaurant, along with eight other organiza-
tions in Dallas, is part of a learning community for Servant
Leadership (McGee-Cooper et al. 2007). Leaders of Cele-
bration Restaurant incorporated Servant Leadership train-
ing into the companys new hire programs as well as
conduct monthly discussion sessions on servant leader
traits in an effort to help employees, referred to as partners
by the company, understand and apply the principles, as
documented in the companys internal documents. This
study focused specifically on employees within a servant
leader operation, meaning the organization has servant
leadership as the underlying philosophy that governs its
business (Keith 2008). The assumption of the strength of
the servant leader foundation was unknown and not mea-
sured against other organizations.
Participants
Participants were selected based on several criteria. First,
the participants comprised of staff members employed in a
restaurants that is recognized for its servant leadership
management. Second, participants had a minimum of
5 years of service with the restaurant. Demographics of the
selected organization included front of house (FOH),
kitchen, market, and catering. Of the 100 employees, 43
had a minimum of 5 years of service with the organization.
By department, 20 were FOH; 4 were catering, 2 market-
ing, 17 in kitchen, and 4 managers.
455
Procedures
The data collection process focused on sources: focus
group data, documented data (previous company survey
results and internal documentation), and direct and non-
obtrusive observations, which helped to triangulate the
research findings. Two focus groups with 11 participants
were conducted over a period of 2 months. The focus
groups split into two groups with five in one group and six
in another, and were conducted several weeks apart.
The focus groups took place onsite in a designated
training room for the convenience of the participants as
well as to maintain a level of comfort for the participants
(Shaha et al. 2011). Focus groups lasted between 60 and
75 min, with part of the time dedicated to reading the
consent and confidentiality statements (Redmond and
Curtis 2009).
According to Rodrigues et al. (2010, p. 77), The focus
group method makes interaction between several par-
ticipants a key part of the data collection process, with
group discussion generating and testing new ideas and
opinions. Partners participated in the focus groups as the
venue allowed for interaction and researcher observations
of the group (Bagnoli and Clark 2010; Rodrigues et al.
2010). Frontline employees are often more comfortable
speaking in groups and building off the ideas of one
another (Redmond and Curtis 2009). For the focus groups
to be effective, the primary researcher, who had extensive
experience conducting focus groups, controlled the group
while ensuring full participation and responses to each
question to the comfort level of the participants. Questions
guided the focus groups. Questions one through six
explored the servant leader experiences of the participants,
while gathering information for themes.
Focus groups occurred after the lunch hours, once the
restaurant cleared of customers and excess employees. The
employer compensated participants for their time. The
consent and confidentiality statement were read aloud and
the participants had the opportunity to withdraw their
participation as well as reserved the right to withdraw their
participation once the focus groups were completed.
Responses from focus groups were tape recorded for pro-
fessional transcription. The researcher also took notes as
able (Onwuegbuzie et al. 2009). Participants received a
number at the start of the session for use as identification
prior to speaking. Two focus groups achieved data satu-
ration, as comments in the second focus group overlapped.
Interview Guide
According to Blanchard (2010), face-to-face interaction
versus surveys alone provided better insight specifically to
servant leadership. Servant leadership is not limited to a
123
456
one-time event and is not necessarily a process or occur-
rence but is more of a way of life and leading from the
heart (Blanchard and Hodges 2003). A phenomenological
design aided in accomplishing the purpose of this study
through asking open-ended semi-structured questions about
the lived-experience of these employees to understand how
they viewed the principles of servant leadership and if the
view contributed to or negated engagement levels.
A phenomenological design allowed the exploration of
psychological concepts such as shared experiences or
feelings of confidence and inspiration as well as what
specific action encouraged these feelings (Ajjawi and Hi-
ggs 2007). Focus groups explored the different servant
leader experiences of restaurant employees individually
and by department.
Data Validity, Reliability, and Analysis
Validity of the data depends on the credibility of research
data obtained (Wahyuni 2012) and in the current study,
there are several factors which could have influenced the
findings. Participants were solicited via email by the
companys owner, which could have hindered the validity
and reliability of the results. Participants could have felt
pressured to participate and not be completely open and
honest. However, because the primary researcher did not
have a connection with the company, it provided an
unbiased perspective for the participants. Through the
confidentiality agreement and the consent forms partici-
pants had the opportunity to opt out of the study without
any penalty (Halcomb et al. 2007). Participants were
encouraged to speak openly and honestly with the knowl-
edge that the researcher, as stated in the confidentiality
agreement, would protect their identity in the published
results and transcripts were not shared with management.
Through the study, transcription of focus group
responses were derived from audio recordings. A profes-
sional transcriber ensured accuracy by transferring verbal
data to written form (Mero-Jaffe 2011). The researcher
used manual coding to analyze responses through key-
words-in-context (Onwuegbuzie et al. 2009) to improve the
validity of the results versus the use of automated or
computerized software that may prohibit the detection of
subtle themes. This approach allowed for the comparison
of visual observations to written words for deeper insight to
the meaning of words and themes identified (Onwuegbuzie
et al. 2009). One of the main concerns with phenomenol-
ogy and qualitative research is the ability for the researcher
to separate out personal bias or perceived conclusions
based on prior knowledge or experience with the phe-
nomena. Epoche was applied to address this concern.
In the study, the primary researcher maintained a journal
to record observations as well as personal feelings prior to
123
D. Carter, T. Baghurst
the focus groups to use in bracketing, maintain objectivity,
and isolate biases. The combined data from the two groups
resulted in common themes that aided in triangulation of
the data with the use of current survey results and research
on employee engagement. Through the clustering of par-
ticipants servant leader experiences, understanding, and
meaning resulted.
The modified van Kaam method assisted in analyzing
data (Moustakas 1994). The first step in the process was to
list and group experiences from participants. The second
step reviewed the transcripts and removed nondescript
words, unclear comments, or irrelevant responses to the
experience in question. The third step was to cluster the
core themes and experiences and begin coding. The fourth
step was to identify invariant constituents or reoccurring
themes as found from step three.
Step five used the invariant constituents to construct
individual textural descriptions based on the responses
from the participants and provided an individual summary
of experiences by participant by question. Step six involved
constructing individual structural descriptions based on the
previous step, which resulted in a summary of experiences
for each individual participant. Step seven involved con-
structing a textural-structural description, which combined
steps five and six. From the process, the researcher was
able to develop a Composite Description of the meanings
and essences of the experience representing the group as a
whole (Moustakas 1994, p. 121). The process led to
findings and themes based on the analyzed data.
Analysis of responses from the interviews and focus
groups formed themes and categories. Summaries of par-
ticipants responses by individual question evaluated
unique experiences, while themes generated from cluster-
ing the questions from the group interaction. The analysis
of the text used the modified van Kaam method to dissect
each theme (Creswell 2007). Evaluation of emerging
themes by group and by question occurred for relevance to
servant leadership and employee engagement.
Data Triangulation
Data triangulation is defined as the process of corrobo-
rating evidence from different individuals (e.g., a principal
and a student), types of data (e.g., observational field notes
and interviews) or methods of data collection (e.g., docu-
ments and interviews) in descriptions and themes in qual-
itative research (Creswell 2005, p. 252). Triangulation
occurred through two methods. First, Internal surveys from
the past 2 years contributed to data triangulation. The
research organization conducts annual surveys that mea-
sured both servant leadership and employee satisfaction
within the organization and of the leadership. These sur-
veys served as a baseline for the level of understanding of
Servant Leadership
servant leadership as interpreted by the partners in the
organization. The surveys also revealed the organization
received consecutive high marks in areas of servant leader
characteristics.
Second, a 2-h observation was conducted beginning
30 min before each focus group. During these observa-
tions, partner interactions were observed as well as inter-
actions with customers. Observations were documented in
the primary researchers journal for future assessments.
The observations did not interfere with the operations of
the participants nor the research organization.
Results
Focus Group Responses
RQ1 asked how participants described their servant leader-
ship experience. The questions sought the lived experience
from the participants, specifically seeking to understand how
they viewed servant leadership and the personal impact of
servant leadership. Questions one, two, and six helped to
answer the question from the participants point of view.
Responses that were not relevant to the question, but held
relevance to the study are included in the final question of the
focus group, which allowed free comments.
Q1 How do you describe your servant leader experience?
The question was foundational in understanding the view
of servant leadership as expressed by the partners. The
question also helped to frame the remaining questions.
Responses from participants varied and expressed their
impressions of servant leadership and the effect of these
experiences. P1 found servant leadership was a Biblical
principle that everyone should follow, not just managers or
employees, but all people. Participants 2, 3, 4, and 7
believed the servant leadership experience gave them an
opportunity to lead by example. Participants 8, 9, and 10
believed the servant leader experience reinforced the
golden rule of do unto others, as you would have them
do unto you. P6 described the servant leader experience as
having managers work side by side with partners and
agreed with the golden rule example. The servant leader
experience for Participant 11 was witnessing the owner in a
servant role and understanding how the example of the
owner defined servant leadership and the golden rule.
P11 stated,
When I was sitting here years ago filling out [an
application] or waiting to get an interview There
was this guy kind of running back and forth and it
was between lunch and dinner he took a bunch of
busted up boxes out to the back or something; little
457
did I know that was the owner. So to speak to that
point, the servant leader being somebody who is
willing to do the same things that hes going to ask
other people to do or willing to do those things first or
show that they will do those things first before nec-
essarily requiring anybody else to do that. So ironi-
cally, I recall that even today; that was him back there
running around hauling out trash. So yeah the servant
leader leads by example, being willing to serve. In the
restaurant business, all we do is service. It is also that
the leader is going to serve or try to serve the people
that work for them; be fair toward them; thinking of
their needs. Try to make the environment one that
people can enjoy.
Q2 How does this experience differ from other compa-
nies that you have worked for?
All participants had some level of experience or point of
reference outside of Celebration Restaurant and were able
to provide a comparison of Celebration to other organiza-
tions. Two partners had actually left Celebration at one
time in their career and then returned. The experience of
these participants furthered the discussion and was a
valuable contribution to understanding the uniqueness of
what the partners experienced at Celebration in comparison
to different restaurants. Participant nine, who has 9 years
of service stated,
Ive worked in some different work environments
You got the leader of your group; then you got your
managers there just telling you what to do and you do
that because there are deadlines and things to do. But I
mean Ive worked in some other restaurant industry
stuff too and there was definitely a different man-
agement owner kind of styles not like this. There
are some benefits to the Servant Leadership because it
seems like maybe its a little bit better angle some-
times Yeah theyll get in there and help you but not
everything works the Servant Leader way eitherjust
some things are similar but the work has to get done.
The remaining comments centered on the difference of
restaurants as compared to companies. Participants 6, 8, 9,
10, and 11 believed the faster pace of restaurants increases
stress levels, thus making servant leadership difficult, in
some ways, to sustain on a daily basis.
The restaurant environment, as described by the partic-
ipants, is less predictable day to day, as customers change
with different challenges daily, which may not always be
found in other companies. These nuisances may also con-
tribute to effectiveness of the servant leader environment.
Q6 What is the one thing that you take away from your
Servant Leadership experience?
123
458 D. Carter, T. Baghurst

The question sought to understand the essence of the ser-
vant leader experience to the participants. Responses
obtained reflected how the foundation of servant leadership
undergirds the operations of the restaurant. Six participants
have an expectation for their leaders to lead and serve as
taught through servant leadership. They expect their lead-
ers to set the example and in turn, the participants under-
stand their personal responsibility to be true to setting the
example of servant leadership. P11 stated, Were all
responsible to the servant leaders that responsibility or
that commitment to playing that role of being the servant
leader; lies with each person; from the top guy going
down.
Comments from the participants also reflected their
understanding of servant leadership and its application to
the overall goals for Celebration Restaurant. P 4 stated,
I think with Servant Leadership comes a huge per-
sonal commitment. You have to make a personal
commitment to yourself. I think you have every
day to be better, work better in order to do so you
have to make that personal commitment to yourself.
If you dont it aint going to happen. You aint going what may be the reasons? Many joked when answering
to go further; you are stuck. I will say this, the big
guy in charge, he lays the ground work for Servant
Leadership, but I think his sole purpose for that is
to offer it to all of us to follow it. I think he wants us
as individuals to be better people. And, I think that it
kind of pushes us to work on our own selves as well
as Servant Leadership but I think its a great way to
kind of build that foundation on each of as individ-
uals becoming better not just in Servant Leadership.
RQ2 sought to identify how servant leadership may
influence employee engagement, seeking specifically to
identify the commitment level of the participants and if
servant leadership influenced the commitment.
smoking and theyre not supposed to do it. I guess
were not supposed to do it, but well do it any way.
All those little things that maybe you arent supposed
to, do but the leaders are doing it so everybody else
does it too. And having that leadership; that Servant
Leadership everybody is aware of it here and we all
have to be leaders and lead by example; its not
perfect, but I think we do a pretty good job of that.
The most common responses were leading by example,
kindness, being open minded, compassion, and the will-
ingness and desire to lead. Table 1 depicts the qualities
listed by the participants.
Q4 How does working in a servant leader environment
motivate you? In regards to your servant leadership expe-
rience, what has kept you with the same company for over
5 years?
These questions were essential in understanding how the
servant leadership experience kept these employees with
the same company for over 5 years. The last part of the
question asked, If you left the company 5 years from now,
while considering their future. Leaving the company was
not an immediate consideration for participants faced with
better opportunities in pursuit of their career in a different
direction or depending on the changes of life. Even those
who expressed some doubt in the transformations of their
leaders were still not quick to say they would leave in the
immediate near future. The people connection was one of
the main reasons participants credited for remaining with
Celebration Restaurant, but four participants also com-
mented on the servant heart of the owner and alignment
with his values as a reason for staying. Another two
Table 1 Focus group responses on servant leader qualities

Q3 What servant leader qualities are more important to Servant leader quality Count
you? Leading by example 4
The question drew on both the knowledge of the partici- Kindness 4
pants of servant leadership as well as their preference of Open mindedness 3
qualities valued in a leader. Common with all participants Compassion 3
was the desire for leaders to lead by example and truly live Willing to be a leader 3
out the characteristics and qualities of servant leadership. Passion 2
Participants offered traits that were both observed as well Focus on others 1
as desired in their leadership. Participant seven provided a Patience 1
good response to exemplify a couple of these qualities by Sense of humor 1
stating, Responsibility 1
Able to learn from mistakes 1
I would say compassion and leading by example [are
Understanding 1
most important]. When you go to work for somebody
Sensitivity 1
and they tell you this is what youre not allowed to do
Intelligence 1
but then you start your job and you see everybody

123
Servant Leadership 459

participants commented on their personal growth since year, and there are just three of us. Our attitudes
being with Celebration Restaurant, while four others toward each other and customers [are important]. Its
remarked about the flexibility that allows them to work and just like if one of us comes in a bad mood, we can
balance home life. The comments below reflect how ser- definitely spread it to the other two or if were in a
vant leadership motivated some of the participants. good mood. It helps when youre nice to everybody
P11 commented, because we deal with drivers and customers, the
restaurant and we deal with a lot of people during the
Youve got great people to work with, youve got an
day. You can spread kindness.
ownership group that is trying as best they can to be
creative and do some different things Weve had
Themes
lots of really good quality people come and go and
the restaurant keeps going and we keep prospering
Through the data analysis, five themes surfaced: (1) Ser-
and that is true, but it is the fact that were here; that
vant Leadership Experience, (2) Why People Stay, (3)
is part of the reason why people come back. We have
Servant Leadership Traits, (4) Impact of Servant Leader-
a chance to influence a lot of people every day at
ship, and (5) Application of Servant Leadership. Using
work on the phones, when were talking to them;
coding, reoccurring words, and comments were analyzed
whether in the catering or the market people come in
for frequency and thus, became themes.
a pick stuff up, whether people are in the restaurant to
celebrate a birthday, anniversaries or a first date
Theme One: Servant Leadership Experience
whatever We come into contact with a lot of
people so we have many opportunities to influence
The individual experience of servant leadership held per-
and we may not ever see it and it may or may not be
sonal meaning for each participant and was the central
in a big tip for something else but that human
theme of the research. The experiences of these partici-
interaction.
pants fell into three categories: (1) personal meaning, (2)
Q4a If you left the company, 5 years from now, what manager meaning, and (3) meaning to the culture. The
would be the reasons? personal meaning for each participant reflected three main
characteristics: (1) leading by example, (2) personal
Some of the reasons given were retirement, winning the
growth, and (3) relationships.
lottery, opportunity to for business ownership, better job
Focus group participants viewed leading by example as
with benefits within degreed field, or just life changes.
both a standard and a sign of integrity. Ninety-one percent
Q5 In what ways does Servant Leadership inspire you to (10/11) of the focus group participants cited leading by
do and accomplish more in your role? example as a primary expectation of their servant leader
experience, something that exemplified true servant leader-
The question sought to understand the reasons for the
ship. These participants expected managers to lead by
commitment of the partners, the role of servant leadership,
example in their behaviors of how the managers treated their
and in what ways, if any, has servant leadership contributed
employees and expected manager support through hands-on
to personal engagement of the participants. Some of the
service. Personal growth was expressed as a characteristic
responses included personal growth, development of lead-
that developed from the servant leadership experience where
ership qualities, personal commitment and self-awareness,
participants and managers were taught to look at self-first for
customer responses to the servant leader environment, and a
a reason for a problem. Greenleaf (2008) called personal
responsibility to lead by example. Participant two also
growth a result of awareness and perception. Seventy-three
added through his experience with servant leadership, he
percent (8/11) of the focus group participants commented
has a better understanding of the characteristics of servant
how their servant leader experience resulted in some level of
leaders and he holds an appreciation for the owner of Cel-
personal growth and development, even more of self-
ebration based on the example he sets. In general, partici-
awareness. Greenleaf (2008, p. 28) stated, When one is
pants felt servant leadership made them more aware of their
aware, there is more than the usual alertness, more intense
own behavior and responses toward others. Participant 11
contact with the immediate situation, and more is stored
described his inspiration as that of a role model and being a
away in the unconscious computer to produce intuitive
good representation of what were doing here.
insights in the future when needed. Participants also com-
Participant ten stated,
mented on how they were more in tune with their personal
I guess back on that kindness thing We deal with feelings and moods, and how these emotions could affect
hundreds of customers a week; millions of dollars a negatively or positively both peers and customers.

123
460
The servant leadership experience also held a meaning
to the culture of Celebration Restaurant. Training meetings
on servant leadership are regular to keep the philosophy in
the minds of all employees. As Participant three stated,
We do things differently at Celebration. For the partic- happy and have a good experience each time. The impact
ipants who experienced other companies, servant leader-
ship represented a higher standard of responsibility to
themselves and their customers.
Theme Two: Why People Stay
Participants commented that they wanted to be at Cele-
bration Restaurant, even when they were not at work. All
participant comments reflected that the relationships they
have at work are one of the main connections that keep
them with Celebration Restaurant. Participants described
Celebration Restaurant as a fun place, one where they
enjoy coming each day.
Fifty-five percent (6/11) commented on the respect they
had for the owner of the company and his vision of servant
leadership. Ninety-one percent (10/11) commented on how
they knew the leadership supports servant leadership and
wants employees to speak up and share their ideas and
concerns with them, although one participant felt this may
not be sincere and that she did not believe she would ever
confide in her leaders. All participants agreed they enjoyed
the working atmosphere of Celebration and no one was
actively pursuing another job.
Theme Three: Servant Leadership Traits
The traits most commented by the participants were asking
for forgiveness (73 %, 8/11), kindness or caring, and
compassion (73 %, 8/11), learning (55 %, 6/11), service
(55 %, 6/11), and responsibility (55 %, 6/11). Each of
these traits were mentioned a minimum of 10 times
throughout the combination of interviews and focus
groups, which emphasized the significance of the meaning
of these traits to the participants collectively as well as
individually. Other characteristics mentioned were passion,
listener, teacher, trust, and understanding.
Theme Four: Impact of Servant Leadership
The impact of servant leadership from partners reflected an
impact on the organizational culture. The experience of
servant leadership and how this experience influences the
commitment level of each individual was reflected by 82 %
(9/11) of responses who commented on levels of empow-
erment, involvement in decisions, ability to solve prob-
lems, and encouragement to provide feedback. As part of
this theme, 73 % (8/11) of participants commented they
were more focused on delivering exceptional customer
123
D. Carter, T. Baghurst
service. Their commitment to the company influences how
the participants interact with their customers. Thus, par-
ticipants are working toward a common goal through team
effort. Partners are focused on ensuring customers are
of servant leadership upon Celebration Restaurant is sum-
med up in the reoccurring comments of change, commit-
ment, awareness, teaches, encouragement, and personal
impact.
Theme Five: Application of Servant Leadership
Theme Five reflected the humanness of both participants
and managers. Participants responses suggested that the
effectiveness of servant leadership is dependent on the
consistency of leadership. Seventy-three percent (8/11) of
the employees commented how each may apologize to one
another for having a bad attitude or to customers when a
mistake was made.
Discussion
This study examined servant leader experiences of partners
within Celebration Restaurant. The key findings of this
study revealed employees in this servant leader environ-
ment held strong ties to the organization due to peer-to-
peer relationships. Employees felt their opinions were
valued and owned their behavior. In addition, employees
felt responsible for delivering good service to customers
and contributing to the results of the company; thus,
employees were more engaged. Employees also expected
leaders to exhibit servant leader traits and lead by example.
Further, employee comments reflected the presence of
servant leadership changed the environment of the com-
pany for better.
Servant leadership contributes to healing, commitment,
and feelings of worth (Greenleaf 1998; Spears and Law-
rence 2002). Servant leadership is not innate, although
some principles of servant leadership may come more
naturally to some than others as reflected in the partici-
pants comments (Greenleaf 1998, 2002). Although servant
leadership can only account for the last 15 years of the
40 years that the restaurant has existed, many partners
credited the philosophy as a major change with the owner
of the company. From the partners perspective, the sense
of caring from managers in the organization helped to fuel
more dedicated, loyal, and committed partners or
employees. The emotional attachment shared by partners
with one other was described as the impact and experience
of servant leadership to them.
Participants felt the environment of Celebration was one
where employees felt they can learn, serve, and become
Servant Leadership
leaders themselves, which is true to the definition of servant
leadership (Greenleaf 1998, 2002, 2008; Sipe and Frick
2009; Spears and Lawrence 2002; Waterman 2011). Theme
four linked the experience of servant leadership to employee
engagement, where employees are committed to an organi-
zation because their opinions are welcomed and valued.
Employees of Celebration Restaurant were encouraged to
share their ideas and thoughts on central issues affecting the
business and through training, employees were empowered
to make decisions and learn from mistakes (Gallup 2010;
Harter and Schmidt 2010; Kowske et al. 2009).
Engagement drivers reflected factors that contributed to
the morale and willingness to stay and contribute to the
companys success, which breeds an emotional connection
(Kowske et al. 2009; Lavigna 2010). Based on the partic-
ipants responses analyzed in Theme five, the main drivers
were relationships with peers, open communication, flexi-
bility, and overall an environment that has created general
enthusiasm for the work conducted. Peer relationships held
the most significant value for the participants although
these relationships were derived out of a culture, in which
the participants hold a belief in and value the goals of the
leaders of their organization. Three of the eleven partici-
pants had family members employed at Celebration Res-
taurant, which reflects both employee engagement and
servant leadership characteristics (Gallup Consulting 2008;
Sipe and Frick 2009).
Participants also understood the value of building rela-
tionships with their customers. Most studies regarding
employee engagement marked the relationship between the
manager and employee as having a stronger influence on
engagement versus the employee-to-employee relationship
alone (Gallup Consulting 2008; Hemsley 2007; Markos
and Sridevi 2010; Tomlinson 2010). The servant leadership
experience overall for participants meant creating a family
atmosphere at work, which held the highest value to the
participants. These main drivers of employee engagement
contributed to the emotional connection the participants
hold with the company as well as their general enthusiasm
for work.
Research from literature indicated key drivers of
employee engagement were factors that contributed to
confidence in work roles, morale, and willingness to stay
and contributed to companys success, as well as overall
loyalty, which breeds an emotional connection with
employee to organization (Kowske et al. 2009; Lavigna
2010). Key engagement drivers often include open and
honest communication, support to do ones job, recognition
and appreciation for work contributions, opportunity for
growth and development, feeling valued, and knowing
ones contributions count (Harter and Schmidt 2010).
Findings from Celebration Restaurant indicated that
some of these drivers existed and contributed to the
461
longevity of partners. Within Celebration Restaurant, 60 %
of employees had more than 5 years of service. This is in
stark contrast to the nationwide statistic of 21 % with two
or more years of service within the Leisure and Hospitality
sector, which includes restaurants (Bureau of Labor Sta-
tistics 2008).
The findings from the data suggest that servant leader-
ship had a strong influence on employee engagement,
specifically with commitment, loyalty, ownership, and
overall partners who contribute to the success of the
organization. One of the most surprising findings was that
the strength of the relationships among peers was greater
than that of employee to manager. Most research attributed
employee loyalty to the manager relationships versus peer
relationships (Gallup Consulting 2008; Hemsley 2007;
Markos and Sridevi 2010; Tomlinson 2010), reflecting a
gap in the study as compared to literature on employee
engagement. Comments from partners reflected that these
relationships kept them with Celebration Restaurant. These
relationships positively influenced both the commitment
levels and loyalty to the organization.
Limitations and Future Research
Findings of this study should be considered with respect to
its limitations. Through focus groups, the researcher
becomes the instrument, which can lead to bias (Miyazaki
and Taylor 2008). Researcher bias could have altered the
results of the study or stifled the participants involvement
through limiting or leading their responses. Several steps
were taken to counter possible bias. The pilot study iden-
tified potential bias in the interview and focus group
questions and the questions reframed to eliminate the bias
(Chenail 2011). Researcher bias was limited through ask-
ing open-ended questions, which allowed participants to
provide responses freely and without the researcher guiding
the responses. The researcher did not add comments to
influence participants and only asked for clarification to
expand on thoughts made. Further, the researcher was not
an employee or connected to the research organization,
which could have hindered the open communication of the
participants (Smithson 2000).
Another limitation was the research location for data
collection. Although a convenience for the participants, a
breach of confidentiality through possible identification of
the participants in the workplace was a possible limitation
(Shaha et al. 2011; Smithson 2000). To mitigate this
potential problem, participants responses were not shared
verbatim with the management or staff of Celebration, but
only the comments contained in the study. The researcher
also maintained the transcripts and audio recording of the
focus groups according to ethical practices. Focus groups
were conducted after lunch hours in a room and area of the
123
462
restaurant cleared out, thus limiting the possibility of
someone over hearing the participant responses. Further,
study results were not discussed on-site or with anyone
connected to the restaurant.
One additional limitation to consider is focus groups do
not always yield sufficient information, as participants may
be concerned about what others think, and therefore may
not be fully forthcoming in their responses. Future research
should consider conducting individual interviews which
often elicit more meaningful, rich data as interviews are
typically one-on-one and participants may feel comfortable
giving open feedback (Chenail 2011).
The above limitations could have hindered the forth-
rightness and openness of the participants. The use of focus
groups hold the risk of participants sharing comments
made within the group, thus revealing the identity of the
participants (Smithson 2000). Thus, the data collected may
not represent the complete true feelings of participants who
may have feared identification by peers within the focus
group to their leaders. Future studies must take into con-
sideration this weakness to the study and make the neces-
sary adjustments to both research location and participant
solicitation.
Understanding the full impact of servant leadership to
employee engagement entails developing studies to create
a process with measurements. A quantitative correlational
study comprised of a larger population to include various
servant led companies to measure employee engagement
may provide data on common drivers and isolate those
specific to different industries. Results may identify similar
servant leadership characteristics that have a greater
influence on employee engagement. Through expanding
the scope of the study, an understanding of any differences
among industries may arise and contribute to the knowl-
edge of servant leadership.
One additional recommendation is a quantitative corre-
lational study that compares several restaurants with dif-
ferent leadership philosophies to measure the influence of
those leadership philosophies on engagement, while com-
paring commitment and loyalty of employees. This may
provide understanding into the effectiveness of servant
leadership as measured against other leadership philoso-
phies and engagement levels. The study may also provide
additional insight into why more organizations do not
adopt servant leadership. This type of study can compare
leadership philosophies to engagement and attrition levels
within the identified organizations.
Future studies should also explore whether servant
leadership within managerial positions is exemplified the
same within non-manager positions. This approach may
provide further insight into how employees in managerial
roles, but not as owners demonstrate servant leadership
and if these traits differ from those in other positions.
123
D. Carter, T. Baghurst
Conclusion
This qualitative, phenomenological study examined the
servant leader experience of 11 partners and the impact the
experience had on the culture of the restaurant and corre-
sponding engagement levels of all who participated in the
study. Research suggested that organizational leaders are
critical in establishing and creating ethical cultures that
produce productive, loyal, and engaged employees (Darcy
2010; Kish-Gephart et al. 2010). Servant leaders connect to
the emotions of a person through the nature of serving the
needs of others above that of the leader (Greenleaf 1998,
2002, 2008). The success of servant leaders develops
through committed employees who actively contribute to
the success of the organization, thus becoming leaders
themselves.
Findings revealed partners experience personal growth
and developed strong working relationships with their
peers. The implementation of servant leadership has cre-
ated a culture of committed workers who strive to deliver a
memorable customer experience. Servant leadership, such
as with Celebration Restaurant, is a learned trait where one
has to regularly assess self and motives, while making
timely amends for actions or behaviors which go against
servant leadership. Participants characterized servant
leaders as possessing and displaying kindness and com-
passion, humility, the ability to right wrongs, a focus on
serving others first, trustworthy, responsible, and under-
standing. Participants attributed their length of service to
Celebration to the relationships built as well as the overall
climate of the organization, where partners enjoy coming
to work. Through data analysis, employee engagement
drivers were identified as peer relationships, open com-
munication, and flexibility. Employee engagement is not
only dependent on the lateral relationships employees hold,
but also on the interaction employees have with their
managers. Servant leadership was the change agent for
leaders of Celebration Restaurant (McGee-Cooper et al.
2007) and a concentrated focus on employee engagement
may increase the overall performance of the organization.
References
Ajjawi, R., & Higgs, J. (2007). Using Hermeneutic phenomenology to
investigate how experienced practitioners learn to communicate
to clinical reasoning. Qualitative Report, 12(4), 612638.
Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR12-4/ajjawi.
pdf.
Antelo, A., Prilipko, E. V., & Sheridan-Pereira, M. (2010). Assessing
effective attributes of followers in a leadership process.
Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3(10), 112.
Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=
true&db=ehh&AN=61252684&site=eds-live.
Servant Leadership
Arkin, A. (2009). Back-seat drivers. People Management, 15(10),
2628. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.
aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=52894820&site=eds-live.
Autry, J. A. (2001). The servant leader: How to build a creative team,
develop great morale, and improve bottom-line performance.
New York: Three Rivers.
Ayers, K. E. (2008). Engagement is not enough: You need passionate
employees to achieve your dream. Charleston, SC: Elevate.
Bagnoli, A., & Clark, A. (2010). Focus groups with young people: A
participatory approach to research planning. Journal of Youth
Studies, 13(1), 101119. doi:10.1080/13676260903173504.
Blanchard, K. (2010). Leading at a higher level: Blanchard on
leadership and creating high performing organizations. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: BMC, Blanchard Management Corporation.
Blanchard, K., & Hodges, P. (2003). The servant leader: Transform-
ing your heart, head, hands, & habits. Nashville, TN: Blanchard
Family Partnership and Phil Hodges.
Bloom, D. (2009). The phenomenological method of Gestalt therapy:
Revisiting Husserl to discover the essence of Gestalt Theory. Harter, J., & Schmidt, F. L. (2010). What really drives financial
Gestalt Review, 13(3), 277295. Retrieved from https://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2010-00737-
011&site=eds-live.
Bryce, V. (2009). Retention: Employee engagement RIO before RIOT.
Wayne, PA: Thought Leadership, Kenexa.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008). Employee tenure by industry, 2008.
Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2008/sept/wk5/art03.
htm.
Chan, K. W., & Wan, E. W. (2012). How can stressed employees
deliver better customer service? The underlying self-regulation
depletion mechanism. Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 119137.
doi:10.1509/jm.10.0202.
Chenail, R. J. (2011). Interviewing the investigator: Strategies for
addressing instrumentation and researcher bias concerns in quali-
tative research. Qualitative Report, 16(1), 255262. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?
accno=EJ914046.
CNN Money (2011). 100 best companies to work for. Retrieved from
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2011/
full_list/.
Creswell, J. (2005). Education research: Planning, conducting, and
evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.) [eBook
Collection]. doi:1000-0001-2D36-00017C66.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing
among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Darcy, K. T. (2010). Ethical leadership: The past, present and future.
International Journal of Disclosure & Governance, 7(3),
198212. doi:10.1057/jdg.2010.12.
Esty, K., & Gewirtz, M. (2008). Creating a culture of employee
engagement. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/jobs/nehra/
062308.shtml.
Federman, B. (2009). Employee engagement: A roadmap for creating
profits, optimizing performance, and increasing loyalty. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint.
Furness, V. (2008). Engagement defined. Employee Benefits, 5657.
Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=
true&db=f5h&AN=32034540&site=eds-live.
Gallup (2010). Employee engagement: A leading indicator of
financial performance. Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://
www.gallup.com/consulting/52/Employee-Engagement.aspx.
Gallup Consulting (2008). Employee engagement: What is your
engagement ratio? Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/
consulting/121535/Employee-Engagement-Overview-Brochure.
aspx.
Garza, G. (2007). Varieties of phenomenological research at the
University of Dallas: An emerging typology. Qualitative
463
Research in Psychology, 4(4), 313342. doi:10.1080/
14780880701551170.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1998). The power of servant leadership. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature
of legitimate power and greatness (25th anniversary ed.). New
York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Greenleaf, R. K. (2008). The servant as leader. Westfield, IN: The
Robert Greenleaf Center.
Groppel, J., & Loehr, J. (2004). Full engagement. Chief Learning
Officer, 3(2), 1313. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.
com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=12243007&site=eds-
live.
Halcomb, E., Gholizadeh, L., DiGiacomo, M., Phillips, J., &
Davidson, P. M. (2007). Literature review: Considerations in
undertaking focus group research with culturally and linguisti-
cally diverse groups. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(6),
10001011. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01760.x.
success? Two researches tackle this chicken-or-egg question: Do
engaged employees drive an organizations performance, or does
success inspire engagement? Retrieved from http://gmh.galup.
com/content.142733/Really-Drives-Financial-Success.aspx.
Hemsley, S. (2007). What is employee engagement? Employee
Benefits, 56. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.
aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=26402953&site=eds-live.
James, J., & Kowske, B. (2009). Engaging and retaining high
performers in an economic downturn. Retrieved from http://www.
kenexa.com/getattachment/be0a4909-8116-48cd-a15f-2cccf46e
2737/Engaging-and-Retaining-High-Performers-in-an-Econo.
aspx.
Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4),
692725. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.
apollolibrary.com/docview/199783385?accountid=35812.
Keith, K. M. (2008). The case for servant leadership. Westfield, IN:
Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Trevino, L. K. (2010). Bad
apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about
sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95(1), 131. doi:10.1037/a0020073.
Kowske, B., Lundby, K., & Rasch, R. (2009). Turing survive into
thrive: Managing survivor engagement in a downsized organi-
zation. People & Strategy, 32(4), 4856. Retrieved from https://
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=
47934585&site=eds-live.
Lavigna, B. (2010). Driving performance by building employee
satisfaction and engagement. Government Finance Review,
26(1), 5153. doi:48568075.
Lawson, H. (2008). Increasing employee engagement in a challenging
economy. Vision Monday, 22(10), 6666. Retrieved from https://
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=343
74465&site=eds-live.
Lichtenwalner, B. (2011). Fortunes best companies to work for with
servant leadership. Retrieved from http://modernservantleader.
com/servantleadership/fortunes-best-companies-to-work-for-with-
servantleadership/.
Lindseth, A., & Norberg, A. (2004). A phenomenological hermeneu-
tical method for researching lived experience. Scandinavian
Journal of Caring Sciences, 18(2), 145153. doi:10.1111/j.1471-
6712.2004.00258.x.
Loehr, J., & Groppel, J. (2004). Emotional engagement. Chief
Learning Officer, 3(8), 16.
Mannelly, P. K. (2009). Managing highly engaged or actively
disengaged employees: A phenomenological study of first-level
123
464
supervisors (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Dissertations
& Theses @ University of Phoenix (1683462431).
Markos, S., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key
to improving performance. International Journal of Business and
Management, 5(12), 8996. Retrieved from https://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=57936039&
site=eds-live.
McGee-Cooper, A., Looper, G., & Trammell, D. (2007). Being the
change: Profiles from our servant leadership learning commu-
nity. Dallas, TX: Ann McGee-Cooper & Associates.
Mero-Jaffe, I. (2011). Is that what I said? Interview transcript
approval by participants: An aspect of ethics in qualitative
research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 10(3),
231247. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.
aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=70139574&site=eds-live.
Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2008). Researcher interaction
biases and business ethics research: Respondent reactions to
researcher characteristics. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(4),
779795. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9547-5.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Onwuegbuzie, A., Dickinson, W. B., Leech, N. L., & Zoran, A. G.
(2009). A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing
data in focus group research. International Journal of Qualita-
tive Methods, 8(3), 121. Retrieved from https://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=51827937&
site=eds-live.
Redmond, R., & Curtis, E. (2009). Focus groups: Principles and
process. Nurse Researcher, 16(3), 5769. Retrieved from https://
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rzh&AN=2010
271779&site=eds-live.
Rodrigues, V. S., Piecyk, M., Potter, A., McKinnon, A., Naim, M., &
Edwards, J. (2010). Assessing the application of focus groups as
a method for collecting data in logistics. International Journal of
Logistics: Research & Applications, 13(1), 7594. doi:10.1080/
13675560903224970.
Rofcanin, Y., & Mehtap, O. (2010). Implications of LeaderMember
Exchange Relationship (LMX) theory and transformational
leadership dimensions on subordinate citizenship behavior: An
123
D. Carter, T. Baghurst
empirical paper from Turkey with service industry focus.
International Journal of Global Business, 3(1), 83101.
Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=
true&db=bth&AN=60870812&site=eds-live.
Schneider, B., Macey, W. H., Barbera, K. M., & Martin, N. (2009).
Driving customer satisfaction and financial success through
employee engagement. People & Strategy, 32(2), 2227.
Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=
true&db=bth&AN=43594877&site=eds-live.
Shaha, M., Wenzel, J., & Hill, E. E. (2011). Planning and conducting
focus group research with nurses. Nurse Researcher, 18(2),
7787. Retrieved from www.cinahl.com/cgi-bin/refsvc?jid=
807&accno=2010938897.
Sipe, J. W., & Frick, D. M. (2009). Seven pillars of servant
leadership: Practicing the wisdom of leading by serving.
Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Smithson, J. (2000). Using and analyzing focus groups: Limitations
and possibilities. International Journal of Social Research
Methodology, 3(2), 103119. Retrieved from http://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=3860072&
site=ehost-live.
Spears, L. C., & Lawrence, M. (Eds.). (2002). Focus on leadership:
Servant leadership for the twenty-first century. New York:
Wiley.
Tomlinson, G. (2010). Building a culture of high employee engage-
ment. Strategic HR Review, 9(3), 2531. doi:10.1108/1475439
1011040046.
Wahyuni, D. (2012). The research design maze: Understanding
paradigms, cases, methods, and methodologies. Journal of
Applied Management Accounting Research, 10(1), 6980.
Waterman, H. (2011). Principles of servant leadership and how they
can enhance practice. Nursing Management, 17(9), 2426.
Retrieved from http://w.cinahl.com/cgi-bin/refsvc?jid=450&accno=
2010938719.
Wefald, A., & Downey, R. G. (2009). Construct dimensionality of
engagement and its relation with satisfaction. Journal of
Psychology, 143(1), 91112. Retrieved from https://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=35682045&
site=eds-live.
Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media
B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.