The objective of the writing is to identify and examine the values as well as priorities of servant leaders, on which those typically rely in their behavior. For maximal visual clarity, the author conducted research on two groups, comparing and contrasting them to explore the influence of particular decision-making patterns on organizational functions. It is worth noting that the title refers to the name of Robert Greenleaf, who designed both the term and the ideology of servant leadership; the author apparently seeks to elaborate on the topic. In fact, he offers a set of tools for those who are willing to become servant leaders, with the help of which they could identify the areas and the most appropriate ways of improvement. Within Bloom’s taxonomy, this is an example of evaluation, the final stage, at which assessment occurs, and further advancement becomes possible as new levels open.
Considering the above, the article is a combination of theoretical background and its practical illustration, which form allows for maximally possible demonstrativeness. The structure, however, may be slightly embarrassing since the knowledge is given in fragments rather than in well-organized topic sections. Nevertheless, this lack of cohesion does not interfere with deciphering the main message from the writing, which lies in need for never-ending advancement as well as the unacceptability of bossmanship.
The author, who does research at Fordham University, Bronx, New York, has already presented a series of publications on servant leadership. Some of them, including this article, is prepared in collaboration with both other individual specialists and research centers. The journal that accepted the given piece is the global scholarly forum that targets to accumulate and systematize the knowledge on the topic, consequently improving its quality. The Jerry Falwell Library (JFL) is the source where the article was found.
Reference
Davis, H. J. (2018). Servant-leadership decision-making rubric: A Greenleaf-inspired assessment tool for employee-based issues. The International Journal of Servant-Leadership, 12(1), 149-172.