International Journal of Leadership Studies , Vol. 2 Iss. 1, 2006, pp. 36-51
Servant versus Self-Sacrificial Leadership: A Behavioral Comparison of Two Follow-Oriented Leadership Theories
Jeffrey A. Matteson
Regent University
Justin A. Irving Bethel University
Since Greenleaf (1977), research pertaining to servant leadership has carved a unique place in the leadership literature. The last decade has produced focused theory development including instrument development and empirical studies. Similarly, since Burns (1978), this era witnessed increased theoretical and empirical attention on the role of leader self-sacrifice. Recently, Stone, Russell, and Patterson (2004) and Smith, Montagno, and Kuzmenko (2004) examined the similarities and differences of servant and transformational leadership. This paper employs analogous methods to examine servant and self-
sacrificial leadership. The authors suggest that although servant and self-sacrificial leadership share many common characteristics, they differ in several behavioral dimensions. R esearch pertaining to leadership has been dominated over the last quarter century by the study of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978, 2003). This theory represents an important step toward balancing the needs of both leaders and followers as they work toward fulfilling organizational goals. Meanwhile, this same era has produced several other leadership theories which represent a general movement toward follower-oriented models. Two of these models are servant leadership and self-sacrificial leadership.
As the original architect behind the contemporary study of servant leadership, Robert K. Greenleaf (1977) captured the essence of servant leadership for a modern audience. Posing the question “Who is the servant-leader?” in his writing, Greenleaf answered by stating:
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. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first. (p. 27)
Since Greenleaf’s initial insistence that a leader should be a servant first, several theories of servant leadership have gradually taken shape, most over the past 15 years. One of the central features of servant leadership which has been clarified in its recent history is that servant
leadership is essentially focused on placing the needs of followers before the personal interests of the leader and intentionally working toward raising additional servants. The development of this ? 2006 School of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
Matteson & Irving / SERVANT VERSUS SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP 37 view of leadership has several ramifications for organizations, leaders, and followers; not the least of which are the accompanying characteristics, attributes, practices, and outcomes of this behavior (Farling, Stone, & Winston, 1999; Laub, 1999; Patterson, 2003, 2004; Russell & Stone, 2002; Spears & Lawrence, 2002).
Self-sacrificial leadership occurs when a leader forfeits one or more professional or personal advantages for the sake of followers, the organization, or a mission. One key aim of self-sacrificial leadership is to encourage follower reciprocity (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1998, 1999). However, this modeling behavior has the added benefit of potentially moving followers toward an organizational goal; modifying their behavior; or simply persuading them to attribute legitimacy to the leader, thus allowing the leader to gain influence (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1998, 1999; De Cremer, 2002; De Cremer, van Djike, & Bos, 2004; De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2004; Halverson, Holladay, Kazama, & Quinones, 2004; Javidan & Waldman, 2003; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005; Yorges, Weiss, & Strickland, 1999).
In general, leadership theories such as these provide a description of a set of behaviors exhibited by leaders a majority of the time. For example, transformational leaders may still engage in transactional leadership activities in their daily routines. Given this reality, there is often a theoretical overlap of propositions associated with certain leadership models. Additionally, the average experience of organizational followers as they interact with a particular leadership type may vary due to their unique perspective on organizational life. The authors suggest that there is likely a theoretical overlap between servant and self-sacrificial leadership but that a close examination of these theories will reveal several distinct qualities. To date, no theoretical or empirical study has compared these two theories. Therefore, a study is needed that will crystallize our understanding of convergent and divergent aspects of servant and self-sacrificial leadership. Ultimately, this may afford future researchers the opportunity to share a common language of servant and self-sacrificial leadership and lead to useful empirical testing.
The purpose of this paper is to describe the chief components of servant and self- sacrificial leadership and to examine the commonalities and distinctions of the two conceptualizations. This study begins by suggesting an integrated model of servant leadership. Subsequent to the delineation of the associated frameworks, the characteristics and attributes of each theory will be laid side by side in an effort to compare the concepts. It is proposed that these two follower-oriented theories share some common characteristics and attributes but differ in significant areas. As a result, a scaffold will be proposed to provide the structure for highlighting the theoretical distinctives of servant and self-sacrificial leadership.
Servant Leadership
Greenleaf’s (1977) seminal work on servant leadership—the work attributed with bringing the concept of servant leadership to public discourse in the mid 1970s—has led to a growing body of literature surrounding the construct since the early 1990s. The literature surrounding servant leadership can generally be categorized into two main areas: theoretical and empirical. A majority of the works are theoretical in nature: Blanchard (1998); Buchen (1998); Cerff (2004); Farling et al. (1999); Graham (1991); Hale (2004); Irving and McIntosh (2006), Jennings and Stahl-Wert (2003); Laub (2004); Ndoria (2004); Page (2004); Parolini (2004); Patterson (2003); Patterson and Stone (2004); Quay (1997); Rude (2003); Russell (2001, 2003); Russell and Stone (2002); Sendjaya and Sarros (2002); Smith et al. (2004); Spears (1995, 1998); Spears and Lawrence (2002); Stone, Russell, and Patterson (2003, 2004); Wolford-Ulrich
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 38 (2004); Winston (2003); Winston and Hartsfield (2004); and Wong and Page (2003). An increasing number of empirical studies such as Dennis (2004), Dennis and Winston (2003), Drury (2004), Hebert (2003, 2004), Helland (2004), Irving (2004, 2005a, 2005b), Irving and Longbotham (2006), Laub (1999, 2003), Ledbetter (2003), Sendjaya (2003), and Winston (2004) have emerged as well.
As the construct of servant leadership has developed over the last 15 years, it has been operationalized in several different forms. For instance, discussion has focused on the inspirational and moral dimensions of servant leadership (Graham, 1991); the dimensions of self-identity, capacity for reciprocity, relationship building, and a preoccupation with the future (Buchen, 1998); vision, influence, credibility, trust, and service (Farling et al., 1999); along with Russell’s (2001) discussion which focused on vision, credibility, trust, service, modeling, pioneering, appreciation of others, and empowerment. Of the theoretical discussions of servant leadership that have become dominant in the field, Spears (1998), Laub (1999), and Patterson (2003) have been frequently cited. The model of servant leadership that is advanced in this paper is constructed largely as a composite of these three theoretical approaches and is aimed at providing framework for further research in servant leadership studies.
Because the model of servant leadership advanced in this paper fuses the Spears (1998), Laub (1999), and Patterson (2003) conceptualizations of servant leadership; it is important to begin our examination of servant leadership by briefly highlighting each at this time. Spears’ (1998) 10 characteristics of servant leadership have been identified as an outgrowth of Greenleaf’s (1977) discussion of servant leadership. Spears’ (1998) 10 characteristics of servant leadership are (a) listening, (b) empathy, (c) healing, (d) awareness, (e) persuasion, (f) conceptualization, (g) foresight, (h) stewardship, (i) commitment, and (j) community building. Spears (1998) argued that servant leadership is tied to the character exhibited by leaders in their essential traits. Spears’ (1998) focus on the character of the leader will be an important consideration as we consider an integrated model of servant leadership. Essential to the formation of servant leaders, Spears’ (1998) 10 characteristics provide a practical starting point for leaders interested in developing as servant leaders.
Laub (1999) provided the second core conceptualization of servant leadership that will be utilized in this paper. Laub (1999) defined the essence of servant leadership in this manner: “Servant leadership is an understanding and practice of leadership that places the good of those led over the self-interest of the leader” (p. 81). But, in what manner do servant leaders place “the good of those led over” themselves? For Laub (1999), this is answered by the results of his Delphi study. In the Delphi process, 60 characteristics of servant leaders were identified and eventually clustered into six key areas: (a) valuing people, (b) developing people, (c) building community, (d) displaying authenticity, (e) providing leadership, and (f) sharing leadership. For Laub (1999), these are the essential behaviors that characterize what servant leaders do and are the answer to how servant leaders place the good of those led over their own self-interest.
The final base conceptualization of servant leadership is offered by Patterson (2003). As a theory-building dissertation, Patterson (2003) presented servant leadership theory as an extension of transformational leadership theory. This extension was based primarily on Patterson’s (2003) observation that transformational theory was not addressing the phenomena of love, humility, altruism, and casting vision for followers. Because of this, Patterson’s (2003) model of servant leadership includes the following dimensions as the essential characteristics of servant leadership: (a) agapáo love, (b) humility, (c) altruism, (d) vision, (e) trust, (f) empowerment, and (g) service. While Spears’ (1998) model of servant leadership focuses
Matteson & Irving / SERVANT VERSUS SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP 39 primarily on the character exhibited by servant leaders and Laub’s (1999) model focuses primarily on the behaviors of servant leaders, Patterson’s (2003) model provides a bridge between the dimensions of character and behavior.
Though each of these models provides significant insight into servant leadership, the divergent emphases in each of these models point to the need to consider an integrative model. Toward this end, we propose the following three-fold framework for conceptualizing an integrative model that is inclusive of the wide range of theoretical factors contained in the Spears (1998), Laub (1999), and Patterson (2003) models: (a) being—the servant leader’s ontological character traits; (b) thinking—the servant leader’s attitudinal mindset; and (c) doing—the servant leader’s behavioral actions. Table 1 provides an overview of these three dimensions of servant leadership and the associated factors in the integrative model. This proposed three-fold framework provides a logical approach to assimilating the range of factors in the Spears (1998), Laub (1999), and Patterson (2003) models as well both a linear and circular approach to conceptualizing servant leadership.
In the linear approach, we argue that one’s ontological character provides the basis for the attitudinal mindset with which a leader approaches leadership scenarios out of their cognitive-affective framework. Furthermore, we argue that one’s attitudinal mindset provides the basis for servant leadership behaviors (see Figure 1). Thus, this three-fold model may be conceptualized as a linear progression from leader being, to leader thinking, to leader doing; or, to put it in other terms, it is a progression from the ontological, to the attitudinal, to the behavioral.
Understood as a circular approach, leader ontology, attitude, and behavior may be seen as regularly reinforcing one another in a circular or spiraling process in which a servant leader’s being (ontological) reinforces servant-oriented thinking (attitudinal) which reinforces servant leadership doing (behavioral) which reinforces servant leader being (ontological); and, the circular reinforcement continues (see Figure 2). Though the notion of circular or spiraling models in servant leadership studies is not new (i.e., Farling et al., 1999), understanding this circular process in light of servant leader ontology, attitude, and behavior is an important addition to the literature.
Self-Sacrificial Leadership
The contemporary origins of the study of self-sacrificial leadership are found in the writings of Burns (1978) and Bass (1985). These transformational leadership theorists suggested that leader self-sacrifice is a tool which great leaders use to motivate followers. Following their lead, current charismatic leadership theorists have perceived self-sacrifice in leadership to be a tactic which a leader could employ to influence follower attributions of charisma (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House & Shamir, 1993; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Out of this movement, Choi and Mai-Dalton (1998) proposed a model of follower responses to self-sacrificial leadership. From these theoretical underpinnings, empirical studies have been undertaken to test the validity of this model along with a variety of additional variables which may be associated with self-sacrificial leadership.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 40
Table 1
The Three Dimensions of Servant Leadership
Dimensions Servant Leadership Factors Love
Humility Authenticity Self-Awareness
Ontological Dimensions of Servant Leadership Self-Differentiation Love
Other-Centeredness
Oriented toward altruism
Valuing people
Commitment to the growth of people
Visionary Orientation toward trust Orientation toward listening
Orientation toward empathy
Leadership mindset
Orientation toward persuasion
Capacity for conceptualization
Attitudinal Dimensions of Servant Leadership Foresight Love
Listening
Empathy
Healing
Stewardship Developing people Building community
Providing leadership
Sharing leadership
Empowering followers
Behavioral Dimensions of Servant Leadership Serving followers
Note. As the foundation of servant leadership (Patterson, 2003), love may be categorized in each of the dimensions of servant leadership.
Figure 1. The three dimensions of servant leadership, a linear model.
Matteson & Irving / SERVANT VERSUS SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP 41
Figure 2. The three dimensions of servant leadership, a circular model.
The empirical studies associated with self-sacrificial leadership have focused primarily on the outcomes of the sacrificial behavior on the perceptions of followers. Several of these studies found that self-sacrificing leaders were attributed charisma by followers and were perceived to be more influential, legitimate, and effective (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999; De Cremer, 2002; De Cremer et al., 2004; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005; Yorges et al., 1999). Follower attributions of charisma were particularly pronounced during a period of organizational crisis or when the organization faced a social dilemma which required cooperation (De Cremer, 2002; Halverson et al., 2004).
Self-sacrificial leadership has produced additional responses from followers beyond cooperative effort. Followers of self-sacrificial leaders intended to reciprocate the self-sacrificing behaviors (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999), were more committed to their organization (De Cremer et al., 2004), and performed at a higher level (van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). The main effects of self-sacrificial leadership have been found to be moderated by leader self-confidence, the leader’s group-orientedness, distributive justice, and when leaders were not pushing their opinions on subordinates (De Cremer, 2006; De Cremer et al., 2004; De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2004; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). The results of these initial empirical tests hint at a phenomenon, which encompasses a much larger portion of leadership theory than initially proposed. In fact, Choi and Mai-Dalton (1999) suggested that self-sacrificial leadership plays a role in all three organizational processes of production, distribution, and consumption.
The proposition of a broad influence of leader self-sacrifice led Choi and Mai-Dalton (1999) to define self-sacrificial leadership as “the total/partial abandonment, and/or permanent/temporary postponement of personal interests, privileges, and welfare in the (a) division of labor, (b) distribution of rewards, and/or (c) exercise of power” (p. 399). The authors explained that self-sacrifice in the division of labor “involves volunteering for more risky and/or
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 42
arduous actions, tasks, turns, or segments of work” (p. 399). They proffer that self-sacrifice in the distribution of rewards “involves giving up or postponing one’s fair and legitimate share of organizational rewards” (p. 399). Self-sacrifice in the exercise of power is described in their research as “voluntarily giving up or refraining from exercising or using the position power, privileges, and/or personal resources one already has in his/her hand” (p. 399). Choi and Mai-Dalton (1999) drew a distinction between self-sacrifice in the distribution of rewards and in the exercise of power by noting that the former involves giving up claiming privileges and the latter involves consuming the privileges.
The economic aspects of leader self-sacrifice, while supported both theoretically and
empirically, should not be considered the final boundaries of the self-sacrificial leadership construct. Other theorists have noted that leader self-sacrifice includes the loss of status, credibility, and promotion (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Javidan & Waldman, 2003). This is a small glimpse at the motivational aspects that lay the foundation of self-sacrificial behavior, which may have origins beyond the simple desire to influence followers. After all, if a leader loses his or her status or credibility or is demoted rather than promoted, it would be difficult to impossible to influence followers. Alternatively, leaders may sacrifice to demonstrate courage and conviction in the mission while serving as a role model (Shamir et al., 1993); maintain
personal beliefs and values (Yorges et al., 1999); and exhibit commitment to the cause (Avolio & Locke, 2002) or, simply, for the good of the company (Halverson et al., 2004). Therefore, it can be stated that the motivational foundation for self-sacrificial leadership may be directly related to the outcome of the behavior.
To date, the published theoretical models of self-sacrificial leadership do not address all three dimensions of leader ontology, attitude, and behavior. Instead, current models present the impact of sacrificing behavior on followers along with various moderating variables (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999; De Cremer, 2006; Yorges et al., 1999). While a gap in the literature regarding self-sacrificial leader ontology and attitude exists, enough research exists to present behaviors associated with self-sacrificial leaders. Table 2 offers a preliminary look at these self-sacrificial leadership behaviors.
Table 2
The Behavioral Dimensions of Self-Sacrificial Leadership
Dimension Self-Sacrificial Leadership Factors Altruism
Takes initiative
Empathy
Role modeling
Provides justice
Developing people
Building community
Providing leadership
Links followers to shared vision
Empowering followers
Serving followers
Behavioral Dimensions of Self-Sacrificial Leadership Yields status, privileges, power
Matteson & Irving / SERVANT VERSUS SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP 43
Theoretical Comparison
While we propose the three-fold circular model of ontology, attitude, and behavior as an integrative answer to the divergent approaches to conceptualizing servant leadership, for the purpose of our comparison with self-sacrificial leadership, we will limit our analysis to the behavioral level. As identified in the literature review surrounding self-sacrificial leadership, the rationale for this is largely due to the relatively focused literature surrounding self-sacrificial leadership on the consequence of the behavior rather than its motivational origins. Certain attitudinal aspects of self-sacrificial leadership can be inferred from the research, but the authors do not support drawing conclusions from these secondary assumptions. While we recommend future explorations into the ontological and attitudinal dimensions of self-sacrificial leadership, the current agenda solely offers self-sacrificial research focused on the behavioral dimension.
This section of the paper highlights the similarities and differences of servant and self-sacrificial leadership. In keeping with two previous attempts to compare servant leadership with another leadership theory, the authors have created a matrix to compare the two theories. Stone et al. (2004) and Smith et al. (2004) previously compared servant and transformational leadership, and their graphic representations informed this current effort. In addition to Spears’ (1998) and Laub’s (1999) lists of characteristics which were included in these prior analyses, this paper extends the servant leadership portion by including Patterson’s (2003) attributes in the comparison with self-sacrificial leadership. Recall that in this study, these three theories are presented as an integrated model of servant leadership.
In Table 3, the integrated servant leadership behavioral characteristics of Spears (1998), Laub (1999), and Patterson (2003) are listed next to the self-sacrificial leadership factors. The three dimensions of leader ontology, attitude, and behavioral characteristics are listed for servant leadership in an effort to comprehensively present the integrated model. Self-sacrificial leadership attitudinal factors are listed in gray to signify their role as inferred characteristics which will not be used for drawing conclusions. The behavioral factors associated with self-sacrificial leaders as they compare to servant leadership are the primary focus of this study.
It is immediately evident that servant and self-sacrificial leadership share several characteristics. The characteristics of empathy, developing people, building community, providing leadership, empowering followers, and serving followers represent overlapping categories. Empathy appears in the self-sacrificial leadership literature through its connection with altruism (De Cremer, 2002). The assumption of an empathy-altruism link, and its support in 25 empirical studies (Batson, Ahmad, Lishner, & Tsang, 2002), sustains this correlation between servant and self-sacrificial leadership. The modeling behaviors found in the self-sacrificial leadership literature shore up the additional characteristics found in both leadership theories. By sacrificing their power, self-sacrificial leaders empower followers. However, this empowerment is likely a product of sacrificing behavior. The shared commitment to service may be explained when self-sacrifice is understood as an extreme act of service. This comparison would evidently indicate that servant and self-sacrificial leaders may view followers in a similar fashion but may choose to interact with them in a slightly different manner.
In general terms, it may be stated that both servant and self-sacrificial leaders hold followers in very high esteem but deviate in several core behaviors. First, there is little concrete theoretical or empirical research pertaining to leader self-sacrifice which supports the thought that self-sacrificial leaders share power. Second, it could be argued that the role modeling and altruistic behaviors of self-sacrificial leaders are loving acts and, thus, would compare favorably
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 44
with servant leadership. However, there are other motivations associated with role modeling and altruistic activities which may have very little to do with love (Avolio & Locke, 2002).
Table 3
The Three Dimensional Comparisons of Servant and Self-Sacrificial Leadership
Dimensions Servant Leadership Factors Self-Sacrificial Leadership Factors Love
Humility Authenticity Self-Awareness
Ontological Dimensions Self-Differentiation Love
Other-Centeredness Other-Centeredness
Oriented toward altruism Orientation toward altruism
Valuing people Valuing people
Commitment to the growth of people Commitment to the growth of
people
Visionary Visionary Orientation toward trust
Orientation toward listening
Orientation toward empathy Orientation toward empathy
Leadership mindset
Orientation toward persuasion Self-Confident
Capacity for conceptualization Nonautocratic
Attitudinal
Dimensions Foresight Foresight Love Altruism
Listening Takes initiative
Empathy Empathy
Healing Role modeling
Stewardship Provides justice
Developing people Developing people Building community Building community
Providing leadership Providing leadership
Sharing leadership Links followers to shared vision
Empowering followers Empowering followers
Serving followers Serving followers
Behavioral
Dimensions Yields status, privileges, power
Listening, healing, and stewardship are currently missing from the self-sacrificial
leadership literature. The case can be made that listening is a necessary feature of empathy and that healing is closely aligned with providing justice. Yet, these are unsupported assumptions.
Matteson & Irving / SERVANT VERSUS SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP 45 Stewardship is a different matter. In a sense, some self-sacrificial leaders are poor stewards of resources; since by definition, this type of leader may intentionally dispose of resources in order
to achieve an overall goal. Since self-sacrificial leadership theory development is still in relative infancy, the authors feel much more confident in the shared characteristic list and remain
cautious in drawing firm conclusions on all of the dissimilar factors. That being said, viewing
these follower-oriented theories through the three dimensions of leader ontology, attitude, and behavior can further delineate both phenomena.
Although these two leadership theories share several characteristics, the provisional conclusions stated lead to the understanding that servant and self-sacrificial leadership are
similar but distinct theories. Since the examination of the behavioral characteristics of these two theories is not capable of revealing a comprehensive understanding of this difference, the authors propose a broader look at servant and self-sacrificial leadership. This effort may bring further
clarity to this evaluation. An opportunity for an expanded investigation may originate in the previously mentioned work of Stone et al. (2004) and Smith et al. (2004) who offered details regarding the focus, motivation, context, and outcomes of servant and transformational leadership. These four overarching categories can be employed to scrutinize servant and self-sacrificial leadership with the goal of founding an additional baseline for future scholarly discussion. The authors present this brief theoretical comparison in an attempt to launch such a conversation. Table 4 places servant and self-sacrificial leadership in the four categories
discussed in the previous leadership theory comparison. The determination of the focus, motivation, context, and outcome of self-sacrificial leadership is drawn from published research pertaining to this phenomenon. The authors have consulted existing research and selected
general terms to describe each category as succinctly as possible. In other words, an attempt was made to get at the heart or direction of the research to date. For example, since earlier research
has noted that self-sacrificial leaders may demonstrate courage and conviction in the mission
while serving as a role model (Shamir et al., 1993), maintain personal beliefs and values (Yorges
et al., 1999), or exhibit commitment to the cause (Avolio & Locke, 2002); the authors have
placed these activities under the umbrella of ethical self-transcendence in the broad category of focus. Additionally, since self-sacrificial leaders may be motivated by the greater good of the organization (Halverson et al., 2004), the ethical focus underpinning this motivation led the
authors to conclude that self-sacrificial leaders are provoked to serve the greater good.
Table 4
The Focus, Motivation, Context, and Outcome of Servant and Self-Sacrificial Leadership Focus Motivation Context
Outcome
Self-sacrificial leadership Ethical self-
transcendence
Serving the greater good:
doing what is morally and
ethically right, no matter
the sacrifice
Organizational or
environmental
crisis
Dynamic
spiritual
generative
culture
Servant leadership Followers Serving the good of the
follower: doing what is
best for the followers
Stable
environment
Spiritual
generative
culture
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 46 The contextual question as it pertains to self-sacrificial leadership has been considered in several studies (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999; Halverson et al., 2004; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). The research findings suggest that organizational or environmental crisis appears to be the primary context for leader self-sacrifice. Since this sacrifice comes during a time of change necessitated by these pressures and is likely intended to encourage follower reciprocity, the outcome descriptor selected by the authors intentionally builds on the outcome of servant leadership as proposed by Smith et al. (2004).
Recall that these categories, anchored in prior research, are intended to open a dialogue. It is the hope of the authors to enhance the research agenda of both servant and self-sacrificial leadership by offering frameworks which can be used to classify their espoused components. The proposed descriptors of focus, motivation, context, and outcome are offered as a foundation for scholarly exchange.
Summary
This preliminary study has described the theoretical overlap and the behavioral variations which exist between servant and self-sacrificial leadership. Yet, this undertaking necessitates an effort to confirm the theoretical conclusions with empirical testing. A concern the authors have with this present effort is that this comparison was made between two theories at different stages of development. This was evident when the researchers sought detailed information on the leadership ontology of self-sacrificial leadership and found very little assistance. A second caution comes from the realization that when the behaviors associated with these theories are exhibited in organizational life, an alternative picture has the potential to emerge. It is possible that this situation may add to or modify the findings of this present offering.
Given the suggested limitations, the authors advocate several future research directions. First, we recommend that future researchers consider the ontological and motivational aspects of the self-sacrificial leadership construct. The current agenda appears to constantly measure the effects of self-sacrificing behavior without proper attention to its origins. Second, we advocate a comprehensive research undertaking to solidify the integrated model of servant leadership delineated in our literature review. Finally, we propose an empirical study which compares the focus, motivation, context, and outcome of servant and self-sacrificial leadership.
Follower-oriented leadership theories are likely to continue to be refined as leadership research progresses in the 21st century. Although transformational leadership has dominated the research agenda, servant and self-sacrificial leadership theories have staked a claim on a portion of contemporary scholarly efforts. Building upon prior comparisons of servant and transformational leadership, the present study has briefly examined the commonalities and distinctions of servant and self-sacrificial leadership. The findings of this study, while preliminary, suggest that while these two leadership theories share several characteristics, they are likely distinct phenomena.
Matteson & Irving / SERVANT VERSUS SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP 47
About the Authors
Dr. Jeffrey Matteson, M.Div., Ph.D. is the Principal of Millbrook High School (Millbrook, NY) and serves as an Adjunct Online Facilitator in the Center for Distributed Learning at Indiana Wesleyan University. His research areas are self-sacrificial leadership and servant leadership. Email: jeffrey.matteson@https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,
Dr. Justin Irving, M.Div., Ph.D. serves in the role of Assistant Professor of Ministry Leadership in the seminary at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota. His role at Bethel Seminary is focused on preparing people for effective leadership in ministry through a rigorous integration of Biblical studies and leadership theory. He has a special interest in servant leadership studies, team leadership, and the research and application of these disciplines in cross-cultural contexts. E-mail: j-irving@https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,
References
Avolio, B. J., & Locke, E. E. (2002). Contrasting different philosophies of leader motivation: Altruism versus egoism. Leadership Quarterly, 13(2), 169-191.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., Lishner, D. A., & Tsang, J. (2002). Empathy and altruism. In C. R.
Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 485-498). New York: Oxford University Press.
Blanchard, K. (1998). Servant-leadership revisited. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership (pp. 21-28). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Buchen, I. H. (1998). Servant leadership: A model for future faculty and future institutions.
Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(1), 125-134.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.
Cerff, K. (2004). Exploring Ubunto and the African Renaissance: A conceptual study of servant leadership from an African perspective. Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved September 12, 2006, from https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,/acad/sls/
publications/conference_proceedings/servant_leadership_roundtable/2004/pdf/cerff_expl oring_ubuntu.pdf.
Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1998). On the leadership function of self-sacrifice. Leadership Quarterly,9(4), 475-501.
Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1999). The model of followers’ responses to self-sacrificial leadership. Leadership Quarterly,10(3), 397-421.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637-647.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 48 Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
De Cremer, D. (2002). Charismatic leadership and cooperation in social dilemmas: A matter of transforming motives? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(5), 997-1016.
De Cremer, D. (2006). Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-sacrifice: The moderating effect of autocratic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), 79-93.
De Cremer, D., van Dijke, M., & Bos, A. E. R. (2004). Distributive justice moderating the effects of self-sacrificial leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25(5/6), 466-475.
De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2004). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader self-confidence. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 95(2), 140-155.
Dennis, R. S. (2004). Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65 (05), 1857. (UMI No. 3133544)
Dennis, R., & Winston, B. E. (2003). A factor analysis of Page and Wong’s servant leadership instrument. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(8), 455-459.
Drury, S. L. (2004). Servant leadership and organizational commitment: Empirical findings and workplace implications. Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable.
Retrieved September 12, 2006, from
https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,/acad/sls/publications/conference_proceedings/servant_leadership_ roundtable/2004/pdf/drury_servant_leadership.pdf
Farling, M. L., Stone, A. G., & Winston, B. E. (1999). Servant leadership: Setting the stage for
The Journal of Leadership Studies, 6, 49-72.
empirical
research.
Graham, J. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 105-119.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Hale, J. R. (2004). A contextualized model for cross-cultural leadership in West Africa.
Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved September 12,
2006, from https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,/acad/sls/publications/conference_proceedings
/servant_leadership_roundtable/2004/pdf/hale_contextualized_model.pdf
Halverson, S. K., Holladay, C. L., Kazama, S. M., & Quinones, M. A. (2004). Self-sacrificial behavior in crisis situations: The competing roles of behavioral and situational factors.
Leadership Quarterly, 15, 263-275.
Hebert, S. C. (2003). The relationship of perceived servant leadership and job satisfaction from the follower’s perspective. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (11), 4118. (UMI No.
3112981)
Hebert, S. C. (2004). The relationship of perceived servant leadership and job satisfaction from the follower’s perspective. Proceedings of the American Society of Business and
Behavioral Sciences, 11(1), 685-697.
Helland, M. R. (2004). Maestro: Understanding the development of a servant leader.
Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved September 12,
2006, from https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,/acad/sls/publications/conference_proceedings/
servant_leadership_roundtable/2004/pdf/helland_understanding_development.pdf
Matteson & Irving / SERVANT VERSUS SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP 49 House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
House, R. J., Javidan, M., & Dorfman, P. (2001). Project GLOBE: An introduction. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(4), 489-505.
House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and
research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 81-107). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Irving, J. A. (2004). Servant leadership and the effectiveness of teams: Findings and implications. Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved
September 12, 2006, from https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,/acad/sls/publications/conference
_proceedings/servant_leadership_roundtable/2004/pdf/irving_servant_leadership.pdf Irving, J. A. (2005a). Servant leadership and the effectiveness of teams. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66 (04A), 1421. (UMI No. 3173207)
Irving, J. A. (2005b). Utilizing the Organizational Leadership Assessment as a strategic tool for increasing the effectiveness of teams within organizations. Proceedings of the American Society of Business and Behavioral Sciences, 12(1), 837-848.
Irving, J. A., & Longbotham, G. J. (2006). Servant leadership predictors of team effectiveness: Findings and implications. Proceedings of the American Society of Business and
Behavioral Sciences, 13(1), 862-873.
Irving, J. A., & McIntosh, T. (2006). Investigating the value of and hindrances to servant leadership in the Latin American context: Initial findings from Peruvian leaders.
Proceedings of the American Society of Business and Behavioral Sciences, 13(1), 874-
887.
Jacobson, C., & House, R. J. (2001). Dynamics of charismatic leadership: A process theory, simulation model, and tests. Leadership Quarterly,12(1), 75-112.
Javidan, M., & Waldman, D. A. (2003). Exploring charismatic leadership in public sector: Measurement and consequences. Public Administration Review, 63(2), 229-242. Jennings, K., & Stahl-Wert, J. (2003). The serving leader: 5 powerful actions that will transform your team, your business and your community. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Laub, J. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the servant organizational leadership (SOLA) instrument. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (02), 308. (UMI No. 9921922)
Laub, J. (2003). From paternalism to the servant organization: Expanding the Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) model. Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved July 15, 2004, from
https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,/acad/cls/2003ServantLeadershipRoundtable/Laub.pdf
Laub, J. (2004). Defining servant leadership: A recommended typology for servant leadership studies. Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved
September 12, 2006, from https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,/acad/sls/publications/conference_
proceedings/servant_leadership_roundtable/2004/pdf/laub_defining_servant.pdf
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 50 Ledbetter, D. S. (2003). Law enforcement leaders and servant leadership: A reliability study of the Organizational Leadership Assessment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (11), 4200. (UMI No. 3110778)
Ndoria, J. L. (2004). Servant leadership: A natural inclination or a taught behavior. Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved October 5, 2004, from
https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,/acad/cls/2004SLRoundtable/ndoria-joyce-2004SL.pdf
Page, D. (2004). Experiential learning for servant-leadership. Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved September 12, 2006, from
https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,/acad/sls/publications/conference_proceedings/servant_leadership_ roundtable/2004/pdf/page_experimental_learning.pdf
Parolini, J. L. (2004). Effective servant leadership: A model incorporating servant leadership and the competing values framework. Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research
Roundtable. Retrieved October 5, 2004, from
https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,/acad/cls/2004SLRoundtable/parolini-2004SL.pdf
Patterson, K. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (02), 570. (UMI No. 3082719)
Patterson, K. A. (2004). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Proceedings of the American Society of Business and Behavioral Sciences,11(1), 1109-1118.
Patterson, K., & Stone, A. G. (2004). Servant leadership: Examining the virtues of love and humility. Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved
December 13, 2004, from https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,/acad/sls/publications/conference_
proceedings /servant_leadership_roundtable/2004_proceedings.htm
Quay, J. (1997). On becoming a servant leader. Journal of Management Review, 9(4), 712-721. Rude, W. (2003). Paradoxical leadership: The impact of servant-leadership on burnout of staff.
Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved October 5, 2004, from https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,/acad/cls/2003ServantLeadershipRoundtable/Rude.pdf Russell, R. F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(2), 76-83.
Russell, R. F. (2003). A practical theology of servant leadership. Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved October 5, 2004, from
https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,/acad/cls/2003ServantLeadershipRoundtable/Russell.pdf Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a
practical
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23, 145.
model.
Sendjaya, S. (2003). Development and validation of Servant Leadership Behavior Scale.
Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved July 15, 2004,
from https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,/acad/cls/2003ServantLeadershipRoundtable/ Sendjaya.pdf Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application in organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, 9(2), 57-64. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577-594.
Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant
contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and
and
leadership:
Content
Studies, 10(4), 80-91.
Organizational
Spears, L. (1995). Servant leadership and the Greenleaf legacy. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant-leadership influenced today’s
top management thinkers (pp. 1-14). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Matteson & Irving / SERVANT VERSUS SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP 51 Spears, L. (1996). Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant leadership. The Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 17(7), 33-35.
Spears, L. C. (Ed.). (1998). Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Spears, L. C., & Lawrence, M. (Eds.). (2002). Focus on leadership: Servant leadership for the century. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
21st
Stone, A. G., Russell, F. R., & Patterson, K. (2003). Transformational versus servant leadership:
A difference in leadership focus. Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research
Roundtable. Retrieved July 15, 2004, from
https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,/acad/cls/2003ServantLeadershipRoundtable/
Stone, G. A., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant leadership:
A difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(4),
349-361.
van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(1), 25-37.
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 825-856. Winston, B. E. (2003). Extending Patterson’s servant leadership model: Coming full circle.
Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved July 15, 2004,
from https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,/acad/cls/2003ServantLeadershipRoundtable/
Winston, B. E. (2004). Servant leadership at Heritage Bible College: A single-case study. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(7), 600-617.
Winston, B. E., & Hartsfield, M. (2004). Similarities between emotional intelligence and servant leadership. Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved
October 5, 2004, from https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,/acad/cls/2004SLRoundtable/winston-
2004SL.pdf
Wolford-Ulrich, J. (2004). Seeing servant leadership through the lens of design. Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved September 12, 2006, from
https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,/acad/sls/publications/conference_proceedings/servant_leadership_ roundtable/2004/pdf/ulrich_seeing_servant.pdf
Wong, P. T. P., & Page, D. (2003). Servant leadership: An opponent-process model and the revised servant leadership profile. Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research
Roundtable. Retrieved July 15, 2004, from
https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,/acad/cls/2003ServantLeadershipRoundtable/
Yorges, S. L., Weiss, H. M., & Strickland, O. J. (1999). The effect of leader outcomes on influence, attributions, and perceptions of charisma. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84(3), 428-436.
文献综述 题目：酒店服务业的发展专业班级：市场营销3班 学号： 07090313 姓名：孙涛
摘要：随着我国经济的不断发展和时市场需求的不断变化，经济型饭店已经成为饭店业发展的热点领域。那么我们该如何发展经济型饭店，就成了迫切需要研究解决的问题。我们必须探讨它的理论实质和发展途径，发现其经营的客观规律，为理论创造和实践运营提供理论指导，这对我国经济型饭店的发展乃至整个旅游业的发展都有着重要意义。笔者在阅读相关研究资料的基础上，对经济型饭店的界定、问题、对策及战略这几个方面分析、说明，最后提出了自己的见解。 关键词：经济型饭店;问题；策略；集团化 引言 我国发展旅游业的最初目的是赢得外汇收入，因此，入境旅游是早期旅游业经营的主要内容。作为旅游业三大支柱产业之一的饭店业，为了适应国外游客的需求也必然优先发展高档饭店。随着我国社会经济的发展，国内旅游逐渐发展壮大、国际大众化旅游逐渐成熟。但是目前，我国在满足大众化旅游需求的市场供给方面却存在着巨大断层：质好价高的高星级饭店和质次价低的社会旅馆数量大，而干净、安全、价格适中的饭店少。饭店业的发展急需改变以高档饭店为主的局面，逐步形成高、中、低全面发展的行业结构。 随着我国加入WTO,以及2008年北京奥运会和2010年上海世博会 的相继召开，我国旅游业的发展舞台将更为广阔，饭店需求量十分巨
大，其中经济型饭店的需求增加最快。经济型饭店的良好发展势头受到了业内人士的关注，越来越多的饭店转向了经济型饭店，也获得了较好的效益。从1997年中国第一个真正意义上的经济型连锁饭店品牌诞生至今，已经形成了三大阵营。第一大阵营：全国性的经济型饭店品牌，例如如家、锦江之星；第二大阵营：一些区域性的经济型饭店品牌,例如上海的莫泰168、广州7日饭店连锁、南京的金一村等；第三大阵营：国际饭店管理集团，例如法国雅高的宜必思和美国速8。相对的近十年来，关于经济型饭店的研究也越来越多，其中讨论和研究最多的是经济型饭店发展存在的问题、对策和前景这几个方面。 一、我国经济型饭店的产业界定 目前，经济型饭店并没有一个确切的界定。根据史密斯旅行研究定义，经济型饭店指的是保持低廉价格，针对20%低端市场的价格敏感消费者的饭店。 在《WTO现代饭店及餐饮业管理百科全书》中，经济型饭店的定义是：经济型饭店一般为廉价饭店，该饭店通常只经营客房。饭店本身没有餐饮管理设施或仅有十分有限的餐饮服务，价格低廉。欧美饭店业发达地区在划分饭店类型时较为普遍的一种方法是将饭店划分为，豪华型/高档饭店、中档饭店和经济型饭店。一般而言，经济型饭店提供的是相对于中高档饭店的全套服务的有限服务。一些经济型饭店只提供早餐，只有一个餐厅甚至没有餐厅；浴室分享；不配备公共休息室、夜总会、美容美发室、健身房、商场等设施，只向客人提供满足其住宿要求的基本的服务。
当今世界竞争是人才的竞争，高素质的人力资本是酒店业得以健康持续稳定发展的根本保证。随着酒店从业人员素质，思想观念及自我发展意识和民主观念的不断增强，酒店这一以人为本的服务行业在人力资源管理中暴露出员工积极性低服务意识低人员流失率升高等方面的题。因此本文从现状分析、物质激励、精神激励、以及激励体系的建立四个方面又结合了星级酒店人力资源管理的实际情况对现代酒店管理中的激励机制做了初步的研究。另外还提出一些开发酒店人力资本，提高酒店人力资本水平的策略及措施。 第1章酒店业的现状分析 酒店业的竞争，归根结底是人才的竞争。管理的核心问题，是人的问题。在酒店管理中运用人力资源管理获得竞争优势的案例越来越多。 案例：报纸杂志不断刊登文章报道服务业的不良状况，一线员工错误不断、 态度恶劣简直是置顾客于不顾。缺少技术熟练的员工，面对高人员的流失率，深受其苦的服务业必须向那些与顾客接触的企业注入新的生命力。分析研究表明：当一个人被高度激励时，他会努力工作主动向顾客提供尽可能好的服务；而没有被激励时，他会尽可能的节省精力。现代管理者的首要任务就是要点燃员工内心的工作热情之火，以此驱动员工在工作中展现的出色，从而实现组织所期望的最佳绩效。在企业中出色的领导者已经认识到这点，只有以人为本”的企业管理， 才能在如今激烈的竞争中生存、发展、兴旺。管理是一门艺术，员工激励是艺术中的艺术，员工是企业的灵魂。设计有效的员工激励机制，才能提高员工的积极性。使其才能在不同的企业文化不同的组织结构和不同的企业环境中发挥其最大」的潜能，从而实现组织的期望目标。首先姑且让我把激励方法分为三类：物质激励、精神激励和激励机制的设计，通过对这三类的分析和了解，才能让我们理解激励机制的作用和意义，从而才能为企业建立有效激励体系。下面我们把激励的方法分为两类：物质激励和精神激励；通过对这些激励方法的了解和认识，才能让我们意识到激励机制的作用。 第2章物质激励物质激励是指通过物质刺激的方法鼓励职工工作。 它的主要表现形式有正激励，如发工资、奖金、津贴、福利等；负激励如罚款等。物质需要是人类的第一需要，是人们从事一切社会活动的基本动因，所以，物质激励是激励的主要模式，也是目前我国企业内部使用的非常普遍的一种激励模式。 2.1正激励法 奖励是指饭店组织对员工的良好行为举止或工作表现给予的积极肯定与表彰。奖励作为员工激励的一种手段，目的在于促使受奖励的员工将他们的模范行为加以保持和发扬，并成为全体员工的表率，为奋员工队伍的士气起到积极的推动作用。 运用好这一手段还要注意以下几点：（一）奖励要及时，且奖励方法要不断创新。 （二）注意对其他员工的心理疏导化。不断定下新的目标，淡化过去着眼未来，树立正
文献出处：Borkar S, Koranne S. Study of Service Quality Management in Hotel Industry [J]. Pacific Business Review International, 2014, 6(9): 21-25. 原文 Study of Service Quality Management in Hotel Industry Borkar; Sameer Abstract It is an attempt to understand the role of quality improvement process in hospitality industry and effectiveness in making it sustainable business enterprise. It is a survey of the presently adopted quality management tools which are making the hotels operations better focused and reliable and meet the customer expectations. Descriptive research design is used to know the parameters of service quality management in hospitality industry. Exploratory research design is undertaken to dig out the service quality management practices and its effectiveness. Data analysis is done and presented; hypothesis is tested against the collected data. Since the industry continuously tries to improve upon their services to meet the levels of customer satisfaction; Study presents tools for continuous improvement process and how it benefits all the stake holders. It can be inferred from the study that the hotel implement continuous improvement process and quality management tools to remain competitive in the market. The study involves hotels of highly competitive market with limited number of respondents. This limits the study to hotel industry and has scope of including other hospitality service providers as well. Keywords:Customer Satisfaction, Perception, Performance Measurement, Continuous, Improvement Process. Introduction It has brought paradigm shifts in the operations of hospitality industry. The overall perspective of the industry is changed due to introduction of new techniques
当前酒店服务质量管理的文献综述 作者：戎千 来源：《当代旅游》2018年第05期 摘要：在旅游饭店飞速发展的大背景下，我国星级饭店数量却在逐年减少，一方面是因为星级饭店的评选规则更严格了，但更重要的是，我国星级饭店的服务质量水平提升缓慢，难以跟上服务消费发展的步伐。为巩固客源市场，各酒店都需要充分挖掘自身优势，提高服务质量，最大限度地满足顾客需求，培养忠诚的顾客。面对新的环境，如何提升饭店的服务质量、提高顾客的满意度、留住老顾客并吸引更多的新顾客，成为当下星级酒店亟待解决的问题。 关键词：酒店业务;服务质量管理;顾客满意度 截止到2015年，我国星级饭店总数12327个，相比于2014年的12803个，数量有所下滑。但数据显示，我国近十年旅游饭店营业额逐年上升，从2008年的1932.70亿上升到2016年的3001.19亿，旅游饭店业务发展速度飞快[1]。
一、研究现状 对于酒店服务质量管理的方法，不同的学者给出的不同的看法和规则： 首先，针对服务质量管理，格朗鲁斯认为质量管理属于主观范畴，取决于顾客对服务质量的期望与实际感知的服务水平的对比。他将服务质量分成两类：技术质量和功能质量[2]。技术质量是顾客通过服务所得（即服务过程的产出）来评价的。这是格朗鲁斯对服务质量的论述，而酒店服务质量属于服务质量的一部分，需要基于酒店特殊的环境进行特殊分析，从而准确地酒店的层面来提升质量。Parasuraman等人指出，服务质量是顾客感知的关键，定义服务质量的应该是顾客，开始了从顾客感知方面提升服务质量的研究。 学者彭玲認为，我国酒店业普遍存在平均利润率低、服务质黄不高的状况，需要从全面质量管理的视角去寻求有效治理酒店服务业质量管理和质量控制的途径。她提到，酒店业的全面质量管理，必须根据消费者的需要和酒店服务业的特点，推出一系列以顾客满意为主的服务方式，通过服务过程的控制、组织、改进和激励等方面的工作，建立起全
中英文对照资料外文翻译文献 Hotel Management System Integration Services 1.Introduction It is generally accepted that the role of the web services in businesses is undoubtedly important. More and more commercial software systems extend their capability and power by using web services technology. Today the e-commerce is not merely using internet to transfer business data or supporting people to interact with dynamic web page, but are fundamentally changed by web services. The World Wide Web Consortium's Xtensible Markup Language (XML) and the Xtensible Stylesheet Language (XSL) are standards defined in the interest of multi-purpose publishing and content reuse and are increasingly being deployed in the construction of web services. Since XML is looked as the canonical message format, it could tie together thousands of systems programmed by hundreds of programming languages. Any program can be mapped into web service, while any web service can also be mapped into program. In this paper, we present a next generation commercial system in hotel industry that fully integrates the hotel Front Office system, Property Management System, Customer Relationship Management System, Quality Management system, Back Office system and Central Reservations System distributed in different locations. And we found that this system greatly improves both the hotel customer and hotel officer’s experiences in the hotel business work flow. Because current technologies are quite mature, it seems no difficulty to integrate the existing system and the new coming systems (for example, web-based applications or mobile applications). However, currently in hotel industry there are few truly integrated systems used because there
毕业设计附件 外文文献翻译：原文+译文 文献出处: Soliman M. The research of hotel service marketing strategy [J]. The Accounting Review, 2016, 2(3): 813-823. 原文 The research of hotel service marketing strategy Soliman M Abstract The continuous development of the tourism industry, also contributed to the hospitality industry at the same time has more development opportunities facing greater competition. On the tangible product of traditional competition is embodied in the hotel, because the alternative of tangible products and replication, the form of competition is transferred to the service, therefore, has become the hotel marketing service marketing one of the most important aspects. And how to build the perfect hotel service marketing system, how to adopt targeted services marketing strategy can make the hotel get comparative advantage in the fierce competition, gain long-term profits has become a hot topic in the research. Key words: Customer value; Service marketing; Strategy 1 Introduction Along with market competition intensifying, the hotel industry will also be marketing focus shift from the traditional product marketing to service marketing. And service marketing to win the key lies in whether the hotel can meet the needs of customers, to create more customer value. So this article in the perspective of customer value, customer value is analyzed and the relationship between the service marketing, build the theoretical framework and contents of the hotel service marketing, puts forward the hotel service marketing strategy based on customer value. This can not only link the interests of the demand and supply side of the hotel, meet the demand of the value of multiple stakeholders, but also to the hotel and enhance customer value, finally win the competitive advantage and long-term profits. Service marketing research is the general enterprise, there is no specific focus on the hotel
（外文文献翻译部分） 文献题目： Economy Hotel Development Trends in Mainland China 经济型酒店在中国的发展趋势 姓名: 学号: 专业: 学院: 指导教师:
经济型酒店在中国内地的发展趋势 中国内地经济需求的酒店 中国已成为亚洲重要的旅游目的地，在世界上（在国际游客的人数来衡量）第五大旅游国。 [1]外国游客流入旁边的国内游客，其人数在2006年已高达14亿美元。2006年，仅仅是国内旅游就已经达到781.90亿美元，其收接近2000年的2.5倍。 我国工人的个人收入稳步增长为休闲旅游与中国旅游业发展提供了有力的资源资源。时间是另一个重要资源，随着1900年提出的假日长假期计划后，1995年提出的每周五天的工作计划，使游客的能有更多的休息时间可以远行旅游，在酒店度过。国际旅游业的发展，中国已随着国家的经济发展有了显著的增加，而且越来越明显。中国的经济充满活力，其国内生产总值， 2006美元10210000000000在[2]也刺激了更多的业务（以下简称“商业”）的旅行。新的和改善的基础设施--公路，铁路，航空公司，更名副其实为旅费增加，政府和对中国经济继续成为可能
由社会科学（中国社会科学院）旅游研究中心中国科学院进行的一项研究显示，经济型酒店的客人有90%是国内游客和10％的访港旅客。这项研究还报告说，商务旅客的需求为经济型酒店的主要发电机，约占2006年经济型酒店市场的65%。会议和组队伍组成的9％，并且产生休闲需求，其余26％。 资料来源：2007年中国经济研究中心酒店由中国社会科学院旅游发展报告 商业及休闲旅客的数量加倍是在中国大规模经济酒店发展的首要原因。经济型酒店，如我们这里所定义的，和中国大多数情况下，它能够与高档酒店竞争的基础：干净舒适的客房，免费早餐和上网。在经济与豪华酒店的的相比较之下，它有更多的价格优势，可以吸引更多的中外游客入住。 较低的资本和高投资回报是另一个重要的经济型酒店发展的原因。据中国内地经济型酒店调查，在2006年的经济型酒店的平均资本投资约为100万美元（约7,500美元间客房），也就是说充分的回报，在约三至五年就可以收回所有的投入。 2006年，其每平方米营业收入利润总额为44.47％，绩效衡量的平均入住率和盈利水平的驱动这方面：由德勤开发有限责任公司2004年的一个报告显示，“超过50％的中国市场监测高于亚太地区总的，和每一个中国市场外执行欧洲平均水平。“ [3] 第三个支持中国的经济型酒店业的崛起来自我国政府。通过放宽旅行限制，并提供延长休假时间，政府已帮助挑起对中国酒店业的顾客转换。对中国教育改革的假期和休假的政策，于2007年11月颁布，1008年1月1日起开始执行。这些改革大大提升休假时间，如清明节传统
. '. 酒店管理毕业论文参考文献 [1] 夏秀清. 咸阳海泉湾温泉酒店市场营销方案设计与实施[D]. 西北大学2008 [2] 王新奇. 锦江之星高新店营销创新研究[D]. 西北大学2008 [3] 杭国栋. 上海新东方语言培训（英语）市场营销策略研究[D]. 复旦大学2009 [4] 刘利. 安徽大步汽车4S店服务营销策略研究[D]. 合肥工业大学2009 [5] 姜瑞华. 青岛市星级酒店绿色营销组合策略研究[D]. 山东大学2008 [6] 阎同立. 河北民航大酒店营销策略研究[D]. 南京理工大学2002 [7] 赵志梅. 陋室宾馆服务营销策略研究[D]. 西北大学2009 [8] 严华. H汽车租赁公司上海市场的营销策略研究[D]. 兰州大学2009 [9] 麦毅菁. 基于管理合同模式的饭店集团研究[D]. 厦门大学2008 [10] 杨锦慧. 呼叫中心在线营销运营管理与营销策略研究[D]. 北京邮电大学2009 [11] 于春玲. 国内外酒店管理模式比较分析[D]. 吉林大学2005 [12] 吴恺. 重庆小天鹅酒店管理公司发展战略研究[D]. 重庆大学2005 [13] 邵远. 中国酒店管理业的发展及其模式研究[D]. 浙江大学2006 [14] 吕海霞. 正明锦江大酒店管理模式研究[D]. 吉林大学2006 [15] 张岩. 陶然居大酒店营销策略研究[D]. 山东大学2006 [16] 葛震宇. 试论经济型酒店营销策略[D]. 南京理工大学2006 [17] 李洪文. 泰安金海大酒店营销策略研究[D]. 上海海事大学2006 [18] 陈果. JS酒店目标市场营销战略研究[D]. 西南财经大学2007 [19] 刘永强. 论南航明珠大酒店的服务营销策略[D]. 西南交通大学2007
文献出处: Mbuthia S, Muthoni C, Muchina S. HOTEL SERVICE QUALITY: PERCEPTIONS AND SATISFACTION AMONG DOMESTIC GUESTS IN KENYA [J]. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Oman Chapter), 2013, 2(8): 22-32. 原文 HOTEL SERVICE QUALITY: PERCEPTIONS AND SATISFACTION AMONG DOMESTIC GUESTS IN KENYA Susan；Caroline; Stephen INTRODUCTION In Kenya, tourism is the foremost earner of foreign exchange and it contributed to Ksh 100 billion of the GDP in 2011. According to Republic of Kenya (2012), tourism made a direct contribution to the growth of hotel industry and other related sectors. Hotels on the other hand have to invest in managing their relationships with customers and maintaining quality to ensure that customers whose loyalty is in the short term will continue to be loyal in the long term. The growth in tourism is well anticipated as evident in studies and analyses conducted by experts and relevant organizations in this industry. Kenya is home to host of five star luxury hotels most of multinational owned or franchised such as Hilton Nairobi, Serena hotels and the Fairmont. There is also a wide range of domestic hotels and hospitality enterprises whose service offering not only complements those of world class hotels but also serve the domestics guests or
The aim of a hotel is to create a home away from home for all the travelling guests who need rest ,food and drink. The Front Office of a hotel is not only its “shop window’’ , but also its “nerve center” . It is within this department that the guest’s vaca tion or business ,and indeed ,the hotel’s operation itself are made or ruined. The Front Office staff seem to “do it all”---receive reservations , register guests, assign rooms ,distribute baggage , store guests valuables , provide information , deliver mails and messages exchange foreign currencies , check room occupancies , check guests out and so on. In order to fulfill these tasks , the staff must have a neat and smart appearance , good manners , adaptability ,efficiency , the sense of duty and a knowledge of languages . The most important of all the qualities is a real liking for people and a worm desire to help them . Besides , Front Office staff should welcome and settle the guests’ complaints . That will soothe an unhappy guest and reveal the hotel’s problems so that the operation can be bettered. In short , all staff ought to remember that the hotel will enjoy greater financial success only with the greater satisfaction the guests receive the “ home away from home”. The Front Office function of a Hotel is to act as the public face of the hotel, primarily by greeting hotel patrons and checking in guests.It also provides assistance to guests during their stay, completes their accommodation, food and beverage, accounts and receives payment from guests.Duties and TasksA front office attendant may perform the following tasks: * receive reservations for accommodation from clients, either in person or by telephone, fax or email
中英文对照外文翻译 (文档含英文原文和中文翻译) Hotel Management System Integration Services 1.Introduction Itis generally accepted that the role of the web services in businesses is undoubtedly important. More and more commercial software systems extend their capability and power by using web services technology. Today the e-commerce is not merely using internet to transfer business data or supporting people to interact with dynamic web page, butare fundamentally changed by web services.TheWorld Wide Web Consortium's Xtensible Markup Language (XML) and the Xtensible Stylesheet Language (XSL) are standards defined in the interest of multi-purpose publishing and content reuse and are increasingly being deployed in the construction of web services. Since XML is looked as the canonical message format,it could tie together thousands of systems programmed by hundreds of programming languages. Any program can be mapped into web service, while any web service can also be mapped into program. In this paper, we present a next generation commercial system in hotel industry that fully integrates the hotel Front Office system, Property ManagementSystem,Customer RelationshipManagement System,Quality Management system, Back Office system and Central Reservations System distributed in different locations. And we found that
饭店英语教学论文酒店英语论文-如何上好饭店英语课摘要:饭店英语是一门实践性很强的学科,要注重口语化和实用性教学,要根据不同的语境,通过各种不同的活动方式,采取不同的措施,提高教学效果。 关键词:饭店服务与管理英语、教学方法、服务。 教师要使学生喜欢饭店英语,学好饭店英语,首先自己必须成为一个令学生尊敬、佩服、喜欢的人。“学高为师,德高为范”,教师要注重自生修养,在各个方面成为学生的楷模。做为一门语言学,饭店英语有其规律性、科学性。我们中等职业学校的目的是培养学生具有一定的实践能力,又掌握一定的基础知识的学校。因此,做为饭店英语老师,如何根据本科学特点,让学生积极主动学习?如何让学生掌握一定的实践技能?如何上好饭店英语课?这些问题需要我们不断探索研究。根据这些问题,本人有以下想法: 一、要善于激励学生,善于发现学生的优点,善于挖掘本学科兴趣点,使学生掌握一定数量的专业词汇 职业学校学生的素质相对较差,针对这种情况,教师要保护学生的自尊心,使他们对饭店英语学习充满信心。如上课提问题时,即使学生回答错误,也应先表扬他们回答问题的勇气,然后再指出错误。如果横加指责,他们可能会产生抵触情绪,甚至极度悲观、消沉。每个学生都有优点,教师要把他们的优点挖掘出来。另外,教师应该结合学生的兴趣授课。比如:有些学生喜欢电脑,喜欢韩剧,就多举一些电脑方面的例子,多一些韩国料理的例子。例:在韩剧《大长今》中有很多料理知识,以及大长今本人的服务意识;坚持让明朝官员吃那些对身体健康有益的食物,而不仅仅为了迎合高官,不顾他们身体状况,让他们吃海参燕窝。这些东西就要让学生多了解掌握。实际上,做为一名合格的教师,对学生感兴趣的事物都应感兴
The development of the hotel chain Economy Hotel concept and classification of economy Hotel, Budget Hotel) is compared with the traditional full-service Hotel (Full Service Hotel) is a form of the Hotel. Budget Hotel mainly use pa. Hotel, Budget Hotel, Inn, Lodge, etc. It usually refers to the investment is not high, small size, simple function, low rent, but have a certain service quality level of low class hotels. Among them, low prices and high quality service is the biggest characteristic. Economy hotel's core idea is to provide more comfortable accommodation for accommodation at the same time, the hotel need to amortization for hotel entertainment not subject facilities such as cost, makes every effort to rein in The cost at the same time to provide more low price, comfortable accommodation at the core of the clothing. 1 .question about characteristic of budget hotels, scale From the functions and service characteristics of budget hotel, economy hotel is to provide limited service, room service focus on core business of products;And other non-core business such as laundry services, cleaning
针对国际市场的电子智能酒店管理系统 硕士Noor-A-Rahim1，硕士Kamal Hosain2，硕士Saiful Islam3，硕士Nashid Anjum4，硕士 Masud Rana5 1，3，4，5电子与通信工程，库尔纳工程技术大学（KUET），库尔纳，孟加拉 2工程学院，肯迪大学，基朗，维多利亚3217，澳大利亚 电子邮箱：mash_0409@https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,1，mhosain@https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,.au2，sirajonece@https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,3，nashidzone@https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,4，mamaraece28@https://www.doczj.com/doc/de9698096.html,5 摘要：为了与国际市场竞争，酒店行业能够不断为旅游业改善其服务是至关重要的。为了构建一个电子交易市场（电子市场），建立一个正确的架构并用合适的方法在其中嵌入智能系统是内在要求。本文介绍了一种智能网络，有助于减少直接参与维持一家酒店的人力。酒店的接待政策，房间设施和智能个性化促销是本文的主要焦点。对现有住宿者和可用房间的智能搜索被包含在系统中。对于每一个设施都会画一个流程图，确定系统中所使用的技术和相关设备。通过研究多个方案，本文列出了一些技术来实现智能酒店管理系统。安全以及电和水的浪费需要引起特别的注意。在这种节电的场景中，采取图像处理的方法可以检测到任何人的存在和特定房间的黑暗。此外，本文提出的这种自动计算机化方案也将计入成本优势。考虑到一些国家人力缺乏的问题，本文的目的是要发起关于使本文提到的系统更商业化的讨论和研究。 关键词：电子市场，酒店管理系统，智能搜索，智能系统，图像处理算法，网页应用程序 1.介绍 为了在酒店服务业激烈的竞争中取得胜利，酒店管理的主要目标和方向，是如何为客户提供高品质、人性化的服务。为了与国际电子市场竞争，需要极大关注的是，根据用户需要产生推荐的酒店以供选择的优化[1]。在一般意义上，酒店管理就是维持酒店不同的活动，而完成这些工作需要许多工作人员。首先，让我们看一下某个普通的酒店。在这种酒店租用一个房间，客户需要与接待员见面以收集酒店设施的信息[2]。之后，他将要填写由酒店当局提供的单子，然后他必须支付的规定金额，于是他\她就能拿到所租房间的钥匙。忍受了这些例行公事之后，他/她才完成了在接待区的手续。但是，客户总是希望获得更大的隐私和可靠的保障。Koolmanojwong等人[3]开发了一种基于模糊逻辑的智能电子交易市场，用以服务那些想去旅游但不知道住在哪的顾客[ 4 ]。该系统是全球性的，即任何人都可以根据他/她能负担的方法，使用这个系统寻找合适的酒店[5]。酒店管理系统的详细信息包括特许经营、赌场、健康疗养、工资、信贷、会计控制等，在[ 6 ]中有很好的描述。然而，我们已经设计了一个IHM系统，它对于某个特定的酒店是特别的。它可以帮助使用者服务预期的客户，而不需要他们直接参与。该系统包括嵌入了多个集成Java编程的传感器的电子电路。提供这些设施需要大量的酒店工作人员，而文中提到的智能化酒店管理（IHM ）系统就能免除这些并且需要更少的手续。在人口匮乏的国家，人力资源的缺乏正在逐渐增加。因此，他们必须从其他国家引进的人力。在这种情况下，IHM可以说是一个永久的解决办法。此外，它具有足够的安全性[7]。该系统提供了高科技的室内设施，包括自控门、自动灯光控制、声控设备等。除了这些，它可以防止过多的水电的浪费，这是本文所采用的主要观点。这种方法的简版如[8]所示。此外，我们已经整合了一个新的图像处理算法，能够准确地确认人在不在以及待用房间的黑暗。