A biblical model of servant leadership, exemplified in John 13:14–16 (English Standard Version), advances the obedient discipleship of the body through pastoral service and humility. Yet, contemporary Christian models often correlate effective leadership with productivity and performance, which hinders the spiritual maturation of the church in Christ. This study will exegete the leadership model represented in John 13, evaluate the historical origins of servant leadership, and conduct a comparative analysis of leadership patterns within the contemporary evangelical Christian church. Findings will be applied to propose a renewed emphasis on Christ-centered service, pastoral ministry, and discipleship in modern theologies of leadership.
Background
The Johannine Gospel was written after 70 A.D. to address ecclesiastical leadership crises within Greek-speaking Jewish and Gentile communities.[1] Several religious factions had emerged to claim leadership positions in the restoration of the temple and the religious renewal of Judaism.[2] John highlighted a servant-centered leadership approach to refute leadership practices rooted in self-glory, performance, and authoritarianism.[3] Further, the Johannine Gospel highlighted the hypostatic union of Christ to dispel two formative ideologies in Hellenistic culture: (a) Docetism, a philosophy that claimed Christ was fully divine and feigned His humanity; and (b) Gnosticism, a philosophy that claimed Christ was an autonomous deity, emergent from God and fully divine.[4]The Johannine emphasis on the vulnerability, love, and obedient discipleship of Christ established His identity as the “convergence of God…both the divine speaker and the spoken, expressed communication to humanity [i.e., logos].”[5] The Johannine Messiah abdicated His power to engage with the profane, magnify the glorious grace and lovingkindess of His Father, and suffer with His disciples.[6] As such, John detailed a Messianic leadership model antithetical to pharisaical models of authority that licensed the exploitation of positional power to manipulate, victimize, and censure the inferior.[7]
The Historical Context of Footwashing
Footwashing was a traditional expression of Near Eastern hospitality, love, personal cleanliness, and/or preparation for religious activity.[8] The act of footwashing is referenced 11 times in the Old Testament (Gen. 18:4; Gen. 19:2; Gen. 24:32; Gen. 43:24; Exo. 30:19; Exo. 30:21; Exo. 40:31; Jdg. 19:21; 1 Sam. 25:41; 2 Sam. 11:8; 2 Sam. 19:24).[9] Ten occurrences portray footwashing as the responsibility of the guest.[10] The sole iteration of the verb “in which a person offers to wash another’s feet…is in the context of an expression of love in which Abigail accepts David’s marriage proposal by offering to fulfill the role of a slave” (1 Sam. 25:41).[11] In the New Testament (1st century AD), footwashing was sustained as a gesture of hospitality, deep affection, and preparation for entrance into the Hellenistic synagogue.[12] The act was administered between (a) Gentile slaves and their masters, (b) wives and their husbands, (c) children and their parents, and (d) disciples and their teachers.[13] Jewish and Greco-Roman records indicate John 13:4–5 was the first occurrence of a superior washing the feet of an inferior.[14]
Chronological Terminology and Foreshadowing
The Johannine Gospel utilized chronological terminology to highlight the past, present, and future implications of the Last Supper.[15] The Last Supper upheld traditional hospitality practices instituted within the Greco-Roman banquet symposium.[16] A host would gather the guests (John 13:1–3), welcome the guests through footwashing (John 13:3–11), partake in a communal meal (John 13:12–38), hold a discussion forum (John 14–16), and conclude the meal with a hymn or prayer (John 17).[17] The preservation of traditional hospitality practices contextualized the act of footwashing as a gesture of welcome and an invitation into the Father’s household (John 14:2).[18] Such a gesture of welcome “in the washing of feet [pointed] ahead, in John’s understanding, to the crucifixion as the creation of God’s household”[19] and magnified Christ’s “divinity, omniscience and sovereignty (v. 3), by mentioning that one of those whose feet is washed is an enemy (v.2), and by implying that the gesture is symbolic of the washer’s conscious choice to die for those whose feet he is washing.”[20] Experiential knowledge was integral to the Messianic invitation of eternal fellowship.[21] The verb “to know” (eidō; εἴδω) appears six times in John 13 (vv. 1, 3, 7, 11, 17, 18),[22] conjoined with the verbs “to understand” (ginōskō; γινώσκω; vv. 7, 12),[23] “to believe” (pisteuō; πιστεύω; v. 19),[24] and “to receive” (lambanō; λαμβάνω; v. 20).[25] The act of footwashing imbued the discipled recipients with a first-hand knowledge of the steadfast love, faithfulness, and service requisites for entrance into the household of God the Father through Christ the Son.[26]
Humble Servanthood and Unconditional Love
The act of footwashing exemplified a social role-reversal of Messianic leadership in servanthood, humility, and steadfast love.[27] In John 13:4–5, Christ surrendered His outer mantle and bound Himself with a towel (lention; λέντιον),[28] a linen cloth “servants put on when about to work.”[29] His servant-mantle equipped Him to wash the feet of His disciples, an act “regarded as one of the most demeaning tasks anyone could perform,”[30] for the feet were the filthiest part of the body and often bore excrement, mud, and dust from each place the disciple had traversed.[31] The soiled garment of Christ’s servanthood—the only article He was permitted to wear on the Cross—foretold the propitiatory relinquishment of His divine rank and His assumption of a sacrificial role for the sinfulness of all humanity.[32] The Messianic servant-mantle was perfected in His footwashing of His disciples, three of which were highly significant: (a) John, the obedient and faithful disciple “whom He loved” (John 19:26); Peter, the disciple who would deny Him three times (vv. 6–11, 36–38); and Judas, the disciple who would betray Him (vv. 16–20, 221–30).[33] In the act of footwashing, Christ conveyed the ultimate Messianic “love displayed…where love is given in the knowledge that those who receive it will fail…[a] dynamism this love lies solely with the lover [emphasis added].”[34] The leadership authority of Christ is displayed in His interior posture of humility, steadfast love, obedience, and longsuffering, each embodied in His roles as Shepherd, King, Prophet, Teacher, Servant, and Disciple of the Father.[35]
Analysis: Contemporary Applications of Servant Leadership
Organizational Servant Leadership
In the twentieth century, Greenleaf proposed an organizational model of servant leadership founded on nine criteria: (a) listening, (b) empathy, (c) healing, (d) awareness, (e) persuasion, (f) conceptualization, (g) foresight, (h) stewardship, and (i) dedication to the formation of the leadership community.[36] The contemporary servant leader—as defined by Greenleaf—augments the health, wisdom, autonomy, liberty, and reciprocal servanthood of their followers.[37] Contemporary servant leaders demonstrate effective investment skills, empower emerging servant-leaders, and inaugurate a cogent vision for the continued expansion of the Christian church.[38] Organizational applications of Greenleaf’s servant leadership model have yielded improvements in seven workplace categories: transparency, equitability, camaraderie, career opportunities, pride in personal and communal accomplishments, pay/benefits, and security.[39] Advocates of Greenleaf’s servant leadership model cite improved opportunities for reciprocity of service, trust, relationship, power, interdependency, and organizational accountability.[40]
Two philosophical bases of Greenleaf’s model are incongruent with Messianic practices and foster a performance-based leadership approach: (a) “I serve because I am the leader,” and (b) “I am leader because I serve.”[41] These foundational principles are mutually antithetical and engender dysfunctional leadership practices.[42] The former precept of servant leadership (i.e., “I serve because I am the leader”) encourages altruistic interactions that magnify the Spiritual gifts of the leadership community, the worship team, and the discipled congregation.[43] Conversely, the latter precept (i.e., “I am the leader because I serve”) “begins with the deep-seated desire that one wants to lead, or ambition to be the foremost among the troop.”[44] Service and altruism are manipulative tactics exploited to garner admiration and augment the public image of the leader. A positive self-concept—a term Greenleaf associates with self-image, self-esteem, self-perception, and self-awareness—may further diminish the leader’s ability to discern personal ideologies, beliefs, and moral values.[45] Greenleaf posits that a secure self-image compels the servant leader to engage in honorable, servant-oriented acts of leadership.[46] Such an ideology does not account for the pervasive influence of sin, denial, and deception upon self-concept (Jer. 17:9; 1 Sam. 16:7), which may obscure ulterior motives and narcissistic objectives embedded within altruistic deeds.
The Evangelical Adoption of Organizational Servant Leadership
In the early twenty-first century, widespread pastoral adoption of Greenleaf’s model compelled biblical scholars and evangelical Christian organizations to cultivate a scripturally-informed theology of servant leadership.[47] Prominent academic, critical, and pastoral contributors included Leighton Ford, Robert Clinton, Henri Nouwen, Bill Hybels, John Maxwell, Arthur Boers, and Don N. Howell, Jr., while servant-centered parachurch ministries and academic institutions included Willow Creek’s Global Leadership Summit, Lifework Leadership, Lead Like Jesus, Fuller Theological Seminary, and Regent University.[48] Nonetheless, contemporary theologies of servant leadership assumed a “generally passive posture”[49] and failed to “acknowledge the very real difficulties and combative nature of the challenges leaders face.”[50] A fifteen-year study of congregational participation established a correlation between a graduated decline in church attendance and crises in leadership mentality, communicative style, and ministry vision.[51] In an analysis of cross-denominational pastoral and parachurch ministry leaders, 90% of respondents underscored the essentiality of vulnerability, sanctification, stewardship, unconditional love, and transparency within Christ-centered servant leadership.[52] Seventy to eighty percent of respondents encouraged a consistent practice of forgiveness, personal and communal confession, experiential learning, and attentive listening.[53] Still, 80% of respondents concurred that servant-centered ideological values were not an accurate reflection of pastoral practice in the contemporary Christian church.[54] Respondents cited eight hindrances to Christ-centered servant leadership: (a) isolation, (b) assessments of competency, (c) positional instability, (d) perceived risk and safety, (e) organizational culture, (f) role and title definitions, (g) congregational embarrassment and rejection, and (h) the perpetuity of betrayal.[55] Respondent commentaries included the following:
- “What you say…‘It’s not can and will be used against you,’ but ‘will be used against you at some point.’”[56]
- “I’ve never…felt more isolated in 30 years of ministry than I have in this role.”[57]
- “Sometimes the world forgives you easier than the church forgives you.”[58]
Additional studies have correlated high rates of pastoral burnout, depression, instability, shame, dishonesty, severance, resignation, and familial fragmentation to depersonalization, emotional exhaustion, diminished achievement levels, publicity, and dysfunctional ministry cultures.[59] Findings exposed eleven pervasive crises in contemporary pastoral leadership:
- Fifty percent of pastoral marriages concluded with divorce.[60]
- Eighty percent of participants cited occupational discouragement.[61]
- Eighty percent of participants attributed adverse familial dynamics and contention to ministry involvement.[62]
- Fifty percent of participants were “so discouraged that they would leave the ministry if they could, but [had] no other way of making a living.”[63]
- Ninety percent of participants cited inadequate occupational preparation and training.[64]
- Forty-five percent of participants have experienced severe depression.[65]
- Approximately 40% of participants have engaged in one extramarital affair since the initiation of their ministry involvement.[66]
- Seventy percent of participants reported a decreased sense of self-esteem.[67]
- Seventy percent of participants did “not have a single close friend.”[68]
- Sixty-two percent of participants reported a minimal practice of private worship.[69]
- All participants had a pastoral associate, academic colleague, or personal friend who experienced debilitating burnout, ministry contention, and/or moral failure that culminated in resignation or severance.[70]
The evangelical adoption of organizational servant leadership has failed to address cataclysmic deficiencies in modern pastoral practice.
A Renewed Model of Christ-Centered Servant Leadership
A Christ-centered leadership model is founded on the gravity of sin, the glory of God, and the redemptive work of grace.[71]The “pre-requisite for understanding and practising servant-leadership is the acknowledgement of Jesus’ death and resurrection…becoming clean first by Jesus’ words and redemptive work, and allowing Him to continue His work of inner cleansing.”[72]Greenleaf’s model of servant leadership encourages acts of servitude that emerge from a positive, secure self-concept. Such a leadership model may generate improved organizational output and occupational opportunities. That said, contemporary applications of servant leadership neglect the interior posture of humility, obedient discipleship, and sacrificial leadership exemplified in the Johannine Gospel. Six pragmatic actions will facilitate the restoration of Messianic servant leadership in the Christian church:
- The modern pastoral leader should nurture the inherent human value of each follower, as Christ honored the value of His congregants through humble service.[73]
- The modern pastoral leader should cultivate a cultural context of love, humility, and reciprocal servanthood, as Christ encouraged the spiritual maturation of His flock and the relational interdependence of His disciples.[74]
- The modern pastoral leader should voluntarily sacrifice their rights to authority and superiority, as Christ surrendered His mantle and assumed the position of a slave (Phil. 2:7).[75]
- The modern pastoral leader must demonstrate a secure identity in Christ the Son and God the Father, as Christ knew He was the Son of God, emerged from God, and would return to God (John 13:1).[76]
- The modern pastoral leader should engage in a private, daily worship practice to nurture Christ’s ongoing work of sanctification,[77] for all “those who have experienced the salvation of Jesus are not eventually equipped to become servant-leaders in the world unless they yield themselves without reservation to live in fellowship with the master by acknowledging His love and service every day.”[78]
- The modern pastoral leader must love without reservation or recompense, as Christ served and loved the disciples who would deny Him, betray Him, and fall away from Him.[79]
Yet, the renewal of Christ-centered leadership requires a reciprocity of servanthood. The posture of Christ established a scriptural model of pastoral relationship: “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you” (John 13:15). Restorative mercy is a mandate of obedient discipleship and grace-infused ministry.[80] Congregants should not conflate ministry effectiveness with spiritual and moral rectitude,[81] nor should the worshipping community demand unidirectional service. Pastoral leaders will fail to exemplify the holy standard of the Word in speech, thought, or behavior.[82] Moral failure is crucial to the ongoing sanctification of the pastoral leader. Sin is imperative to the magnification of God’s glory. A worshipping ministry must be prepared to extend correction, honor, respect, humility, patience, relational investment, transparency, courtesy, mercy, and deferential service to the pastoral leader.[83] Christ-centered servant leadership requires grace-filled community.
Conclusions
This study exegeted the leadership model represented in John 13:14–16, evaluated the historical origins of servant leadership, and conducted a comparative analysis of leadership patterns within the contemporary Christian church. Determinations were based on the research question that guided this study:
- How does John 13 establish a biblical model of servant leadership for the contemporary evangelical Christian church?
Findings were applied to propose a renewed emphasis on Christ-centered service, pastoral ministry, and discipleship in modern theologies of leadership.
The Johannine Gospel established a servant-centered leadership model to dispel exploitative pharisaical practices and heretical Hellenistic ideologies.[84] The Johannine Messiah surrendered His authority to serve the profane, magnify the glory and forbearing love of the Father, and suffer for His disciples.[85] The Messianic footwashing sustained a cultural gesture of hospitality, affection, servanthood, and preparation for entrance into the Hellenistic synagogues.[86] Through a social role-reversal, Christ imbued the disciples with an experiential understanding of the steadfast love, faithfulness, and deferential service required in the household of God the Father.[87] The Johannine Messiah surrendered His external mantle, bound Himself with a linen cloth of servanthood, and perfected His exemplification of unconditional, longsuffering love through servant-centered leadership.[88]
In the twentieth century, Greenleaf inaugurated an organizational model of servant leadership.[89] Contemporary servant leaders were required to demonstrate attentive listening, empathy, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, and dedication to the healing and formation of the leadership community.[90] Organizational implementation of Greenleaf’s model effected improvements in workplace transparency, equitability, camaraderie, career opportunities, self-esteem, financial compensation, and positional security.[91] By the twenty-first century, biblical scholars, academic institutions, and parachurch ministries had designed missional enterprises to adapt Greenleaf’s principles within a religious context.[92] Yet, contemporary theologies of servant leadership failed to provide pragmatic, applicable resolutions for pastoral burnout, moral failure, and emotional/mental destabilization.[93] The unidirectional emphasis of Greenleaf’s organizational model dismantled the scriptural requirement of a supportive, restorative worshipping community.
A pastoral leader is an ambassador of Christ.[94] Leaders are appointed to a path of obedient discipleship and called to surrender a mantle of worldly glory, bear their cross in humility, and serve the “chosen gathering of unfinished people, still grappling with the selfishness of sin and the seduction of temptation, living in a fallen world.”[95] Honorable character and authentic servanthood must be the foremost emphases of Christ-centered ministry. That said, a pastoral leader is fallible. A Christlike leader is self-aware of personal sinfulness, engages in transparent confession, and pursues their ongoing sanctification through grace. Such vulnerability is unattainable without a worshipping leadership community dedicated to restorative grace, mercy, correction, and longsuffering love. Servant-centered discipleship requires a reciprocity of relationship.
[1] Jey J. Kanagaraj, “Johannine Jesus, the Supreme Example of Leadership: An Inquiry into John 13:1–20,” Themelios 29, no. 3 (2004): 16; Lance L. May, “An Exploration of the Role of Vulnerability in Ministerial Leadership: A Qualitative Examination of John 13 as Lived Experience in Contemporary Ministry” (PhD diss., Southeastern University, 2022), 52, ProQuest (29391260).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Kanagaraj, “Johannine Jesus,” 16.
[4] May, “The Role of Vulnerability,” 53.
[5] May, “The Role of Vulnerability,” 53.
[6] Lauren K. Sierra, “The God Who Condescends: Leadership in the Gospel of John,” Christian Education Journal 18, no. 1 (2021): 59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739891320930234
[7] Ibid.
[8] Andrew J. Hochstedler, “Knowledge as an Interpretative Key for Footwashing in John 13, 1–20,” Miscellanea Francescana 116, nos. 3/4 (2016): 407.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid., 407–408.
[13] Hochstedler, “Knowledge as an Interpretative Key,” 407.
[14] Ron Belsterling, “The Mentoring Approach of Jesus as Demonstrated in John 13,” The Journal of Youth Ministry 5, no. 1 (2006): 85.
[15] Mary L. Coloe, “Welcome into the Household of God: The Foot Washing in John 13,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66, no. 3 (2004): 408.
[16] Ibid., 413.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid., 414.
[19] Ibid., 414–415.
[20] Hochstedler, “Knowledge as an Interpretative Key,” 408.
[21] Hochstedler, “Knowledge as an Interpretative Key,” 401.
[22] Blue Letter Bible, “G1492 – eidō – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (ESV),” accessed April 12, 2026, https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g1492/esv/mgnt/0-1/.
[23] Blue Letter Bible, “G1097 – ginōskō – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (ESV),” accessed April 12, 2026, https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g1097/esv/mgnt/0-1/.
[24] Blue Letter Bible, “G4100 – pisteuō – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (ESV),” accessed April 12, 2026, https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g4100/esv/mgnt/0-1/.
[25] Blue Letter Bible, “G2983 – lambanō – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (ESV),” accessed April 12, 2026, https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2983/esv/mgnt/0-1/; Hochstedler, “Knowledge as an Interpretative Key,” 401.
[26] Hochstedler, “Knowledge as an Interpretative Key,” 418, 420.
[27] Ibid., 408.
[28] Juraj Feník and Róbert Lapko, “Jesus’s Inverse Transfiguration in John 13,” Neotestamentica 55, no. 2 (2021): 352, 354.
[29] Blue Letter Bible, “G3012 – lention – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (ESV),” accessed April 6, 2026, https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3012/esv/mgnt/0-1/.
[30] Sen Sendjaya and James C. Sarros, “Servant Leadership: Its Origin, Development, and Application in Organizations,” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 9, no. 2 (2002): 59–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900205
[31] Ibid., 59.
[32] Ibid.; Sierra, “The God Who Condescends,” 65.
[33] Belsterling, “The Mentoring Approach,” 82.
[34] Coloe, “Welcome into the Household,” 410.
[35] Kanagaraj, “Johannine Jesus,” 16.
[36] Esther O. Ayandokun, “Servanthood: The Biblical Model of Leadership,” Practical Theology 2 (2009): 9; Robert K. Greenleaf, The Servant as Leader (The Robert K. Greenleaf Center, 1970), 12–29, 32.
[37] Greenleaf, The Servant as Leader, 7.
[38] Ayandokun, “Servanthood,” 19–24.
[39] Sendjaya and Sarros, “Servant Leadership,” 62.
[40] Walter C. Wright, Relational Leadership: A Biblical Model for Leadership Service (Paternoster Press, 2000), 6, 7–12, 13–18.
[41] Sendjaya and Sarros, “Servant Leadership,” 60.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Sendjaya and Sarros, “Servant Leadership,” 60.
[44] Ibid.
[45] Robert K. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness (Paulist Press, 1977), 14; Sendjaya and Sarros, “Servant Leadership,” 60.
[46] Greenleaf, Servant Leadership, 14; Sendjaya and Sarros, “Servant Leadership,” 60.
[47] Debora K. Piper, “Of Servants, Leaders, and Disciples: An Exploration of the Characteristics, Transference, and Implementation of Servant Leadership in John 13–17 and John 21” (Master’s thesis, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2018), 15–16, ProQuest (10987108).
[48] Piper, “Of Servants, Leaders, and Disciples,” 17–18.
[49] Jack W. Niewold, “Incarnational Leadership: Towards a Distinctly Christian Theory of Leadership” (PhD dissertation, Regent University, 2006), 227, ProQuest (3243512).
[50] Piper, “Of Servants, Leaders, and Disciples,” 20.
[51] Robert Paye, “Servant Leadership: Jesus’ Model of Leadership to His Followers – Then and Now” (Master’s thesis, Regent University, 2024), 2, ProQuest (31636482).
[52] May, “The Role of Vulnerability,” 119–136.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Ibid., 138.
[55] Ibid., 119–136.
[56] May, “The Role of Vulnerability,” 122.
[57] Ibid.
[58] Ibid., 138.
[59] J. R. Briggs, Fail: Finding Hope and Grace in the Midst of Ministry Failure (InterVarsity Press, 2014), 46–47.
[60] Ibid.
[61] Ibid.
[62] Ibid.
[63] Ibid.
[64] Ibid.
[65] Briggs, Fail, 46–47.
[66] Ibid.
[67] Ibid.
[68] Ibid.
[69] Ibid.
[70] Ibid.
[71] Zachary M. Hicks, The Worship Pastor: A Call to Ministry for Worship Leaders and Teams (Zondervan, 2016), 127–128.
[72] Kanagaraj, “Johannine Jesus,” 23, 25.
[73] Ibid.
[74] Ibid.
[75] Ibid.
[76] Peter Carlos Okantey, “Jesus, the Originator of Servant Leadership: A Narrational Texture Analysis of John 13:1-17,” American Journal of Bible Theology 5, no. 2 (2022): 255.
[77] Jaewoo Kim and Joy Kim, “Seven Recommendations for Mentoring,” in Worship and Mission for the Global Church: An Ethnodoxology Handbook, ed. James R. Krabill (William Carey Library, 2012), Multiplying Worship Leaders section.
[78] Kanagaraj, “Johannine Jesus,” 25.
[79] Ayandokun, “Servanthood,” 18.
[80] Paul David Tripp, Lead: 12 Gospel Principles for Leadership in the Church (Crossway, 2020), 109.
[81] Ibid., 110.
[82] Ibid., 109.
[83] Jay R. Desko and David A. Marks, CHECK – Practical Checklists for Leaders, 3rd ed. (The Center Consulting Group, 2022), 11 Actions That Build Healthy Relationships section; Tripp, Lead, 110.
[84] May, “The Role of Vulnerability,” 53.
[85] Sierra, “The God Who Condescends,” 59.
[86] Hochstedler, “Knowledge as an Interpretative Key,” 407–408.
[87] Ibid., 418, 420.
[88] Belsterling, “The Mentoring Approach,” 82; Feník and Lapko, “Jesus’s Inverse Transfiguration,” 352, 354.
[89] Sendjaya and Sarros, “Servant Leadership,” 59–60.
[90] Ayandokun, “Servanthood,” 9; Greenleaf, The Servant as Leader, 12–29, 32.
[91] Sendjaya and Sarros, “Servant Leadership,” 62.
[92] Piper, “Of Servants, Leaders, and Disciples,” 15–16.
[93] Ibid., 20.
[94] Tripp, Lead, 67.
[95] Tripp, Lead, 84.