Introduction

Millennial teachers are characterized by their dynamic, tech-savvy, and innovative approaches to education. Despite these strengths, there is a noted hesitancy in their commitment and loyalty, mirroring the diverse educational landscape of today (Suryahadikusumah & Kurniasari, 2020). Recent shifts in educational paradigms, particularly post-pandemic, have intensified pressures on educators (Penado Abilleira et al. 2021; Sokal et al. 2020). Addressing these pressures calls for an invigorated educational environment, bolstered by effective and positive leadership styles recognized for yielding favorable outcomes(Searle & Barbuto, 2013). Among these, servant leadership stands out, emphasizing the well-being of subordinates, ethical conduct, and functional leadership attributes (Liden et al. 2008; Parris & Peachey, 2013; Zhang et al. 2021).

Unlike transformational or transactional leadership, which often prioritize organizational goals or performance outcomes (Stone et al. 2004), servant leadership centers on empowering and supporting teachers as individuals (Labuan & Pangemanan, 2024). This people-centered approach nurtures trust, empathy, and collaboration (Kyambade et al. 2024), creating a school climate that values professional development and teacher well-being (Swart et al. 2022). Such qualities are vital for retaining motivated teachers and fostering sustainable school improvement, making servant leadership a particularly suitable framework for addressing the emotional, relational, and organizational challenges in education (Wu et al. 2019; Aboramadan et al. 2020). Furthermore, servant leadership’s focus on trust, respect, and community-building closely aligns with the core values of educational practice (Aboramadan et al. 2020). By emphasizing shared decision-making, teacher empowerment, and a supportive organizational climate (Sudiarti & Sinlae, 2023), servant leadership fosters conditions that enhance teacher satisfaction, collaboration, and professional engagement (Swart et al. 2022; Kyambade et al. 2024). These aligned values and demonstrated benefits position servant leadership as a promising model for cultivating positive teacher outcomes and improving educational environments.

The level and intensity of servant leadership are influenced by concomitant attributes, particularly values such as ethics and character (Russell & Gregory Stone, 2002). The teaching profession, often implicitly seen as serving students through instructional activities, shares several characteristics with values-based servant leadership. Both are characterized by an altruistic disposition that places a premium on fostering human growth (Zhang et al. 2021). The synergy between the altruistic values of the teaching profession and servant leadership underscores its significance in educational leadership, promising enhanced outcomes in educational management (Aboramadan et al. 2020; Sunarni & Sultoni, 2023).

Research underscores the affinity of servant leadership for knowledge-centric institutions (Correia De Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2010). Within schools, principals practicing servant leadership often unlock greater avenues for both personal and professional growth among teachers(Saepurohman & Satori, 2021). This leadership style acts as a shield, diminishing the stress of challenges and emotional fatigue(Wu et al. 2019), while bolstering teacher well-being (Zeng et al. 2022). It also plays a crucial role in reducing knowledge concealment behaviors, which are often a byproduct of a negative work culture (Tian et al. 2022), and is linked to a rise in innovative teaching methods (Zeng & Xu, 2020). By nurturing trust and a supportive organizational atmosphere (Osias Kit T. Kilag et al. 2023), servant leadership facilitates a thriving and harmonious educational environment in tune with modern-day educational demands.

As we look toward the future, servant leadership stands out as a leadership model gaining widespread acceptance (Northouse, 2015). Yet, it is crucial to recognize that the theoretical framework of servant leadership is still maturing (Liden et al. 2015), and its comprehensive application remains a work in progress (van Dierendonck, 2011).

Despite being embraced as a universally applicable leadership style (Timiyo n.d.), servant leadership’s implementation reflects varied cultural nuances, shaped by societal values, prominent figures, and organizational contexts (Hale & Fields, 2007). Research incorporating meta-analytic approaches has shown that cultural factors can influence how servant leadership impacts organizational outcomes (Zhang et al. 2021). Therefore, a thoughtful and culturally sensitive approach is necessary when integrating servant leadership practices across diverse educational settings (Liu et al. 2015; Teh et al. 2022). There’s a pressing need for in-depth research to optimize the impact of servant leadership within the unique ecosystems of schools worldwide.

Literature review

The conceptual development and ambiguity of servant leadership

Since Robert K. Greenleaf first proposed the concept of servant leadership in the 1970s, it has garnered increasing academic attention across various fields such as organizations, culture, and industry (Phipps, 2010). However, despite decades of research, the concept remains controversial and poorly defined, leading to conceptual fragmentation (Parris & Peachey, 2013). Scholars typically categorize servant leadership into three dimensions: moral, relational, and operational. However, there is ongoing debate regarding which dimensions constitute the core of the concept and how to measure or apply these dimensions.

The moral dimension emphasizes leaders’ selfless concern for the well-being of others. For example, Graham (1991) views servant leadership as the most ethical form of charismatic leadership, with its core lying in humility, service, and the moral development of followers (Phipps, 2010). Spears’ widely cited framework also lists attributes such as empathy, stewardship (sense of responsibility), and commitment to the growth of people (Phipps, 2010). However, scholars note that these moral attributes often exhibit contextual dependency, meaning that behaviors deemed “moral” or “selfless” may vary depending on cultural or organizational values (Upadhyay, 2024).

The relational perspective views servant leadership as fundamentally focused on the relationship between leaders and followers. Grizzell et al. (2008) noted that servant leaders prioritize flexibility and responsiveness to followers’ needs, representing a relationship-oriented approach distinct from leader-centered leadership styles (e.g., transformational leadership, Russell & Gregory Stone, 2002, p. 200). Lv et al. (2022) further emphasized that servant leadership is a selfless approach aimed at developing subordinates. However, relational practices are often influenced by organizational culture, with specific environments favoring hierarchical authority over participatory relationships (Hale & Fields, 2007).

Although Greenleaf’s philosophy provides conceptual depth, operationalizing servant leadership in empirical research remains challenging. Selladurai and Carraher (2014) noted inconsistencies in measurement models, including differences in the number and nature of leadership dimensions. Parris and Peachey (2013) emphasize the lack of a universally accepted framework, with scholars proposing different models reflecting the priorities of specific contexts. This measurement inconsistency enriches research on service leadership while limiting cross-study comparisons and weakening theoretical accumulation (Sendjaya et al. 2008).

Industry-specific and cultural adaptation

Research indicates that service leadership is interpreted very differently across industries. For example, Demeke et al. (2024) reviewed the servant leadership in the healthcare industry, found that it promotes trust and collaboration among healthcare teams. However, Bavik (2020) argues that in the hospitality industry, the focus shifts toward customer service excellence. These differences suggest that servant leadership is often customized to meet the specific goals of a particular industry, raising questions about its conceptual consistency across industries.

From a cultural perspective, servant leadership has primarily been theorized and validated in Western contexts, and its applicability in non-Western settings has not been fully explored (Aboramadan et al. 2020). However, studies by Upadhyay (2024) and others suggest that the principles of servant leadership align with collectivist cultures (e.g., the United Arab Emirates), as these cultures prioritize community and social sustainability as core values. Hale and Fields (2007) caution that cross-cultural differences—such as variations in power distance and authority norms—may require culturally sensitive adaptations of servant leadership practices.

Although servant leadership research has gained traction in business, healthcare, and hospitality (Bavik, 2020; Demeke et al. 2024), the education sector remains marginalized in systematic reviews. Existing studies, such as Polatcan (2020), suggest that servant leadership can enhance school culture and teacher satisfaction, however, these findings are isolated and lack broader comprehensive analysis. The lack of context-specific adaptations raises questions about the transferability of servant leadership from business to educational contexts.

In summary, while the servant leadership literature demonstrates conceptual fragmentation, industry-specific adaptations, and cultural variability, these characteristics present both challenges and opportunities for further theoretical and practical development.

Although these factors currently limit the systematic application of servant leadership, emerging evidence—such as its alignment with collectivist cultural values and sector-specific insights from education—suggests that contextual adaptations and targeted research could bridge these gaps (Ramdan et al. 2024; Upadhyay, 2024). Future studies should focus on developing culturally sensitive frameworks and sector-specific models to advance the broader applicability and impact of servant leadership across diverse educational and organizational contexts.

Research gap and purpose

While empirical research on servant leadership is expanding, there remains a noticeable gap in the literature. Specifically, there is a lack of systematic understanding of how this leadership style benefits specific sectors such as education (Zhang et al. 2021). Recent scholarship has introduced two main approaches to evaluating servant leadership: commentary assessments, which analyze its theoretical strengths and weaknesses, and narrative assessments, which provide context-specific accounts of its practice. However, existing research has been heavily weighted toward commentary assessments, often lacking integrated thematic analysis and contextual depth, particularly in educational settings (Berkovich & Eyal, 2015; Clarence, Devassy, et al. 2021a; Dami et al. 2022).

Several systematic reviews have made essential contributions by synthesizing servant leadership research across different industries and research traditions. For example, S. Kumar(2018) synthesized literature from 2006–2017 and highlighted ‘selfless service’ as a central theme. However, this review was primarily confined to Western cultural contexts and provided limited insights into non-Western or education-specific applications. Building on this, Langhof and Güldenberg (2020) examined managerial motives for adopting servant leadership across various sectors but lacked industry-specific depth, limiting its practical relevance for education. McQuade et al. (2021) further contributed by analyzing measurement tools and their links to performance and well-being, yet again without sector-specific focus.

In contrast, more recent industry-specific reviews have emerged. For instance, Zarei et al. concentrated on marketing (Zarei et al. 2022), Bavik and Gui et al. investigated the hospitality sector (Bavik, 2020; Gui et al. 2021), while Demeke et al. assessed its implications in healthcare (Demeke et al. 2024). These reviews have helped clarify servant leadership’s impact in specific fields. However, servant leadership in educational settings remains largely overlooked, with only a few reviews identified in this field (Adams et al. 2025; Ramdan et al. 2024; Robinson et al. 2018), and those reviews exhibit significant limitations.

More specifically, recent attempts to examine servant leadership in educational contexts reveal critical gaps in our understanding of its specific benefits for teachers. Adams et al. (2025) excel in providing a macro‐level bibliometric mapping of 50 articles from 1998–2023 using VOSviewer to reveal co‐citation clusters and global publication trends, thereby outlining the intellectual structure of servant leadership research in higher education. However, their descriptive bibliometric approach, while useful for mapping research trends and knowledge structures, falls short of explaining the causal relationships and specific mechanisms through which servant leadership impacts teacher outcomes such as well-being, performance, and professional development. In contrast, Ramdan et al. (2024) delivered a focused scoping review of 14 empirical studies (2019–2023) across WoS, Scopus, and ERIC, synthesizing four practical themes that directly inform educator practice and well‐being. While their identification of practical themes represents a valuable contribution, their broad institutional perspective and limited sample size lack the depth and scope needed to understand how servant leadership benefits teachers explicitly as a distinct stakeholder group. Robinson et al. (2018) focused on sports management education, limiting its applicability to broader educational contexts.

Overall, some reviews are limited to teacher subpopulations (Robinson et al. 2018), while others rely on limited methods, such as bibliometric mapping or scoping approaches, and lack the comprehensive systematic synthesis needed to reveal underlying causal mechanisms (Adams et al. 2025; Ramdan et al. 2024).

While existing reviews have provided valuable insights into the general principles and measurement tools of servant leadership, they lack a comprehensive synthesis and analysis of how servant leadership benefits teachers within educational settings. As empirical research on servant leadership in education continues to expand, it becomes increasingly necessary to address the limitations of fragmentation and contextual inconsistency, develop more integrated findings, and establish a coherent knowledge base (Gonaim, 2019). Therefore, this study conducts a systematic review to consolidate and synthesize existing empirical research findings on the benefits of servant leadership for teachers across diverse educational contexts. Specifically, the study addresses the following research questions:

Question 1: What trends have emerged from research on servant leadership that benefits teachers?

Question 2: Which research methodologies and theories are predominantly utilized in the investigation of servant leadership’s benefits for teachers?

Question 3: What key theme findings have been identified regarding the benefits of servant leadership for teachers?

By exploring these questions, this study seeks to synthesize existing knowledge, illuminate the methodologies employed in the field, and uncover the central themes and outcomes related to servant leadership in education. Our goal is to address the current research limitations, contribute nuanced insights for future studies, and provide a detailed synthesis of the evidence demonstrating how servant leadership benefits teachers.

Materials and methods

This systematic evaluation aims to methodically address specific research questions through a structured, comprehensive, and replicable search protocol. This protocol categorizes studies for inclusion or exclusion based on clearly defined criteria (Brough, 2018). To ensure thoroughness and transparency, the initial phase of this study involved developing exclusion criteria, as detailed in Table 1. A broad search strategy was subsequently formulated, culminating in the collection of pertinent literature.

Table 1 Final inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Full size table

This study focuses on examining the benefits of servant leadership for educators, specifically how teachers gain from such leadership rather than how they implement it. This distinction was critical for accurately identifying literature relevant to our research questions. With the study commencing in April 2024, we chose to review literature published between 2018 and early 2024. The year 2018 was identified as a significant turning point, marking a noticeable increase in research on this topic, as evidenced by initial database searches. This timeframe ensures inclusion of the latest and most pertinent research trends.

The literature search was conducted using two of the most widely recognized international academic databases, Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus, focusing on titles, abstracts, and keywords. The search syntax (outlined in Table 2) targeted peer-reviewed, English-language scholarly articles. These two databases were selected because they index a broad range of high-impact journals across education, leadership, and management disciplines, and are widely accepted in systematic review research for their comprehensive coverage and rigorous indexing standards (Neylon, 2018).

Table 2 Initial search string.
Full size table

Using WoS and Scopus helped ensure that the review captured high-quality, credible studies from reputable sources (Pranckutė, 2021). However, we acknowledge that this choice may have excluded relevant studies published in other databases, non-indexed sources, or gray literature, particularly non-English publications or regional journals. This potential limitation is addressed in the limitations section, recognizing the risk of publication and language bias while maintaining methodological transparency and review quality.

To uphold the scientific integrity of our review, the article screening process was meticulously conducted by two independent researchers employing the Covidence systematic review software. This approach ensured the resolution of any disparities through a consensus mechanism, with both researchers engaged in simultaneous assessment. Figure 1 illustrates the detailed screening workflow. The literature search was executed on April 10, 2024, yielding 120 initial records. During the screening phase, each record was rigorously evaluated against our exclusion criteria. This phase culminated in the selection of 59 articles, which were deemed suitable for comprehensive analysis as detailed in Fig. 1. Inter-rater reliability was κ = 0.724 for title and abstract screening, and κ = 0.928 for the full text screening.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram in the review.

Full size image

Data from the selected studies were meticulously coded and analyzed to synthesize the findings, explore instances where servant leadership has positively impacted teachers, and identify any existing gaps or inconsistencies in the literature. For data extraction, all articles were uploaded to ATLAS.ti software, version 24.0.1. A detailed coding system was then developed to categorize the data systematically. This system included codes for various attributes of each article, such as the year of publication, journal name, country of the author(s), and the research methodology employed (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods). Additionally, specific attention was given to coding the status of the topic of interest within each study.

Through this analytical process, a total of 33 secondary codes and 5 primary codes were established. These codes were designed to effectively organize and present the thematic findings of the review, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of how servant leadership benefits teachers across different educational contexts. This structured approach not only facilitated a thorough analysis of the collected data but also enhanced the reliability and validity of the synthesized outcomes.

Results and discussion

This section summarizes key findings from servant leadership research, analyzing distribution trends across time and regions and detailing common methodologies and analytical tools used. It concludes by synthesizing the primary benefits of servant leadership for teachers, highlighting significant outcomes from the reviewed studies.

What trends have emerged from research on the benefits of servant leadership for teachers

The research on servant leadership’s impact on teachers from 2018 to 2023 highlights growing academic and practical interest in this leadership style within education (Fig. 2). Initial publications in 2018 and 2019 were steady, suggesting an early interest in servant leadership as a supportive approach for teachers. The significant increase to six publications in 2020 aligns with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating that the crisis may have intensified focus on servant leadership to help educators navigate challenging times.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Year of Publications.

Full size image

Publications grew steadily from 4 in 2018 and 5 in 2019 to 7 in both 2020 and 2021, reflecting an initial build-up of interest and a period of deeper theoretical and methodological reflection as the pandemic took hold. In 2022, there was a dramatic surge to 16 articles, driven by a wealth of empirical studies on servant leadership’s role in supporting well-being and job satisfaction during crisis. The count dipped only slightly to 15 in 2023, indicating that while the initial rush of pandemic-related research eased, scholarly attention remained strong. Early data for 2024 show 5 publications to date; as the year progresses, this may climb or stabilize, mirroring how servant leadership continues to align with evolving post-pandemic educational needs.

The geographical analysis illustrates a pronounced interest in servant leadership for the benefit of teachers across various regions, with Asia leading in publication volume (Fig. 3). Indonesia, China, India, South Africa, and Pakistan have notably contributed through diverse studies. For instance, research in Indonesia spans multiple educational levels, including junior high schools where models of servant leadership are specifically tailored for school principals (Irwan et al. 2020), as well as in various school types ranging from basic education to vocational high schools (Dami et al. 2022; Harijanto et al. 2021; Hermanto & Srimulyani, 2022a; Hidayat et al. 2020; Meilani & Riyanto, 2022; Pratomo & Arifin, 2020).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Distribution of countries/regions.

Full size image

Additionally, substantial research contributions also emerge from the USA, Malaysia, Turkey, Italy, and Peru, where studies predominantly focus on how servant leadership enhances individual teacher metrics and organizational dynamics such as justice (Hermanto & Srimulyani, 2022) and cultural adaptability (Polatcan, 2020). Further contributions from regions like Qatar, Iran, the Philippines, Greece, Ghana, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Thailand, Oman, the UK, and the United Arab Emirates enrich the global discourse. These studies range from exploring the impact of high school principals’ leadership on the challenges in STEM education in Qatar (El-Kassem, 2019) to assessing how servant leadership principles are integrated within projects to promote democratic educational values in the UK (Higham & Djohari, 2018).

The distribution of research on servant leadership reflects a notable concentration in developing countries, particularly in Asia, with significant contributions from Indonesia, India, China, and Pakistan. This trend suggests that the principles of servant leadership align well with the cultural and societal norms prevalent in these regions, where community-oriented values and collective well-being are emphasized.

Developing countries often face unique challenges such as economic disparities and resource constraints, which may make servant leadership especially appealing. This leadership style, which focuses on the growth and well-being of people and communities rather than on accumulating power or resources, can be a cost-effective strategy in environments where financial and material resources are limited. Moreover, the adoption of servant leadership in these countries could also be driven by its potential to address social and educational challenges. For example, the emphasis on empathy, ethical behavior, and community service in servant leadership can resonate strongly in societies striving for rapid educational and social improvements.

The presence of significant research from a few developed countries like the USA suggests that while the interest is global, the application and study of servant leadership are particularly pronounced in contexts where it directly addresses local needs and aligns with cultural expectations.

Further investigation would be enriched by examining how economic conditions, cultural characteristics, and educational challenges influence the adoption and effectiveness of servant leadership across various contexts. Such studies could lead to more tailored and globally effective applications of servant leadership principles.

The heatmap (Fig. 4) presents the distribution of articles published in various academic journals related to servant leadership and its benefits for teachers. The intensity of shading indicates the number of published articles. According to the analysis, Frontiers in Psychology and the International Journal of Leadership in Education each published 3 articles, making them the most active journals in this field. Other notable journals include the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health and Cogent Business & Management, with 2 articles each. Several other journals contributed single articles.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Publication activity heatmap by Journal and Year.

Full size image

These results highlight that research on this topic spans across fields such as psychology, education, management, and public health, but remains relatively limited in volume compared to servant leadership research in other sectors. This underscores the need for further exploration and expansion of servant leadership research, specifically in educational contexts.

The results provide a broad picture of study trends in servant leadership as they pertain to teachers and hint in part to future directions for the research’s depth and expansion. In contrast to the ample amount of academic research on servant leadership in other organizational contexts, very little research has been done in educational settings (Latif et al. 2021), and the amount of work focusing on the applicability of servant leadership in education has not been significant (Khatri et al. 2021). This can be because educational leaders may not fully grasp the idea of servant leadership and the teachers’ demand in this respect, since it is not the dominant leadership style in the field of management and administration (Kandasamy et al. 2019). This is also the reason why it is especially urgent to deepen the research on the theme of servant leadership and how it can fully benefit teachers and lead to better professional development.

Which research methodologies and theories are predominantly utilized in the investigation of the benefits of servant leadership for teachers?

In investigating the benefits of servant leadership for teachers, quantitative methodologies overwhelmingly predominate, accounting for approximately 83% of the reviewed studies. This methodological preference reflects the perceived strengths of quantitative approaches in delivering objective, reliable, and generalizable findings. Among these, survey-based research is particularly prevalent across higher education and other educational sectors due to its cost-effectiveness, scalability, and ability to collect large datasets efficiently. Surveys enable researchers to access broad participant samples, identify trends, and analyze response patterns with statistical precision.

Among the statistical tools employed, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) are the most frequently utilized. SEM was applied in 24 studies (49%), highlighting its popularity for testing theoretical models and examining potential causal relationships in educational research. Additionally, 10 studies (20%) used SPSS for descriptive and inferential analyses, including t-tests, ANOVAs, and correlation analyses. Notably, 16 studies (33%) combined SEM and SPSS, leveraging their complementary strengths in model validation and statistical description.

While SEM is a powerful tool for exploring complex relational structures, its reliance on statistical assumptions and model fit indices may limit its ability to capture contextual and experiential nuances. This limitation highlights the importance of complementing SEM with other statistical techniques, such as t-tests and ANOVAs, which allow for more direct group comparisons, as well as qualitative methods that can explore the lived experiences and meaning-making processes of participants.

Despite the dominance of quantitative methods, qualitative research accounts for 10% (6 out of 59 studies), providing rich, in-depth insights into teachers’ experiences, emotional engagement, and interpersonal dynamics. Methods such as interviews, observations, and case studies capture the complex social and cultural contexts that quantitative designs often overlook.

Furthermore, 7% (4 out of 59 studies) employed mixed-methods approaches, reflecting a growing recognition of the value of integrating quantitative breadth with qualitative depth. Mixed method designs not only validate quantitative trends but also provide a holistic understanding of servant leadership by uncovering the underlying processes and contextual factors that shape teacher experiences.

In addition to methodological patterns, this review identified several theoretical frameworks frequently integrated with Servant Leadership Theory, particularly those relevant to educational leadership and management. These include Social Exchange Theory, Leader-Member Exchange Theory, Learner-Centered Education Theory, and Emotional Labor Theory. Together, they provide multi-dimensional perspectives on interpersonal dynamics, leadership behaviors, and organizational effectiveness in educational contexts.

For instance, Social Exchange Theory emphasizes reciprocal relationships, helping to explain how servant leaders can enhance organizational performance by fostering trust and mutual support (Wu et al. 2020). Emotional Labor Theory complements servant leadership by addressing the management of emotional expressions, enabling leaders to support teachers’ emotional well-being and improve professional performance (Zheng et al. 2023). Similarly, Learner-Centered Education Theory aligns with servant leadership by prioritizing individual needs, whether of students or teachers, supporting the creation of engaging and supportive learning environments (Gunderman et al. 2003).

However, integrating these theories is not without challenges. Conceptual inconsistencies and conflicting assumptions may lead to practical application difficulties (Henderson, 2001). Moreover, the diverse and complex nature of educational contexts necessitates careful adaptation of these theoretical integrations to ensure their relevance and applicability across different settings.

Regarding measurement, the Servant Leadership Scale by Liden et al. (2008, 2015) emerges as the most widely adopted instrument, utilized in at least 16 studies across various educational levels—from kindergarten to higher education—and diverse cultural contexts, including China, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran, South Africa, and the United States. Its popularity is attributed to its strong theoretical foundation and focus on key dimensions such as service, humility, empowerment, emotional healing, and moral responsibility, making it a widely recognized cross-cultural measurement tool.

Additionally, the Servant Leadership Scale by Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) has been commonly used in higher education research, particularly in Spain, Pakistan, South Africa, and India, demonstrating its relevance in leadership development and organizational performance studies.

A smaller number of studies employed other scales, such as those developed by Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) scale, the Sendjaya et al. (2019) SLBS-6 scale, and the Sun and Wang (2010) scale, as well as self-developed or culturally adapted instruments tailored to specific local educational contexts. While this diversity demonstrates the flexibility of servant leadership measurement, it also highlights a lack of standardization across studies, with researchers often customizing or developing new tools to fit their specific settings.

Overall, while the Liden et al. scale remains the most validated and widely used instrument, the use of alternative and localized measures indicates a continuing need to balance cross-cultural generalizability with context-specific relevance. Future research should prioritize comparative validation to enhance measurement consistency and theoretical coherence, thereby advancing the empirical study of servant leadership in education.

What key theme findings have been identified regarding the benefits of servant leadership for teachers?

The articles were initially analyzed based on their focus on research variables or constructs, as detailed in Table 3. They were then categorized by themes and overall focus, using coding to identify well-researched theories and concepts. Five key themes emerged: (1) model and scale development, (2) physical and mental health outcomes, (3) behavioral outcomes, (4) performance, and (5) harmonious environment. These themes often intersect, with articles sometimes addressing multiple themes through various elements. To address the research questions and develop a conceptual framework on how servant leadership benefits teachers, the subsequent section will explore each theme in depth, integrating additional sources as needed.

Table 3 Variables or constructs of the study.
Full size table

Theme 1: model and scale development

The servant leadership model was initially proposed by Robert K. Greenleaf (Spears, 2010) in the early 1970s. It revolutionizes the concept of leadership by emphasizing the leader’s role as a servant to their team members, with a primary focus on their growth, well-being, and development(Greenleaf & Spears, 1998). Servant leaders actively engage in listening, empowerment, and empathy, thereby fostering a collaborative and supportive work environment(Greenleaf & Spears, 1998). Motivated by the Greenleaf model and other servant leadership approaches, researchers have conducted numerous empirical studies to assess servant leadership patterns in diverse organizational contexts. Because of its emphasis on advancing society, servant leadership is best suited in the public and educational sectors of society (Crippen, 2010; Peyton & Ross, 2022). However, regardless of the sector, leaders who are given authority and responsibilities are required to manage and supervise workers, which goes against the expectations of the philosophy of servant leadership(Irwan et al. 2020). When established, long-standing patterns act as constraints and impediments, and strengthening the organization becomes incredibly difficult.

The importance of how servant leadership differs across institutions and cultures has been emphasized by scholars over time (Latif & Marimon, 2019; Liu et al. 2015). A contextualized study is necessary to improve theoretical application, handle educational challenges, and maintain consistency between uniqueness and commonality. Not limited to testing existing scales using samples of participants from various nations and evaluating pertinent components from the outcomes (Gocen & Sen, 2021; Latif & Marimon, 2019), researchers have also expanded their focus on servant leadership practice groups from top cadres to mid-level team leaders, such as subject leaders (Teh et al. 2022). Through social learning theory and the trickle-down model of leadership, this development may be regarded as the continuing dissemination of the cultural influence of servant leadership and appears to be perceived as a benign influence from top to bottom (Wang et al. 2018). By gaining a better grasp of sample characteristics and utilizing criteria-based validity procedures to create new external measuring instruments from the same cohort for study selection, future research may continue to disclose prospects for the application of theoretical models (Gocen & Sen, 2021), and endeavors to provide training materials and programs in a wider range of contexts to improve practice.

Theme 2: physical and mental health outcomes

Compared to many other professions worldwide, teaching entails more stress and anxiety (Dooley et al. 2020). Daily demands on teachers’ physical and mental health result from their heavy responsibility loads not only for their students but also for a wide range of stakeholders, including parents and public officials (Wu et al. 2020). Leadership scholars state that more sincere and value-based leadership can assist followers in overcoming the detrimental effects of stress (Qiu et al. 2019), highlighting the need for servant leadership in this regard (Dooley et al. 2020). Similarly, recent studies have shown that servant leadership enhances teachers’ professional self-efficacy and resilience, helping them cope with stress in high-demand environments (Gao & Huang, 2024; Qamar et al. 2024).

Thus, the demanding atmosphere of the teaching profession, as well as the requirement for mental health, becomes a favorable backdrop for such studies. By examining the physical and mental health outcomes of servant leadership among teachers, there are two primary directions: enhancing positive health outcomes and mitigating negative health outcomes.

The basic human urge that motivates individuals to move forward is positive emotions (Clarence, D. et al. 2021a). According to research, supportive, fair, and cooperative leadership behaviors, such as servant leadership, are linked to teachers’ emotions and enthusiasm for their work (Wu et al. 2019). Leadership is correlated with teachers’ mental state and can help them develop a healthier emotional and spiritual state (Parris & Peachey, 2013; Qiu & Dooley, 2019). Servant leadership has also been found to significantly improve teachers’ job satisfaction and life satisfaction in both higher and basic education settings (Aboramadan et al. 2021; Dahleez & Aboramadan, 2022; Ghasemy et al. 2022; Latif et al. 2021; Latif & Marimon, 2019).

Through their cordial presence and positive interactions, servant leaders encourage positivity among their subordinates. In turn, subordinates will give a positive response and take advantage of the chance to participate in the organization’s activities, leading to development and success (Clarence, Devassy, et al. 2021b). The development of optimism, competence, and resilience in teachers’ personal lives, which is connected to their mental health and effectiveness commitment, starts when they perceive their principals as supporting and caring people (Clarence, Devassy, et al. 2021a). The influence of servant leadership on organizational commitment has been confirmed by many studies (Asih et al. 2024; Clarence, Devassy, et al. 2021; Zeng et al. 2023; Zheng et al. 2023), yet the effect does not stop there. It has been discovered that psychological capital moderates the relationship between commitment and servant leadership (Clarence, Devassy, et al. 2021a). Commitment partially mediates the relationship between servant leadership and teachers’ workplace well-being, and risk perception moderates this mediating relationship (Zeng et al. 2022).

Servant leaders demonstrate moral selflessness and sacrifice, which are inherently empowering (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). These values can inspire subordinates to grow in wisdom and achieve beneficial outcomes (Hoven et al. 2021). Research has shown that servant leadership and the perception of colleague support can enhance the feeling of organization-based psychological ownership (Anwaar & Jingwei, 2022). In this regard, Aboramadan et al. (2020) confirmed that servant leadership enhances intrinsic motivation, psychological ownership, and person-job fit among teachers.

Additionally, there is a positive correlation between servant leadership and psychological safety, allowing employees to feel secure at work, which enables them to grow, learn, contribute, and perform effectively in a rapidly changing world (Brohi et al. 2018). Through the emotional salary, servant leadership can enhance teachers’ happiness at work (Gonzales-Macedo et al. 2023). This positive interaction significantly meets the needs of teachers, benefiting the working environment and increasing their motivation (Shula, 2023), job satisfaction (Ahmad et al. 2022; Singh & Ryhal, 2021), career satisfaction (Dami et al. 2022), life satisfaction (Dahiya, 2022; Dami et al. 2022; Quinteros-Durand et al. 2023) and well-being (Walls & Zuckerman, 2023; Zeng et al. 2022; Zhang et al. 2023).

Some scholars have found that servant leadership directly influences work engagement through practices such as altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, organizational stewardship, vision, and service (Hermanto & Srimulyani, 2022; Irudayaraj, 2019; Osserand et al. 2023; Sudibjo & Riantini, 2022). Similar findings were reported by Aboramadan et al. (2021) and Aboramadan et al. (2020), who showed that servant leadership enhances work engagement by fostering organizational justice, trust, and psychological ownership. This indicates that work engagement increases as servant leadership is implemented in the school (Hermanto & Srimulyani, 2022). Some studies emphasize the mediating role of meaningful work (Sudibjo & Riantini, 2022). However, in other studies, while servant leadership was not directly related to work engagement, the relationship was fully mediated by organizational justice (Hermanto & Srimulyani, 2022). This outcome suggests potential inconsistency in the application of servant leadership values in terms of humility and attention to the welfare and development of followers (Hermanto & Srimulyani, 2022).

As contemporary society has developed, concerns regarding the detrimental impact on teachers’ physical and mental health, including early mortality and suicide, have increased (Abós et al. 2019; Betoret & Artiga, 2010; Wu et al. 2020). Some studies have found that servant leadership can reduce stress by improving teacher engagement (Osserand et al. 2023). Supporting this view, Qamar et al. (2024) and Gao and Huang (2024) found that servant leadership strengthens psychological resources such as resilience and professional efficacy, which help teachers cope with stress in high-demand contexts. However, according to Wu et al. teachers experience stressors closely related to emotional exhaustion, and surprisingly, servant leadership increases the negative effects of hindrance stressors on emotional exhaustion, especially for teachers exposed to high levels of such stressors(Wu et al. 2020).

Nevertheless, the “black box” connecting teachers’ professional psychological states may be more complex than expected and may not be explained by any single simple mechanism. While few prior studies examining the connection between servant leadership and teachers’ intention to quit their job focused on the direct impact of servant leadership on intention to leave (Chiniara & Bentein, 2016; Zheng et al. 2023), some scholars have explored more deeply the underlying psychological processes and dispositional factors of teachers that activate this effect. They found that servant leadership is negatively related to turnover intentions, with psychological safety mediating the relationship between servant leadership and turnover intentions, while regulatory focus (promotion focus and prevention focus) moderates the relationship between servant leadership and psychological safety (Brohi et al. 2018). According to Zheng et al. emotional labor strategies and surface acting mediate the relationship between servant leadership and teachers’ turnover intentions, while natural expression moderates the relationship between servant leadership and teachers’ turnover intentions (Zheng et al. 2023). Unfortunately, the use of cross-sectional data in both studies limited the ability to establish causal relationships within the proposed models.

A previous study found that the top-down leadership system is the main reason for alienation(Brooks et al. 2008). When the relationship between servant leadership and teacher alienation was examined after considering the premise of supportive school culture, it was found that servant leadership was negatively related to teacher alienation (Polatcan, 2020). This aligns with the findings of Ekinci and Kılıçoğlu (2018), who showed that servant leadership strengthens teacher–community relationships in rural schools, reducing feelings of isolation and disengagement. Thus, there is a proven positive role for servant principals in helping teachers reduce feelings of alienation, such as feelings of meaninglessness, powerlessness, and isolation.

Theme 3: behavioral outcomes

An emphasis on organizational citizenship behaviors, in-role behaviors, and extra-role behaviors was found in the articles collected regarding servant leadership impacting teachers’ behavior’ and most of the publications focused on behavioral results but emphasized the mechanism through mental outcomes. According to some academics, community citizenship behavior and organizational citizenship behavior benefit from servant leadership (Gao & Huang, 2024; Ghalavi & Nastiezaie, 2020; Ghasemy et al. 2022; Hermawan et al. 2023; Hoven et al. 2021; A. Kumar et al. 2022; Mesfin, 2023). Kumar et al. discovered that servant leadership had a greater impact on organizational citizenship behavior than on in-role behavior and that its indirect influence on organizational citizenship behavior through perceived obligation was also greater than its indirect influence on in-role behavior (A. Kumar et al. 2022). By increasing perceived obligation, schools may assist servant leaders in urging teachers to display positive work behaviors in exchange for servant leadership behaviors.

Studies conducted in South Africa by Hoven et al. and Iran’s Ghalavi and Nastiezaie came to the same conclusion: servant leadership influences organizational citizenship behavior both directly and indirectly through psychological empowerment (Ghalavi & Nastiezaie, 2020; Hoven et al. 2021). Gao and Huang (2024) demonstrated that Psychological Capital significantly mediates the relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Hermanto and Srimulyani focused on the extra-role behaviors of teachers and discovered that these behaviors were encouraged when leaders showed genuine concern for their employees and provided a positive role model (Hermanto & Srimulyani, 2022). As a result, they hypothesized that leaders who exhibit servant-leadership behaviors have a significant impact on teachers’ extra-role behaviors since followers have a propensity to behave as their leaders do. However, the contextual components that contribute to this copycat behavior process are not discussed in any further detail.

The advancement of a knowledge-based society and the teaching profession is significantly influenced by the innovative behavior of university teachers (OECD, 2016). Studies have revealed that servant leadership positively influences innovative work behavior, and innovative work behavior can be augmented with the presence of individual ambidexterity (Shailja et al. 2023). Zeng and Xu’s study demonstrated that servant leadership helps instructors adopt creative behaviors, with self-concept serving as the crucial link. While the study’s self-reported statistics on innovative behavior may be biased, and its conclusions may only apply to Chinese university teachers, there is no denying that this topic links leadership with the potential to provide more possibilities for innovative behavior (Zeng & Xu, 2020). Teachers with advanced degrees, expertise in their disciplines, and a desire for self-actualization can demonstrate innovative behavior, which is more valued in contemporary society (Hu et al. 2022).

On the other hand, knowledge hiding is seen to be a hindering factor to innovative behaviors that promote counterproductive work behaviors (He et al. 2021), while servant leadership is a key contributor in moderating the relationship between Organizational Cynicism and Knowledge Hiding (Shailja et al. 2024). However, given the limitations of quantitative study methods, we need to use additional research methodologies to fully understand how servant leadership could help schools overcome knowledge hiding. In addition, this research revealed that insufficient attention has been given to the study of servant leadership’s potential to reduce counterproductive behaviors.

Theme 4: performance

For schools to achieve their organizational goals, leadership stands out as the pivotal element influencing performance (Hennessey, 1998). Servant leadership has emerged as a promising approach in assisting organizations to reach these goals by enhancing strengths, addressing weaknesses, aiding teachers in solving educational challenges, and preparing them to tackle classroom difficulties. Several studies have demonstrated the positive impact of servant leadership on teacher performance and teacher work productivity (Abbas et al. 2021, 2022; Asih et al. 2024; Bayangkari et al. 2024; Gonaim, 2019, 2019; Hermanto & Srimulyani, 2022c; Marais & Govender, 2022; Tusianah et al. 2023).

Moreover, servant leadership has been shown to influence teacher performance through mediating or moderating variables (Hermanto & Srimulyani, 2022; Pratomo & Arifin, 2020), with recent findings indicating that its positive impact on teacher performance occurs through both work engagement and affective commitment, mediated by job satisfaction (Aboramadan et al. 2021). While many studies focus on the teaching process itself, the principles of servant leadership can also be valuable in teacher training by promoting a student-centered educational approach, facilitating the implementation of new pedagogical methods (Eastman et al. 2023), and preparing teachers to overcome STEM-related challenges in schools (El-Kassem, 2019).

Previous research indicates that servant leadership impacts teacher performance through various mechanisms, often moderated by psychological or behavioral factors. Hermanto and Srimulyani used the Teaching Performance Assessment Instrument (TPAI) developed by Swart et al. to explore the relationship between servant leadership and teacher task performance (Hermanto & Srimulyani, 2022b). They found that servant leadership positively influences teacher task performance, either directly or indirectly through work participation, with indirect effects primarily mediated by work participation and extra-role behaviors. Similarly, Bayangkari et al. concluded that the impact of servant leadership on teacher performance is indirectly moderated by organizational commitment (Bayangkari et al. 2024), while Bayangkari et al. argued that servant leadership’s role in teacher performance is mediated through the indirect effect of activity well-being (Bayangkari et al. 2024). However, a study on teachers in private vocational high schools in Jember City found that servant leadership does not have a significant direct effect on performance, which contrasts with other findings (Lutfi Isa et al. 2023).

Given that teaching involves a significant amount of emotional labor (Hargreaves, 2000), the mechanisms influencing teacher performance may indeed be more nuanced and complex. Despite these insights, the efficacy of servant leaders in enhancing teacher performance remains a complex issue. A single quantitative research method may not fully elucidate this process, necessitating a combination of comprehensive performance dimensions and diverse research methods.

Theme 5: harmonious environment

From a societal perspective, leaders should strive to break down the rigid hierarchical barriers of social structures and cultivate an environment of harmony for the comprehensive development of individuals. This concept is closely linked to the opportunities, dignity, safety, and growth of students, as well as the professional development and survival of teachers (Clarence, D. et al. 2021a). The harmony within society is intricately connected to the work carried out within schools, as schools play a crucial role in instilling values in students, preparing them for their integration into society. However, democratic education is currently facing challenges on a global scale, reflecting a broader crisis of democratic legitimacy in many nations (Higham & Djohari, 2018).

Servant leadership is associated with various values and qualities such as humility, effective organizational management, stewardship, courage, collaboration, and fostering a trust and caring workplace environment and harmonious climate (Dahleez & Aboramadan, 2022; Higham & Djohari, 2018; Martin, 2018; Swart et al. 2021, 2022; Walls & Zuckerman, 2023). Empirical evidence further shows that servant leadership promotes such a harmonious climate by enhancing organizational justice and organizational trust, which in turn improve job satisfaction among academic staff (Dahleez & Aboramadan, 2022).

In practice, servant leaders often adopt a solution-focused management style, effectively communicate with teachers, address their needs, involve them in decision-making, handle conflict, and motivate them to work towards shared educational goals (Tusianah et al. 2023). As a result, servant leadership is positively linked to a supportive school culture (S. Kumar & Upadhaya, 2020; Walls & Zuckerman, 2023).

Moreover, servant leadership can cultivate a culture of job expectations that provide resources to enhance work performance, benefiting other social roles such as work-family enrichment when work roles are performed more effectively (S. Kumar & Upadhaya, 2020). It also demonstrates the potential benefits that servant leadership may have for fostering positive, harmonious relationships beyond the workplace.

By fostering an inclusive and open environment that nurtures a school culture akin to a family or brotherhood, servant leadership cultivates opportunities for action and dialog. This approach not only supports the intention to contribute toward sustainability but also facilitates global democratic citizenship, ultimately making society more conducive to long-term development (Dasrimin et al. 2023) (Dahiya, 2022; Higham & Djohari, 2018). The systematic application of servant leadership in education adopts a scientific approach that enhances the benefits of creating a harmonious environment. Emphasizing the harmonizing aspects of servant leadership is thus vital for both education and broader societal benefits. It is also essential to consider the original cultural context of education to maximize servant leadership’s contribution to social harmony. Simply replicating and imitating servant leadership without considering its human-centered core may lead away from achieving sustained social development. Proper harmonization requires a commitment to continuous learning, participation, and reflection, allowing for the full utilization of available resources.

A conceptual framework of the benefits of servant leadership for teachers

Through the analysis of publications and a review of the research, a conceptual framework has been developed, providing recommendations for further research. Figure 5 presents four primary research directions to guide relevant studies on the benefits of servant leadership for teachers. This information assists in identifying new research opportunities that contribute to the strategic success of policymakers and promote effective leadership styles for school administrators. The framework outlines the logical connections that have been explored to substantiate the impact on physical and mental health outcomes, behavioral outcomes, performance, and a harmonious environment.

  1. (1)

    Physical and Mental Health Outcomes—Emphasize the positive effect of servant leadership in boosting teachers’ commitment, self-efficacy, motivation, meaningfulness, psychological capital, psychological safety, career satisfaction, life satisfaction, well-being, and decreasing the detrimental effects of anxiety, stress, emotional exhaustion, emotional labor, alienation, and turnover intentions.

  2. (2)

    Behavioral Outcomes—To comprehend the methods through which servant leaders encourage organizational citizenship behaviors, community citizenship behaviors, service behaviors, helping behaviors, voice behaviors, pro-social behaviors, in-role behaviors, extra-role behaviors, decision-making involvement, innovative behaviors, and decrease teachers’ knowledge hiding.

  3. (3)

    Performance—To investigate the effects of servant leadership on teacher performance and the processes through which these effects emerge.

  4. (4)

    Harmonious Environment – Explore the effects or mechanisms through which servant leaders may assist educators in gaining access to a harmonious environment promoting organizational justice, organizational trust, organizational climate, organizational culture, organizational citizenship, social justice, and resources, and how to benefit society.

Fig. 5
figure 5

A conceptual framework of the benefits of servant leadership for teachers.

Full size image

Discussion

Rather than merely cataloging its observed benefits, this analysis underscores servant leadership as the product of dynamic interactions among psychological enrichment, behavioral empowerment, performance enhancement, and cultural transformation within educational organizations.

On the psychological level, servant leadership functions as a strategic mechanism that enables educators to respond to and alleviate modern occupational stress proactively (Zhang et al. 2023). It reframes leadership focus from reducing adverse outcomes to cultivating inner psychological strengths such as resilience, psychological safety, and a meaningful sense of professional identity. This repositioning elevates servant leadership from a reactive intervention to an intentional and proactive approach to fostering teacher well-being (Turner, 2022).

On the behavioral level, servant leadership does not merely prompt surface-level compliance or passive participation; instead, it authentically empowers teachers and reshapes organizational behavior by fostering collaboration, promoting organizational citizenship behaviors, and encouraging innovative problem-solving (El-Kassem, 2019). Under servant leadership, teachers act as transformative agents who actively reconstruct their organizational environments rather than passively adapting to them.

From a performance standpoint, servant leadership is not an isolated influence but a deeply embedded organizational resource grounded in professional motivation, the development of self-efficacy, and sustained professional growth (Lagasca & Andres, 2018). The interplay between leadership behaviors and teachers’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivations positions servant leadership as a central driver of continuous professional and institutional advancement (Fu et al. 2023).

Organizationally, servant leadership transcends traditional paradigms by cultivating environments rooted in trust, fairness, and shared organizational values. This repositioning elevates servant leadership from a managerial technique to a foundational strategy for nurturing supportive, inclusive, and sustainable educational climates.

Collectively, these insights illustrate that servant leadership is inherently synergistic and multidimensional, simultaneously shaping teachers across psychological, behavioral, performance, and organizational cultural dimensions (Hermanto & Srimulyani, 2022c; Kandasamy et al. 2019; Lagasca & Andres, 2018). This holistic re-interpretation surpasses surface-level empirical observations, offering a richer conceptual foundation to guide both future research and evidence-informed educational leadership practice.

Conclusion

Summary

This systematic review aimed to comprehensively integrate empirical findings regarding how servant leadership benefits teachers in educational settings. Specifically, it sought to address the fragmentation and conceptual ambiguity in existing literature, with focused attention on psychological, behavioral, performance-related, and organizational outcomes. Following a rigorous literature search protocol, 59 peer-reviewed articles published between 2018 and 2024 were retrieved from leading databases (Web of Science and Scopus). The studies were systematically reviewed and categorized based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, followed by structured analysis according to specific outcome dimensions. This methodological approach ensured completeness, transparency, and conceptual integration, enabling the review to directly address the study’s core objective: to clarify the benefits of servant leadership for teachers in educational environments.

First, by synthesizing empirical studies previously scattered across educational levels, cultural contexts, and outcome domains, this review resolved long-standing fragmentation in the field. By integrating 59 studies from diverse countries, school types, and methodologies, it constructs a coherent knowledge base that enhances conceptual clarity and theoretical alignment in servant leadership research in education. This comprehensive synthesis represents a significant advancement over previous reviews that were limited by smaller sample sizes (Ramdan et al. 2024), or focused on specific educational subsectors (Robinson et al. 2018).

Second, this study goes beyond descriptive summaries to provide deep, context-sensitive insights into the operational mechanisms of servant leadership. Unlike Adams et al. (2025), who primarily provided bibliometric mapping of research trends, this study explains how and why servant leadership benefits teachers explicitly as a distinct stakeholder group. It analyzes how servant leadership interacts with psychological, behavioral, and organizational dynamics to generate sustainable benefits for teachers (Anwaar & Jingwei, 2022; Asih et al. 2024; Meilani & Riyanto, 2022). This includes identifying underexamined mediators, such as psychological empowerment, organizational trust, and self-efficacy, and contextual moderators such as coworker support, organizational culture, and perceived risk.

Third, the development of a structured conceptual framework integrates existing evidence by mapping multi-level pathways between servant leadership behaviors and teacher outcomes. This framework organizes the benefits into five distinct but interrelated themes (model and scale development, physical and mental health outcomes, behavioral outcomes, performance, and harmonious environment), providing a more comprehensive theoretical structure than previous fragmented approaches. This framework not only illustrates how theoretical principles translate into practice but also offers a roadmap for empirical validation and practical application in future research. By clarifying actionable servant leadership behaviors and organizational conditions that promote teacher well-being, engagement, and performance, it bridges the gap between theory and real-world educational leadership.

Fourth, through synthesizing evidence from diverse geographical and cultural contexts across Asia, Europe, North America, and Africa, this review enhances the generalizability of findings beyond the predominantly Western perspectives of earlier reviews. By doing so, this review not only advances theoretical understanding but also provides actionable insights for educational leaders seeking to implement servant leadership practices that genuinely benefit their teaching staff.

Significance and implications

This study not only reinforces the theoretical foundations of servant leadership in education but also provides researchers, school leaders, and policymakers with a clear, evidence-based understanding of how servant leadership can address urgent challenges in contemporary schooling.

By illuminating how servant leadership interacts with educator-specific constructs—such as psychological capital, emotional labor, pedagogical resilience, and organizational citizenship behavior—this review expands the explanatory power of existing models. It challenges conventional, hierarchical leadership paradigms by positioning teachers not merely as passive recipients of leadership, but as psychologically engaged co-constructors of school culture and improvement (Khatri et al. 2021).

Furthermore, the conceptual framework developed from empirical synthesis moves the field beyond fragmented case studies and offers a coherent, multi-level lens for interpreting how servant leadership functions in schools. This integration clarifies leadership impact pathways and articulates a contextually sensitive servant leadership theory—one that accommodates the emotional, professional, and moral dimensions shaping educational work.

Practically, this review offers actionable insights for school leaders and policymakers navigating increasing burnout, teacher attrition, and performance pressures. By emphasizing the relational and developmental dimensions of servant leadership, it advocates for a leadership approach that is both ethically grounded and strategically effective. Educational leaders are encouraged to prioritize teacher well-being, promote inclusive decision-making, and foster cultures of trust and mutual respect (Liden et al. 2014; Upadhyay, 2024). Policymakers may also draw on these findings to incorporate servant leadership principles into leadership development programs, assessment frameworks, and school improvement initiatives—aligning leadership practice with sustainable, teacher-centered institutional growth (Swart et al. 2022).

In short, this review repositions servant leadership not as an aspirational ideal but as a viable, evidence-informed model for reimagining how leadership can drive teacher flourishing and organizational vitality in today’s complex educational landscape.

Limitations and future research directions

This study’s literature search was restricted to English-language, peer-reviewed publications indexed in Web of Science and Scopus during 2018 to April 2024. While this approach helped ensure consistency in indexing and peer review, it may have excluded relevant insights from non-English sources, regional journals, and gray literature, potentially limiting the cultural and contextual diversity of the evidence base (Serenko & Bontis, 2013). This methodological boundary means the findings may disproportionately reflect English-language academic discourses, potentially overlooking leadership dynamics in non-English-speaking or underrepresented education systems. Future research should address this limitation by adopting multilingual search strategies and including regionally published studies to capture a more globally representative understanding of servant leadership. Comparative cross-cultural studies are particularly needed to explore how servant leadership manifests and functions across different national, institutional, and socio-cultural contexts, helping distinguish between universally relevant leadership principles and those that are context-dependent (Hale & Fields, 2007).

The proposed conceptual framework, while grounded in current empirical studies and organized into five distinct themes, remains preliminary and untested in real-world educational settings. This limitation presents opportunities for future empirical investigation. Researchers should operationalize and validate this framework using advanced statistical methods such as structural equation modeling or multi-level analysis across various educational contexts. Because many included studies relied on cross-sectional designs and self-reported measures, a cumulative quantitative synthesis (e.g., meta-analysis) was not feasible. Additionally, longitudinal studies are needed to examine the sustainability and long-term effects of servant leadership benefits, moving beyond predominantly cross-sectional evidence identified in current literature.

This review primarily examined teachers as recipients of servant leadership, with relatively limited attention to their potential role as practitioners of servant leadership within classrooms and school communities. This perspective may overlook the possibility that teachers themselves model and enact servant leadership behaviors, extending their impact beyond administrative roles to classroom instruction and peer relationships (Gultekin & Dougherty, 2021; Joseph Jeyaraj & Gandolfi, 2020; Lagasca & Andres, 2018). Future studies should adopt a bi-directional perspective that examines both how teachers benefit from and practice servant leadership. Furthermore, this review identified limited research on how servant leadership interacts with broader institutional forces such as education policy reforms, performance-based accountability, and technological transformations. Future investigations should explore how servant leadership mediates or moderates the effects of these macro-level forces on teacher resilience, autonomy, and professional identity, embedding servant leadership within dynamic systemic contexts to extend its theoretical reach and generate more actionable insights.

Addressing these limitations and pursuing the outlined research directions may enhance both the precision and generalizability of servant leadership research in education and may improve its capacity to respond to complex contemporary educational challenges. Educational leaders and policymakers are encouraged to consider these research gaps when designing leadership training programs, institutional policies, and cross-cultural collaboration initiatives to ensure contextually responsive and evidence-based leadership practices. The integration of diverse methodological approaches, cultural perspectives, and stakeholder viewpoints will ultimately contribute to a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of how servant leadership can effectively benefit teachers across varied educational contexts.