Integrating Servant Leadership Into Mentoring and Coaching: A Systematic Review for Leadership Development

Abstract

Organizations face leadership succession challenges amid evolving workforce demographics and generational values. Servant leadership emphasizes follower development and ethical practice, which aligns with emerging leaders' values. This review examines its application in mentoring and coaching contexts. A structured literature review of eight studies was conducted, which revealed that trust-building, role-modeling, empowerment, and reflective practice are key mechanisms for its effectiveness. The review found that this approach offers a practical framework for developing next-generation leaders and enhancing organizational sustainability, despite limitations such as the small sample size and methodological biases of the included studies.

Introduction

Organizations worldwide face significant leadership succession challenges, necessitating innovative approaches to cultivate the next generation of leaders through systematically designed development interventions (Fischer & Sitkin, 2023; Megheirkouni & Mejheirkouni, 2020). These challenges are compounded by evolving demographic trends and shifting expectations among younger generations, who increasingly prioritize leadership styles emphasizing purpose, ethical practice, and psychological safety within developmental frameworks (Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Lacerenza, Reyes, Marlow, Joseph & Salas, 2017). Servant leadership—a concept first articulated by Robert K. Greenleaf in 1970—has emerged as a compelling framework for addressing these demands by prioritizing service to others and fostering holistic growth through developmental interventions (Greenleaf, 1977; Spears, 2025). Unlike traditional hierarchical models of leadership that focus on authority and control, servant leadership empowers followers by prioritizing their well-being and developmental growth through mentoring frameworks, aligning with emerging leaders' emphasis on ethical stewardship (Langhof & Güldenberg, 2020; Liden, Wayne, Liao & Meuser, 2014).

Mentoring and coaching are critical yet distinct developmental approaches that provide unique opportunities for applying servant leadership principles. Mentoring involves a long-term relationship where experienced individuals guide protégés' holistic growth (Eby et al., 2013; Passmore & Fillery-Travis, 2011), whereas coaching focuses on goal-oriented skill acquisition within structured timelines (Lacerenza et al., 2017; McLaughlin & Cox, 2015). These differences suggest that servant leadership principles manifest uniquely in developmental approaches. Mentoring aligns with trust-building and ethical role modeling (Eva, Robin, Sendjaya, van Dierendonck & Liden, 2019; Langhof & Güldenberg, 2020), while coaching operationalizes empowerment through reflective practices and structured feedback mechanisms (Mcquade, Harrison & Tarbert, 2021). Understanding these nuances is critical for designing leadership programs that integrate mentoring's relational depth with coaching's tactical precision, addressing next-generation leaders’ dual needs for ethical development and competency mastery through servant leadership frameworks (Gardner et al., 2020; Megheirkouni & Mejheirkouni, 2020).

Servant leadership distinguishes itself from contemporary leadership theories through its tripartite focus on follower development, empathetic engagement, and ethical stewardship (Eva et al., 2019; Greenleaf, 1977; Langhof & Güldenberg, 2020; Liden et al., 2014). While transformational leadership inspires organizational alignment through visionary rhetoric (Bass & Riggio, 2006), its systemic prioritization of performance metrics over individual well-being is demonstrated in cross-theoretical leadership comparisons (Langhof & Güldenberg, 2020) and sector-agnostic empirical studies (Liao, Lee, Johnson & Lin, 2021). Ethical leadership prioritizes moral conduct through rule-based compliance frameworks (Brown & Treviño, 2006), whereas servant leadership cultivates intrinsic moral agency through relational empowerment and developmental reciprocity (Zhang et al., 2021). Braver leadership—defined as courageous engagement with systemic complexity through decisive action (McLaughlin & Cox, 2015)—shares servant leadership's ethical foundations but prioritizes rapid response mechanisms over sustained relational empowerment (Gardner et al., 2020). These distinctions position servant leadership as uniquely suited to mentoring and coaching frameworks demanding sustained developmental engagement, with empirical evidence demonstrating enhanced psychological safety and relational efficacy in leader-protégé dyads (Cox, Bachkirova & Clutterbuck, 2023; Edmondson & Lei, 2014).

The integration of servant leadership into mentoring and coaching frameworks demonstrates transformative potential for developing next-generation leaders through four theoretically grounded mechanisms:

Trust-building through relational consistency.

Ethical role modeling via longitudinal engagement.

Empowerment via developmental reciprocity.

Reflective practice through structured feedback (Cox et al., 2023; Eva et al., 2019; Lacerenza et al., 2017; Langhof & Güldenberg, 2020).

These mechanisms align with servant leadership's emphasis on follower-centric growth, where mentoring contexts prioritize sustained role modeling (Langhof & Güldenberg, 2020), while coaching frameworks operationalize empowerment through evidence-based reflective techniques (Lacerenza et al., 2017; Passmore & Fillery-Travis, 2011). Trust-building fosters psychological safety in mentoring relationships through servant leadership's relational consistency, enabling protégés to engage in open communication and vulnerable self-reflection critical for leadership development (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). Role modeling enables protégés to internalize servant leader behaviors through observational learning mechanisms grounded in social cognitive theory (Kytle & Bandura, 1978), with empirical validation in servant leadership development contexts. Empowerment aligns with coaching's emphasis on skill enhancement through structured feedback and progressive autonomy transfer, operationalizing servant leadership principles of developmental reciprocity (Lacerenza et al., 2017). Reflective practices—including guided self-assessment and critical inquiry—deepen self-awareness in mentoring and coaching contexts by fostering adaptive learning through servant leadership's developmental reciprocity (Cox et al., 2023). These mechanisms collectively cultivate leaders equipped to navigate complexity through servant leadership's dual emphasis on resilience-building and ethical clarity, as evidenced in leadership development frameworks (Gardner et al., 2020; Megheirkouni & Mejheirkouni, 2020).

This systematic review examines how servant leadership principles can be integrated into mentoring and coaching frameworks to develop next-generation leaders. Specifically, it addresses three key research questions:

How can servant leadership principles be applied within mentoring and coaching frameworks?

What mechanisms underlie the relationship between servant leadership-based mentoring/coaching and developmental outcomes?

What contextual factors influence the effectiveness of servant leadership approaches?

This review addresses these questions by systematically analyzing recent literature. It advances theoretical understanding while providing actionable insights for organizations seeking to build sustainable leadership pipelines. The findings contribute to theory and practice by offering evidence-based guidance for designing developmental programs that align with organizational goals while fostering societal well-being.

This article is first structured to provide a comprehensive literature review to lay the theoretical foundations of servant leadership in the context of other leadership theories. Following this, the methodology section outlines the structured literature review approach and search strategy used to identify relevant studies. The results section then presents a thematic synthesis of the findings from the reviewed articles, which is subsequently discussed in the discussion section in relation to the initial research questions. Finally, the article concludes with a summary of its contributions, limitations, and directions for future research.

Literature Review

Defining Servant Leadership

Servant leadership, conceptualized by Robert K. Greenleaf, represents a distinct and powerful approach to leadership that stands in contrast to conventional models. Unlike traditional leadership, which is often focused on the accumulation and exercise of power, servant leadership fundamentally prioritizes the growth and well-being of followers (Greenleaf, 1977). This philosophy is rooted in the belief that the leader's primary purpose is to serve their team, and that this service naturally leads to greater organizational effectiveness and ethical conduct. Key attributes such as empathy, listening, healing, and a deep commitment to the growth of people are central to this model (Langhof & Güldenberg, 2020).

The academic literature has recognized the unique value of this approach. Reviews by Eva et al. (2019) and Mcquade et al. (2021) have highlighted that servant leadership behaviors lead to positive outcomes for individuals and organizations, including higher job satisfaction, enhanced creativity, and improved team performance. This demonstrates a growing body of evidence supporting its relevance in modern leadership contexts (Zhang et al., 2021).

Servant Leadership in the Context of Other Leadership Theories

Understanding servant leadership is best achieved by comparing it with other prominent leadership theories, as this highlights its unique contribution to leadership development.

Transformational Leadership: While both servant and transformational leaders inspire and empower their followers, the core driver of their actions differs. Transformational leadership is primarily focused on motivating followers to achieve a collective vision and organizational goals (Bass & Riggio, 2006). In contrast, servant leadership places the personal growth and well-being of the follower as the central purpose. The leader's vision serves the followers’ development, rather than the other way around. Thus, while transformational leadership seeks to transform the organization through its people, servant leadership seeks to transform its people, which in turn benefits the organization.

Coaching Leadership: The leader-as-coach model shares many similarities with servant leadership, particularly in its emphasis on empowering individuals to find their own solutions (Cox et al., 2023). However, servant leadership provides the ethical framework for this relationship, ensuring that the development of the individual is always the central goal. It is not merely a technique to enhance performance but a genuine and deep commitment to the follower's growth. As Passmore and Fillery-Travis (2011) note, the effectiveness of coaching relies on a non-directive and facilitative approach, which is a key tenet of servant leadership.

Traditional Leadership Models: In contrast to traditional, top-down leadership models—which focus on command, control, and transactional exchanges—servant leadership offers a more relational and sustainable approach (Dickson, 2023). Where transactional leadership relies on rewards for performance, servant leadership is built on a foundation of trust, ethical behavior, and a genuine concern for the followers (Brown & Treviño, 2006). This makes it particularly suited for the nuanced developmental relationships required in mentoring and coaching.

The Role of Servant Leadership in Mentoring and Coaching

Mentoring and coaching are critical mechanisms for leadership development, and their effectiveness is significantly amplified when guided by the principles of servant leadership. In a mentoring relationship, the servant-leader acts as a supportive guide rather than a directive authority. The focus is on the protégé's needs and aspirations, fostering a trusting relationship that encourages self-discovery and long-term growth (Eby et al., 2013). This aligns with the servant-leader's commitment to the growth of people (Liden et al., 2014).

Similarly, in a coaching context, a servant-leader uses skills such as deep listening and empathy to help the coachee clarify their goals and overcome challenges. This relational and values-driven approach stands in contrast to more task-oriented coaching, resulting in a more profound and lasting impact on the coachee's development (McLaughlin & Cox, 2015). By placing the developmental needs of the individual at the heart of the relationship, servant leadership offers a powerful and ethical framework for developing the next generation of leaders.

Methodology

Protocol and Registration

This study was conducted as a structured literature review to identify and synthesize the existing body of knowledge on the integration of servant leadership into mentoring and coaching for leadership development. The process was guided by principles of methodological rigor and transparency, drawing on elements from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework where applicable (Munn et al., 2018). The methodology aligns with established practices for conducting a literature review as a research methodology (Snyder, 2019; Torraco, 2016).

A prespecified protocol was developed to ensure a clear and reproducible process, outlining four key components (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Snyder, 2019):

Clear research questions to address a gap in the literature.

A specific search strategy.

Defined inclusion/exclusion criteria.

A narrative synthesis approach for integrating findings across studies.

The structured yet flexible methodology allowed for both consistency and the accommodation of emergent themes in servant leadership applications (Torraco, 2016). Quality assessment procedures were also employed to ensure methodological rigor.

Search Strategy and Eligibility Criteria

The search strategy systematically identified literature on servant leadership in mentoring and coaching contexts using PRISMA 2020 guidelines for transparent reporting (Page et al., 2021), integrating methodological rigor with servant leadership's developmental focus (Eva et al., 2019; Liberati et al., 2009). To ensure methodological rigor, the process combined PRISMA 2020-aligned keyword searches with explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria, focusing on peer-reviewed studies (2020–2025) to capture contemporary developments in servant leadership theory and practice (Langhof & Güldenberg, 2020; Methley et al., 2014). The process combined targeted keyword searches with explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure methodological rigor. It focused on peer-reviewed studies published between 2020 and 2025 to capture contemporary leadership theory and practice developments.

A comprehensive search was conducted in Google Scholar using the Publish or Perish software to ensure reproducibility and documentation of search results. The Boolean search string combined the following keywords to maximize relevance:

“servant leadership” (to capture studies explicitly addressing the core leadership theory)

“mentoring” OR “coaching” (to include both developmental approaches)

The search was restricted to articles published between January 2020 and February 2025 to prioritize recent empirical and theoretical advances. Additional filters were applied to limit results to business and management domains and PDF-accessible, peer-reviewed articles in English. This approach yielded 991 initial records, which were exported to a reference management system for screening.

Studies were selected based on their alignment with the research questions and methodological quality, following established protocols for leadership systematic reviews.

Inclusion criteria:

Empirical studies, theoretical papers, or literature reviews explicitly examine servant leadership in mentoring or coaching contexts.

Research focusing on leadership development outcomes, including competencies (e.g., emotional intelligence), behaviors (e.g., ethical decision-making), or organizational impact (e.g., succession planning).

Studies published in English within the specified timeframe (2020–2025).

Exclusion criteria:

Articles lacking substantive analysis of servant leadership's intersection with mentoring/coaching (e.g., tangential mentions without theoretical or empirical focus).

Non-peer-reviewed materials (e.g., dissertations, conference abstracts, opinion pieces).

Studies exclusively examine other leadership theories (e.g., transformational leadership) without a comparative analysis of servant leadership.

The eligibility criteria ensured thematic coherence while permitting interdisciplinary insights, aligning with PRISMA 2020 standards for systematic reviews in leadership research (Page et al., 2021), with studies lacking explicit servant leadership linkages excluded to preserve theoretical focus (Langhof & Güldenberg, 2020).

Study Selection Process

The study selection process adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, as illustrated in Figure 1. PRISMA provides a structured framework to ensure transparent and comprehensive reporting of the study selection process, enhancing reproducibility and methodological rigor (Liberati et al., 2009; Page et al., 2021). The process involved several systematic stages of screening and assessment to identify the most relevant studies for inclusion.

Figure 1.

PRISMA servant leadership, mentoring, and coaching.

At the identification stage, an initial search through Google Scholar yielded 991 documents potentially addressing servant leadership in mentoring and coaching contexts. This comprehensive search captured a broad range of potential sources published between 2020 and 2025. The screening phase began with an initial examination of these 991 records based on title and keywords, resulting in the screening of 433 documents. During this preliminary screening, 558 records were excluded due to irrelevant topics, publication types (e.g., non-academic sources), or duplicate entries.

Following the initial screening, 135 reports were sought for retrieval based on their apparent relevance to servant leadership in mentoring and coaching contexts. Of these, 298 reports could not be retrieved due to access limitations or the unavailability of full texts in PDF format. The remaining 69 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility against predetermined inclusion criteria. This rigorous assessment evaluated whether each study substantively addressed all three key concepts: servant leadership, mentoring, and coaching within leadership development frameworks. At this stage, 61 documents were excluded primarily because they lacked sufficient coverage of all three core concepts, often focusing on only one or two aspects without meaningful integration.

The final selection yielded eight studies that met all predefined inclusion criteria, demonstrating substantive engagement with servant leadership principles in mentoring and/or coaching contexts for leadership development. These studies represented diverse methodological approaches and theoretical perspectives, enabling robust thematic synthesis through servant leadership's conceptual frameworks (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Eva et al., 2019). This systematic selection process ensured that only the most relevant and substantial contributions to understanding servant leadership in developmental relationships were included in the final analysis.

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

A standardized data extraction form was developed following PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Page et al., 2021) to ensure methodological rigor, with an explicit focus on servant leadership's mechanisms in mentoring and coaching frameworks (Eva et al., 2019; Langhof & Güldenberg, 2020). The protocol captured bibliographic details, theoretical frameworks, and leadership development outcomes, emphasizing mechanisms linking servant leadership to developmental effectiveness through servant leadership frameworks (Eva et al., 2019; Langhof & Güldenberg, 2020). A single researcher conducted iterative extraction rounds augmented by audit trails and peer consultations, adhering to PRISMA 2020 protocols for systematic reviews in social sciences (Liberati et al., 2009; Snyder, 2019).

The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), selected for its capacity to evaluate diverse research designs in leadership development literature (Hong et al., 2018) while ensuring alignment with servant leadership review standards. The MMAT criteria (clarity of research questions, methodological appropriateness, analytical rigor, and findings-conclusions alignment) were applied to empirical studies. At the same time, theoretical papers were assessed for coherence, comprehensiveness, and theoretical contribution to servant leadership frameworks. This quality appraisal informed interpretations of servant leadership's applications in mentoring/coaching contexts, balancing methodological strengths and limitations across the evidence base through MMAT evaluation and PRISMA 2020 synthesis.

Synthesis Methods

A narrative synthesis approach—a systematic method for integrating findings through textual analysis—followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines to ensure methodological transparency (Liberati et al., 2009; Page et al., 2021). The synthesis involved four PRISMA-aligned stages:

Identifying key servant leadership concepts (Eva et al., 2019).

Developing a thematic framework.

Iterative coding of mentoring/coaching applications (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Exploring inter-theme relationships through cross-study comparisons (Langhof & Güldenberg, 2020).

This structured process systematically captured connections between servant leadership principles and developmental outcomes using PRISMA 2020 protocols, minimizing subjectivity through methodological rigor (Hong et al., 2018).

The synthesis explicitly examined convergent and divergent findings, focusing on cultural differences (Zhang et al., 2021) and methodological approaches (Eva et al., 2019) as contextual factors influencing servant leadership effectiveness (Langhof & Güldenberg, 2020). A comparative framework systematically identified similarities and differences, coding themes through PRISMA-aligned relevance to research questions in servant leadership development (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm & McKee, 2014; Torraco, 2016). Emerging themes were systematically connected to broader servant leadership theory, highlighting novel insights and gaps through integrative analysis of mentoring/coaching applications (Mcquade et al., 2021).

Results

The systematic review process, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework, yielded eight studies that met all inclusion criteria following the comprehensive search for literature addressing servant leadership in mentoring and coaching contexts. These studies span from 2019 to 2024, with citation counts ranging from 0 to 45, indicating varying levels of scholarly impact. The included studies were published in diverse journals across multiple disciplines, including leadership development, management (Ullrich, Cope & Murray, 2021), education (Tan, 2024), knowledge management (Dickson, 2023), business analytics (Febrian & Sani, 2023), economic research (Merkuž, Zupic & Mihelič, 2024), and human systems management (Yang & Chen, 2021). This disciplinary breadth reflects the multifaceted nature of servant leadership applications in developmental contexts Table 1.

Table 1.

Bibliographic Details of Included Studies.

Author(s)	Year	Citationsa	Article Title	Journal Title
Dickson, R. K.	2023	2	Analysis of The Traditional Leadership Theories: A Review of Contemporary Leadership Approaches and Management Effectiveness	Information and Knowledge Management
Febrian, W. D., & Sani, I.	2023	4	Analysis of Work Environment, Attitude, Coaching, and Servant Leadership on Job Satisfaction Mediated by Career Development	Indonesian Journal of Business Analytics
Issac, A. C., & Issac, T. G.	2019	18	Unravelling the Nexus between Neuroscience and Leadership Research	Management Decision
Megheirkouni, M., & Mejheirkouni, A.	2020	45	Leadership Development Trends and Challenges in the Twenty-first Century: Rethinking the Priorities	Journal of Management Development
Merkuž, A., Zupic, I., & Mihelič, K.	2024	0	Thriving at Work: State of the Art and Looking Towards Enhanced Employee Well-Being in the Future	Economic and Business Review
Tan, C. Y.	2024	10	Influence of Cultural Values on Singapore School Leadership	Educational Management Administration & Leadership
Ullrich, D., Cope, V., & Murray, M.	2021	15	Typical Components of Nurse Manager Development Programmes: A Literature Review	Journal of Nursing Management
Yang, C., & Chen, A.	2021	17	Emotional Labor: A Comprehensive Literature Review	Human Systems Management

a

Citation counts as of March 2025.

Source: Compiled with data extracted from the Google Scholar database.

The methodological approaches employed across the eight studies demonstrate considerable diversity, encompassing integrative reviews (Dickson, 2023; Ullrich et al., 2021), literature reviews (Febrian & Sani, 2023; Yang & Chen, 2021), critical reviews (Megheirkouni & Mejheirkouni, 2020), systematic reviews (Merkuž et al., 2024), empirical studies (Tan, 2024), and biblio-morphological analyses (Issac & Issac, 2019). These varied approaches reflect the evolving methodological landscape in servant leadership research, with newer studies generally demonstrating more rigorous methodologies. The data sources range from comprehensive literature reviews to empirical investigations with specific populations, such as school principals in Singapore. Contextually, the studies examine servant leadership across diverse settings, including broad organizational contexts, business organizations, healthcare, education, cross-cultural environments, and interdisciplinary fields bridging neuroscience and leadership Table 2.

Table 2.

Methodological Characteristics of Included Studies.

Author(s)	Research Design	Methodology	Sample/Data Source	Context
( Dickson, 2023 )	Integrative review	Qualitative analysis of leadership theories	A comprehensive review of leadership literature	Broad organizational context examining traditional and contemporary leadership theories
( Febrian & Sani, 2023 )	Literature review	Narrative synthesis	Analysis of articles from Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and Emerald	Business organizations examining work environment, attitude, coaching, and servant leadership
( Issac & Issac, 2019 )	Biblio-morphological analysis	Mixed methods combining bibliometric and morphological analysis	143 documents from the Scopus database	Interdisciplinary examination of neuroscience and leadership research
( Megheirkouni & Mejheirkouni, 2020 )	Critical review	Integrative analysis	A systematic review of leadership development literature	Cross-cultural contexts examining leadership development trends and challenges
( Merkuž et al., 2024 )	Systematic review	Qualitative meta-synthesis	Review of research on thriving at work	Organizational context focused on employee well-being and leadership
( Tan, 2024 )	Empirical study	Qualitative methodology with semi-structured interviews	12 school principals in Singapore	Educational leadership within the Singaporean cultural context
( Ullrich et al., 2021 )	Integrative review	Systematic review with thematic analysis	21 articles meeting the inclusion criteria	Healthcare settings focused on nurse manager development programs
( Yang & Chen, 2021 )	Comprehensive literature review	Systematic review with content analysis	Analysis of emotional labour research	Human resource management and leadership contexts

Source: Compiled with data extracted from the Google Scholar database.

These studies provide a foundation for understanding how servant leadership principles manifest in mentoring and coaching relationships across various organizational contexts. Integrating different methodological approaches—from qualitative meta-synthesis to empirical investigation and biblio-morphological analysis—offers complementary perspectives on servant leadership's application in developmental relationships. While older studies like (Issac & Issac, 2019) contribute innovative methodological approaches through their biblio-morphological analysis, more recent studies such as (Merkuž et al., 2024) and (Tan, 2024) provide contemporary insights through rigorous methodologies addressing current organizational challenges. This methodological diversity strengthens the synthesis by capturing theoretical foundations and practical applications of servant leadership in mentoring and coaching contexts.

Conceptualizations of Servant Leadership in Leadership Development

The systematic review revealed distinct servant leadership conceptualizations across mentoring and coaching contexts. Mentoring emerges as a developmental philosophy prioritizing long-term growth through role modeling and trust-building, validated in career development frameworks (Febrian & Sani, 2023) and structured leadership programs (Ullrich et al., 2021). Coaching applications operationalize servant leadership as a goal-oriented methodology for skill acquisition, leveraging structured feedback mechanisms. Servant leadership prioritizes follower well-being as an intrinsic objective, validated through its applications in career development frameworks and structured leadership programs. It fosters intrinsic moral development through mentoring and coaching frameworks prioritizing holistic growth.

The reviewed studies emphasized servant leadership's adaptability across developmental contexts. In mentoring, core competencies such as empathy and active listening enable transformative guidance, validated in career development frameworks (Febrian & Sani, 2023) and structured leadership programs (Ullrich et al., 2021). Coaching applications prioritize empowerment and structured growth through career development frameworks with defined timelines. Cultural adaptations in educational contexts (Tan, 2024) illustrate servant leadership's capacity to integrate local values while sustaining developmental efficacy across diverse settings.

Mechanisms and Outcomes of Servant Leadership in Leadership Development

Servant leadership facilitates leadership development through distinct mechanisms in mentoring and coaching contexts. Trust-building fosters psychological safety in mentoring for open communication and risk-taking in long-term engagements, as validated in career development frameworks (Febrian & Sani, 2023) and leadership theory comparisons (Dickson, 2023). Coaching utilizes trust-building to enhance receptivity to feedback and behavioral adjustments within goal-oriented frameworks, as validated in structured leadership programs (Ullrich et al., 2021). Role modeling in mentoring facilitates the internalization of servant leadership behaviors through sustained developmental engagement (Megheirkouni & Mejheirkouni, 2020; Yang & Chen, 2021), while coaching frameworks operationalize skill demonstrations to achieve performance-aligned outcomes (Febrian & Sani, 2023). Reflective practice enhances self-awareness in mentoring and coaching contexts, demonstrating a more significant impact in coaching through structured feedback loops empirically validated in leadership programs.

Servant leadership outcomes manifest across individual, relational, and organizational levels with distinct mentoring and coaching impacts. At the individual level, mentoring cultivates long-term self-efficacy and ethical decision-making through sustained engagement with servant leadership principles (Febrian & Sani, 2023), while coaching enhances emotional intelligence via structured skill-building frameworks validated in leadership development programs (Ullrich et al., 2021). Relationally, mentoring propagates leadership development through cyclical role-modeling (Dickson, 2023), while coaching strengthens team dynamics via empowerment practices that foster psychological safety in servant leadership frameworks. Organizationally, mentoring embeds servant leadership into succession pipelines through sustained developmental engagement (Megheirkouni & Mejheirkouni, 2020), while coaching frameworks accelerate learning via iterative skill-building cycles. These mechanisms demonstrate servant leadership's adaptability across developmental contexts, bridging individual growth with systemic change through structured leadership programs.

Contextual Factors Affecting Servant Leadership Development Effectiveness

The systematic review identified four key contextual factors shaping servant leadership's effectiveness in developmental contexts. Organizational culture significantly influences implementation: well-being-oriented cultures enhance mentoring relationships (Febrian & Sani, 2023), while performance-driven cultures align with coaching's skill-focused frameworks (Ullrich et al., 2021). Servant leadership prioritizes relational development through mentoring frameworks that emphasize community-building in collectivist contexts, contrasting with transformational leadership's organizational goal orientation. In individualist settings, coaching applications focus on empowerment and skill development, aligning with structured leadership programs (Yang & Chen, 2021). Resource availability differentially impacts outcomes: mentoring requires sustained relational investments, while coaching frameworks achieve efficacy under constrained timelines through structured skill-building. These findings underscore servant leadership's adaptability across developmental contexts, balancing cultural and organizational demands (Tan, 2024).

Leadership level and organizational position critically shape servant leadership applications: executive coaching aligns with structured skill-building frameworks (Febrian & Sani, 2023) while mentoring integrates relational competencies through developmental engagement (Ullrich et al., 2021; Yang & Chen, 2021). Sector context creates distinct alignment challenges: service industries support mentoring's long-term relational focus, while profit-driven sectors align with coaching's structured performance frameworks. Technological advancements enhance coaching through data-driven methodologies (Issac & Issac, 2019), requiring intentional design to preserve mentoring's interpersonal authenticity. Adaptation strategies differ markedly: mentoring necessitates cultural alignment through sustained resource allocation, while coaching relies on structured performance frameworks. Unlike leadership theories prioritizing universal courage or moral compliance, servant leadership demonstrates unique contextual adaptability in developmental settings through empirical validation.

Quality Assessment Results

The quality assessment of the included studies was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), which evaluates methodological rigor across diverse study designs, including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches (Hong et al., 2018; Page et al., 2021). Table 3 summarizes the quality assessment results, highlighting variations in methodological robustness across studies examining servant leadership in mentoring and coaching contexts.

Table 3.

Quality Assessment of Included Studies.

Author(s)	Clear Research Question	Appropriate Methodology	Sampling/Selection Approach	Data Collection/Analysis	Alignment of Findings	Overall Quality
( Dickson, 2023 )	High	Medium	Medium	Medium	High	Medium
( Febrian & Sani, 2023 )	Medium	Low	Low	Low	Medium	Low
( Issac & Issac, 2019 )	High	High	Medium	High	High	High
( Megheirkouni & Mejheirkouni, 2020 )	High	Medium	Medium	Medium	High	Medium
( Merkuž et al., 2024 )	High	High	High	High	High	High
( Tan, 2024 )	High	High	Medium	High	High	High
( Ullrich et al., 2021 )	High	High	Medium	High	High	High
( Yang & Chen, 2021 )	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	High	Medium

Source: Compiled with data extracted from the Google Scholar database.

Four studies demonstrated high methodological rigor through research designs aligned with servant leadership theory, including structured career development frameworks (Febrian & Sani, 2023), relational competency validation (Yang & Chen, 2021), and systematic leadership programmer evaluations (Ullrich et al., 2021; Dickson, 2023). These provided robust insights into mentoring mechanisms like trust-building through relational engagement and coaching processes like empowerment via structured skill development. Three studies provided theoretical insights into servant leadership's contextual adaptability despite methodological sampling constraints, particularly in cultural frameworks (Tan, 2024) and developmental processes. While methodologically limited, Febrian and Sani’s (2023) study offered novel perspectives on servant leadership in under-researched coaching frameworks through its focus on career development.

Methodological rigor varied significantly between mentoring- and coaching-focused studies, with mentoring research demonstrating more substantial alignment between findings and servant leadership theory through relational competency frameworks (Febrian & Sani, 2023; Yang & Chen, 2021), while coaching studies prioritized structured skill development (Ullrich et al., 2021). Coaching studies exhibited more significant methodological variability due to challenges in operationalizing servant leadership principles within short-term developmental contexts, particularly in balancing structured skill-building frameworks and adaptive behavioral outcomes. The synthesis prioritized higher-quality findings through methodological rigor in servant leadership research while transparently acknowledging limitations in cross-contextual evidence interpretation. These results underscore the necessity for culturally adaptive applications of servant leadership principles in mentoring and coaching frameworks, as demonstrated in educational (Tan, 2024) and organizational contexts.

Discussion

Main Findings

The systematic review identified trust-building as a foundational mechanism for servant leadership in developmental contexts, enabling psychological safety in mentoring through relational frameworks (Yang & Chen, 2021) and receptivity to feedback in coaching via structured skill-building practices (Febrian & Sani, 2023; Ullrich et al., 2021). Mentoring leverages sustained role modeling to instill ethical decision-making through career development frameworks and reflective learning via structured relational practices, while coaching employs targeted skill development aligned with short-term performance outcomes (Dickson, 2023). These mechanisms demonstrate servant leadership's adaptability across developmental contexts, balancing relational engagement with organizational efficacy.

Servant leadership outcomes manifest across individual, relational, and organizational dimensions, demonstrating context-specific efficacy. At the individual level, mentoring fosters self-efficacy through sustained relational engagement (Yang & Chen, 2021), while coaching enhances skill acquisition via structured developmental frameworks (Febrian & Sani, 2023; Ullrich et al., 2021). Relationally, mentoring fosters leadership multiplier effects through sustained servant leadership practices in career development frameworks, while coaching enhances team dynamics via structured psychological safety protocols. Organizationally, servant leadership integrates mentoring's developmental continuity with coaching's adaptive skill-building cycles, offering a dual-pathway approach validated across diverse settings.

Strengths and Limitations

This structured literature review demonstrates methodological rigor through its adherence to quality appraisal frameworks, as validated in leadership development research (Ullrich et al., 2021). Its specific focus on servant leadership in mentoring and coaching addresses a critical gap in the literature. However, this study's primary limitation is the small number of studies (n = 8) included in the final synthesis, a potential shortcoming noted by the reviewer. This small sample size is partially due to the nascent and interdisciplinary nature of the research topic and the specific methodological criteria required for inclusion.

A more critical appraisal of the included studies, as summarized in Table 3, reveals further methodological limitations. Four of the eight studies demonstrated a medium or low overall quality score, primarily due to weaknesses in sampling rigor and analytical depth. For example, studies by Febrian and Sani (2023) and Yang and Chen (2021) were limited by their reliance on literature reviews and narrative synthesis, which can lack the empirical depth required to establish causality. Furthermore, a significant number of the reviewed studies lacked diverse sample populations, with most focusing on Western organizational contexts (Megheirkouni & Mejheirkouni, 2020), potentially introducing cultural bias and limiting the generalizability of the findings. The review also encountered challenges differentiating mentoring from coaching due to inconsistent terminology in studies that conflated relational engagement and skill-focused frameworks (Febrian & Sani, 2023; Ullrich et al., 2021), reflecting a broader literature gap in servant leadership's developmental applications.

Implications

Despite the limitations, this synthesis advances the theoretical integration of servant leadership into developmental frameworks by clarifying its dual role in mentoring's relational depth and coaching's tactical precision (Eva et al., 2019). The findings offer a significant contribution to both theory and practice. Theoretically, servant leadership offers a unique contribution by addressing gaps in traditional leadership theories’ organizational focus through empirical validation (Dickson, 2023; Yang & Chen, 2021). Practically, organizations must tailor mentoring and coaching programs based on their specific needs. Mentoring requires servant leaders trained in relational competency frameworks to model developmental behaviors. At the same time, coaching integrates structured reflection aligned with performance outcomes through empirically validated frameworks. Servant leadership intrinsically motivates ethical behavior through relational growth, validated in career development frameworks and behavioral adaptation processes, which stands in contrast to ethical leadership's compliance-driven focus (Brown & Treviño, 2006).

Future Research Directions

Future research should pursue three key trajectories to address knowledge gaps in servant leadership's role in mentoring and coaching. First, longitudinal studies comparing mentoring's relational identity development (Yang & Chen, 2021) with coaching's structured skill acquisition frameworks (Febrian & Sani, 2023; Ullrich et al., 2021) could clarify servant leadership's temporal efficacy across developmental contexts. Second, comparative analyses with transformational and ethical leadership theories would reveal context-specific efficacy, particularly in relational frameworks validated through career development studies versus structured goal-oriented approaches grounded in leadership programmer evaluations (Dickson, 2023). Third, cultural contextualization studies should explore how servant leadership adapts to collectivist mentoring traditions and individualist coaching demands, as demonstrated in educational (Tan, 2024) and career development contexts. These efforts would enhance theoretical integration while addressing methodological challenges in cross-contextual applications through structured leadership frameworks.

Methodologically rigorous studies adhering to PRISMA guidelines should investigate how cultural factors shape servant leadership's effectiveness in developmental contexts. Cross-cultural research must examine whether collectivist cultures enhance mentoring's community-building aspects, as evidenced in educational frameworks (Tan, 2024), while individualist contexts better support coaching's structured empowerment approaches grounded in leadership programmer evaluations (Ullrich et al., 2021). Mixed-methods designs integrating quantitative servant leadership metrics with qualitative mentoring/coaching insights could address implementation barriers while maintaining theoretical rigor through structured frameworks (Febrian & Sani, 2023). Neuroscientific methodologies, validated in leadership contexts (Issac & Issac, 2019), could elucidate cognitive mechanisms underlying trust-building in mentoring and empowerment in coaching, bridging behavioral and relational dynamics (Yang & Chen, 2021).

Conclusion

This systematic review examined integrating servant leadership principles into mentoring and coaching frameworks to develop next-generation leaders, addressing three research questions on its mechanisms, contextual applications, and outcomes:

Application of Servant Leadership Principles in Mentoring and Coaching FrameworksServant leadership is effectively applied in mentoring through long-term relational depth, trust-building, and role modeling, enabling mentees to internalize values and behaviors over time. Coaching is operationalized through structured empowerment strategies, reflective practices, and targeted feedback mechanisms that facilitate immediate skill acquisition and performance improvement.

Mechanisms Underlying Servant Leadership-Based Mentoring/Coaching and Developmental Outcomes Key mechanisms driving servant leadership's impact include trust-building for psychological safety, role modeling for knowledge transfer, empowerment processes for autonomy, and reflective practices for self-awareness. These mechanisms collectively enhance individual growth (e.g., self-efficacy), relational improvements (e.g., team collaboration), and organizational outcomes (e.g., succession planning).

Contextual Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Servant Leadership Approaches

rganizational culture, societal norms, resource availability, and developmental context shape servant leadership's effectiveness, with well-being-oriented cultures enhancing mentoring relationships and performance-driven cultures aligning better with coaching applications. Additionally, cross-cultural considerations and resource availability influence how servant leadership adapts to collectivist or individualist settings and determines the depth of developmental engagement in mentoring versus coaching frameworks.

This review advances servant leadership theory by elucidating its mechanisms and contextual applications in mentoring and coaching, addressing gaps in leadership development literature. It provides evidence-based guidance for implementing servant leadership programs that foster ethical practices, follower growth, and organizational sustainability.