Question1 According to the article

Canavesi, A., & Minelli, E. (2021). Servant leadership: a systematic literature review and network analysis. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 34(3), 267-289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-021-09381-3

why Servant Leadership is favoured as a transformational leadership style?

Question2

Proven Tactics for Improving Teams' Psychological Safety An experiment reveals interventions that managers can use to increase employees' com- fort with speaking up and raising concerns. Chris Rider, Antoine Ferrre, Zsofia Belovai, Maria Guadalupe, and Florian Englmaier March 27, 2023 As organizations increasingly move away from top-down management controls to more democratized leadership built around empowered, self-organized, highly agile teams, building a culture in which employees can contribute fully and honestly to constructive di- alogue and decision-making is essential. It's well known that high levels of psychological safety are required for that but what is less obvious are the evidence-based interven- tions that leaders can implement to create such an environment. At sandoz, a Novartis division, we ran a robust randomized controlled trial that included more than 1,000 teams comprising over 7,000 individuals globally to empirically test what works, in collaboration with external academics and behavioral science consultants. While we know a lot about psychological safety and its association with desirable out- comes such as higher productivity, better performance, and increased speaking-up behav- iors, there has been little causal evidence suggesting how to foster it in practice 2 We were particularly interested in how psychological safety can give every employee a voice and increase the likelihood that potential ethical issues and misconduct will be re- ported and addressed appropriately. Our previous research found that psychological safety is one of two fundamental elements that affect whether employees feel comfortable bringing up those concerns; the other is an employee's relationship with their front-line manager.3 We sought to investigate managers' behaviors first to uncover what might be keeping people from speaking up. The Experiment Design Over a six-week period in late 2021, we tested the effectiveness of a minimally invasive in- tervention that gunided managers on how to conduct one-on-one meetings with their re- spective team members. - = [ " Our study involved three experimental groups. The first was a control group of managers who were notified that the company was conducting a study on meeting habits but were given few other details. The second and third groups were treatment groups, where man- agers received emails encouraging them to hold regular one-on-one meetings with team members and to focus on psychological safety using one of two different mechanisms. The first intervention group focused on individuation treating employees as unique in- dividuals. Managers were asked to encourage their employees to use their one-on-one meetings to express what was important to them and where they needed support. This treatment was based on earlier research that suggested a link between individuation and psychological safety? In the second intervention group, managers were encouraged to use the one-on-one meet- ings to focus on removing blockers for their teams. Removing blockers is a process that aids prioritization by subtracting from, rather than adding to, existing practices and has been shown to increase productivity by freeing workers to focus on what matters most.2 Across the six-week period, managers in the treatment groups received regular email cor- respondence about conducting these employee meetings. The email schedule and content were the same for both groups, with the only difference being the contents of an attach- ment that advised the managers on the specific treatment approach to use. To measure the impact of the interventions, we selected two questions from the organization's regular pulse survey that closely reflected questions Amy Edmondson has developed for assessing psychological safety: \"Different perspectives are valued in my team\" and \"I feel safe sharing feedback with colleagues.\"8 We measured teams' psychologi- cal safety scores before and after the intervention period to test for an effect compared with the control group. The data was evaluated at a team level, with a minimum of five re- sponses per team to suitably maintain anonymity. The Results 'We found that managers who treated team members as unique individuals significantly boosted team psychological safety compared with the managers of other groups. Over six weeks, psychological safety in the individuation group increased 12% more than in the control group. The group that focused on removing blockers improved too, but by a smaller margin 6% more than the control group. Both intervention groups showed both practical and statistically significant increases at the end of the experiment. However, upon delving deeper, we discovered nuance in our results. First, when we re- stricted our analysis to teams that had initially scored relatively lower on psychological safety, the effect of both treatments was especially pronounced. This suggested a diminish- ing returns effect when teams already felt particularly psychologically safe. The individua- tion treatment for teams in the lower psychological safety band improved their scores by 19% more than the control group, and the removing-blockers group improved their psy- chological safety by 14% compared with the control group. It was heartening to see such improvements among the employees who needed it most. While it was not unexpected that different employee groups would benefit differently from the interventions, there was even more to our findings. Indeed, when focusing on teams that started out with medium to high levels of psychological safety, the removing- blockers approach was the more effective intervention. So for the teams that already had relatively high psychological safety, removing blockers improved psychological safety by 14% more compared with the control group, whereas the individuation teams improved their scores by 9% more than the control group. Our interventions had a meaningful impact beyond increasing psychological safety. We found positive spillover effects: For the individuation group, perceptions of career devel- opment and progress improved by 21%, and perceptions of managers as role models im- proved by 15% compared with the control group. As expected, the interventions didn't just improve psychological safety in isolation but positively affected multiple elements of the manager-employee relationship. Overall, our findings demonstrate that there's no one-size-fits-all best approach to increas- ing psychological safety. Rather, the most effective approach varies depending on the team's starting point. If a team has relatively lower psychological safety, then the individ- ual treatment appears to be more effective; but as a team's psychological safety increases, a shift to focusing on removing blockers may be warranted. This provides good lessons more generally for organizations looking to adopt behavioral insights: Adopting general- ized insights without first testing them is unlikely to result in success, and each team's indi- vidual context matters. Beyond the Experiment: Lessons Learned We believe that there are additional lessons from our experiment that can be applied to better drive behavior change in organizations. First, the experiment showed that organizations can achieve meaningful change with a simple, low-cost intervention that causes minimal disruption, as in the case of our email communication. Big, expensive awareness campaigns and workshops aren't always needed, so if you find yourself planning a webinar on psychological safety, consider whether you could shift behaviors by leveraging existing platforms and ways of working. Second, it showed that psychological safety doesn't need to be promoted as a concept in or- der to be fostered among employees. In fact, the experiment made no explicit reference to psychological safety, and managers were not encouraged to talk about it. Rather, simply fo- cusing on the behaviors that need to change may be sufficient; not everything is about winning hearts and minds. Our approach has the added benefit of not eating into the cog- nitive and attentional bandwidth of employees: They don't have to think about psychologi- cal safety and neither do your managers. Third, we gained insight into how to measure employee perceptions. When comparing the responses to the pulse survey questions at the team level, we found meaningful change; however, questions about high-level, organizationwide perceptions showed little signifi- cant effect. This is a valuable lesson for corporations that rely on pulse surveys for em- ployee insights: The differences between organization-level and team-level perceptions matter. And if you're looking to effect change at a team level, make sure you're measuring team-level perceptions as well. Finally, if you want to measure how people feel in general in your organization, or gauge their levels of engagement, don't ask \"In general, do you feel that our organization...,\" but do ask how they feel at the team or individual level and then aggregate the data. The re- sults will be much more reflective of how people feel in their day-to-day work lives rather than how they feel when they pause and think about the organization in general. Building a psychologically safe workplace can help managers unlock their teams' potential and reap benefits such as increased productivity, higher performance, and a greater likeli- hood that employees will speak up about ethical concerns. Although it's tempting to simply follow the best practices employed by other organizations, our experiment shows that building psychological safety is a nuanced process, and context matters. Doing your own research will enable you to identify your own optimal approach to effectively build psy- chological safety within your organization. Although companies are increasingly facing scrutiny from regulators, activist groups, and society at large, misconduct and ethical lapses will continue to occur. It can take mere min- utes to ruin a reputation that a company spent years building. We believe that organiza- tions can ensure that employees at all levels, including senior leaders, feel that they can safely speak up, and that such problems are addressed and resolved but it requires that leaders identify the best practices that work for their teams. Chris Rider is a senior behavioral scientist at Novartis. Antoine Ferrre is global head of behavioral and data science within ethics, risk, and compliance at Novartis. Zsofia Belovai is behavioral science lead at MoreThanNow. Maria Guadalupe is a professor of economics at INSEAD. Florian Englmaier is professor of organizational economics at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. The views and opinions expressed in this article are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect those of their affiliated organizations