Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice [PDF]

Aug 2, 2015 - However, both leadership models have significant advantages, of which this paper ... Transformational Lead

0 downloads 17 Views 2MB Size

Recommend Stories


Servant Leadership
The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now. Chinese Proverb

servant leadership
Don’t grieve. Anything you lose comes round in another form. Rumi

Servant-Leadership
Learn to light a candle in the darkest moments of someone’s life. Be the light that helps others see; i

Servant Leadership
The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now. Chinese Proverb

Developing Christian Servant Leadership
Suffering is a gift. In it is hidden mercy. Rumi

servant leadership learning community
How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world. Anne

Servant Leadership and Humility
The greatest of richness is the richness of the soul. Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)

The Challenge of Servant Leadership The Challenge of Servant Leadership
Seek knowledge from cradle to the grave. Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)

Conversations on Servant-Leadership
We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now. M.L.King

July 2013 Servant Leadership Newsletter
The happiest people don't have the best of everything, they just make the best of everything. Anony

Idea Transcript


Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice

Volume 2, Issue 2 August 2015

Editors Phillip Bryant, Columbus State University [email protected] Steven Brown, Georgia Gwinnett College [email protected]

Editorial Assistants Renee Lambert [email protected] Danielle Vann [email protected]

Publication Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice (SLTP) © D. Abbott Turner College of Business Columbus State University ISSN: 2332-2063

Online www.sltpjournal.org www.facebook.com/sltpjournal www.twitter.com/sltpjournal

Submission Guidelines http://www.sltpjournal.org/submission-guidelines.html

Submissions Please submit by email to [email protected]

Email Address [email protected]

Mailing Address SLTP Journal D. Abbott Turner College of Business Columbus State University 4225 University Avenue Columbus, Georgia 31907

ABOUT THE PUBLISHER

Columbus State University is a state university governed by the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. It is located 100 miles southwest of Atlanta in the mid-sized urban city of Columbus on the border of Georgia and Alabama. The university enrolls nearly 8,800 students who come primarily from communities throughout Georgia. The school is also a popular destination for students in neighboring Alabama counties. Over the past decade, aggressive recruitment efforts have increased the number of students hailing from other regions of the United States and foreign countries. The Turner College of Business enrolls students in undergraduate business and computer science disciplines, as well as an MBA designed for working professionals, an online MBA, a Master of Science in Organizational Leadership, and graduate programs in Computer Science. The online MBA is offered through the Georgia Web MBA program, a consortium of AACSBaccredited schools in Georgia. The college has strong ties to the local community, and provides educational opportunities and economic development assistance to the citizens, businesses and industries located in the region. As an AACSB-accredited program with smaller average class sizes, and a dedicated faculty and staff, the Turner College offers one of the best buys in management education in the region. As part of its commitment to applied research and faculty development, the Turner College is the proud publisher of Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice.

MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Please read the following submission guidelines before submitting a manuscript to SLTP. If a manuscript does not conform to the guidelines, then it may be returned by the editors without review. In addition, please read the journal policies. Manuscripts should be submitted electronically to: [email protected]. Files should be sent in a Microsoft Word, Adobe PDF, or similar word processor based format. The files must be readable by Windows-based computers. All correspondence should take place through [email protected]. While all submissions should be electronically submitted, if any additional materials need to be delivered to the editors, their address is: Servant Leadership: Theory and Practice D. Abbott Turner College of Business Columbus State University 4225 University Avenue Columbus, GA 31907 Please include contact information for all of the co-authors for the submission including addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers. Please keep a copy of the manuscript to guard against lost or damaged submission files. Submissions should consist of no more than 35 double-spaced manuscript pages of proper text, not including the title page, abstract, references, tables, or figures. Be aware that the use of different software, fonts, character spacing, and margins can significantly alter the amount of text per page. The author should ensure that there are around 25 lines of 12-point text in Times New Roman font, with a 1 inch margin on all sides. Manuscripts should be prepared according to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (latest edition) and may be copyedited for bias-free language (see Chapter 3 of the Publication Manual). Authors are responsible for including publishable quality charts, tables, graphs, and illustrations that do not require significant effort on the part of the journal to make ready for publication. Authors should own the copyright or have permission to use all of the materials included (See the journal policies for further details). All citations within the manuscript must be cited and appear alphabetically in the current APA format. In alignment with APA policies, authors may not submit the same manuscript for concurrent consideration by two or more journals. Submissions will be considered for inclusion within the journal based on the following:  Fit with SLTP’s mission  Theoretical and/or applied value  Study sample, study design, and methodological rigor  Quality of the literature review  Quality of theoretical reasoning  Quality and appropriateness of the analysis of the results  Quality of the discussion and implications of the study as it relates to theory and practice  Quality of writing, including clarity, parsimony, and organization of content Any comments or questions should be addressed to: [email protected].

Contents Moving Servant Leadership Forward: One Issue at a Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Phillip Bryant and Steve Brown

The Adaptable Emphasis Leadership Model: A More Full Range of Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Benjamin Staats

Servant Leadership and Organizational Citizenship in Rwanda: A Moderated Mediation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Timothy A. Brubaker, Mihai C. Bocarnea, Kathleen Patterson, and Bruce E. Winston

Discovering the Servant in Fire and Emergency Services Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Eric J. Russell, Rodger E. Broomé, and Rhiannon Prince

Servant Leadership: A Quantitative Review of Instruments and Related Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Mark T. Green, Richard A. Rodriguez, Carol A. Wheeler, and Barbara Baggerly-Hinojosa

Servant Leadership: Theory and Practice Volume 2, Issue 2, 9-11 August 2015

Moving Servant Leadership Forward: One Issue at a Time Phillip Bryant, Ph.D. Steven Brown, Ph.D. Co-editors, Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice Introduction, Volume 2, Issue 2 We published the inaugural issue of Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice, one year ago with the stated mission “to advance servant leadership, both as a field of academic study and as a management practice” (Bryant & Brown, 2014). We’ve been encouraged by the quantity and quality of researchers and practitioners who share similar missions and have submitted their work to further advance the field of servant leadership. We recognize that you have many other publication outlets to make your submission choices, and we are honored every time you choose us to consider your work. We are also humbled when we consider the caliber of individuals whose work we’ve been given the opportunity to publish. Every one of our authors is outstanding in their own right. We encourage you to do an Internet search on any of our authors. You will find that, as an author, you are in very good company, and, as a reader, you are a part of the audience of some truly great minds. In Volume 1, Issue 1, Claar, Jackson, and TenHaken (2014) wrote: “it seems possible that a skillful manager may potentially draw from the quiver of authentic servant leadership on a situational basis” (p. 46). In the present issue, Staats builds on this idea as he offers us “The Adaptable Emphasis Leadership Model.” With his model, Staats nicely places servant leadership within the well-established contingency perspective of leadership. It is also of interest to note that Staats offers the possibility of what he coins “pseudo-servant leadership” versus “authentic servant leadership” much in the same vein as Bass and Steidlmeier’s (1999) “pseudo-transformational leadership” versus “authentic transformational leadership.” In Volume 2, Issue 1, Reed explored servant leadership within the emergency response and services industry (2015). Here, she conducted a quantitative study of 897 91-1 emergency communications center (ECC) employees in North America (predominantly the United States and Canada) and Australia. She found that ECC

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SLTP. 2(2), 9-11

10 P. BRYANT AND S. BROWN employees typically rate their leaders high on servant leadership qualities. She also found that these leaders’ servant leadership behaviors had a positive relationship (R2 = 0.42) with followers’ organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). Keeping with both the content and contextual themes of Reed’s article, we’ve included two similarly themed articles in the present publication. In regards to a theme of similar content, we offer Brubaker, Bocarnea, Patterson, and Winston’s article, “Servant Leadership and Organizational Citizenship.” Herein, they explore the relationship between servant leadership and OCBs as did Reed (2015), but their context is in Rwanda. They find that the positive relationship between servant leadership and OCBs is fully mediated by followers’ perceptions of their leaders’ effectiveness. In other words, according to the analysis of their data, it is through the perceptions of effective leadership associated with servant leadership that followers’ OCBs appear to emanate. Also, in line with mounting evidence from additional studies (cf. Carroll & Patterson, 2014; Reed, 2015; Trompenaars & Voerman, 2010), Brubaker and his colleagues add to the evidence that servant leadership is indeed a universal principle. In regards to similarities of context with Reed’s (2015) article, herein you will find Russell, Broomé, and Prince’s article, “Discovering the Servant in Fire and Emergency Services Leaders.” In this qualitative study of 15 uniformed and sworn fire and emergency officers, they discover primarily that “fire and emergency leaders must serve their followers,” and serve them specifically by developing them, meeting their needs, and listening to them. Finally, in the previous volume, we wrote about “Getting to Know the Elephant” of servant leadership (Brown & Bryant, 2015) in which we discussed the “lack of agreed upon measures in servant leadership” (p. 10). Our final article within this publication is written by Green, Rodriguez, Wheeler, and Baggerly-Hinojosa. They begin to tackle the problem of a “lack of agreed upon measures” in their quantitative review of servant leadership instruments and related findings. They also offer a summary of servant leadership outcomes as measured by these instruments in various studies. Their summary organizes these servant leadership outcomes into leader, follower, and organizationallevel outcomes. To conclude our introduction to this issue, we want to thank you for your submissions, your readership, and your ambassadorship of our journal and field of servant leadership. Keep serving. Keep leading.

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

MOVING SERVANT LEADERSHIP FORWARD 11

REFERENCES Bass, B.M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181-217. Brown, S., & Bryant, P. (2015). Getting to know the elephant: A call to advance servant leadership through construct consensus, empirical evidence, and multilevel theoretical development. Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice, 2(1), 10-35. Bryant, P., & Brown, S. (2014). Enthusiastic skepticism: The role of SLTP in advancing servant leadership. Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice, 1(1), 7-11. Carroll, B.C., & Patterson, K. (2014). Servant leadership: A cross cultural study between India and the United States. Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice, 1(1), 16-45. Claar, V., Jackson, L., & TenHaken, V. (2014). Are servant leaders born or made? Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice, 1(1), 46-52. Reed, L. (2015). Servant leadership, followership, and organizational citizenship behaviors in 9-1-1 emergency communications centers: Implications of a national study. Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice, 2(1), 71-94. Trompenaars, F., & Voerman, E. (2010) Servant leadership across cultures: Harnessing the strength of the world’s most powerful leadership style. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

SLTP. 2(2), 9-11

Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice Volume 2, Issue 2, 12-26 August 2015

The Adaptable Emphasis Leadership Model: A More Full Range of Leadership Benjamin Staats, Captain, U.S. Army

Abstract This paper examines the processes of transformational leadership and servant leadership and how they can lead to distinctly different outcomes. Transformational leadership can place significant pressure on followers in order to achieve the desired organizational outcomes which may result in unethical actions taken by followers. On the other hand, servant leadership can provide significant personal development opportunities for followers but may place organizational objectives as secondary which can lead to falling short on those objectives. However, both leadership models have significant advantages, of which this paper attempts to exploit at the opportune times by applying the adaptable emphasis leadership model. This higher-order model involves a more full range of leadership and offers a new perspective on leadership by applying a contingency approach to the transactional, transformational, and servant leadership models. By being aware of one’s situation, having a foundation in leadership, and applying the proposed model in a contingency fashion, leaders can take advantage of each of the leadership models discussed to maximize follower and organizational effectiveness. Keywords: Transformational Transactional Leadership

Leadership,

Servant

Leadership,

As markets, companies, and business environments are changing faster than ever before, leadership may now be playing more of a role in maximizing the effectiveness of organizations and their followers’ well-being (Macik-Frey, Quick, & Cooper, 2009). Two major leadership models have emerged in recent decades in an attempt to achieve effective leadership within organizations: transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Avolio & Bass, 1999) and servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1991). Transformational

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SLTP. 2(2), 12-26

ADAPTABLE EMPHASIS MODEL 13

leadership emphasizes achieving organizational outcomes (Bass, 1985; Bass, 2000) and servant leadership emphasizes service to followers (Greenleaf, 1991; Stone, Russell, and Patterson, 2003; Keith, 2008). Transactional leadership and transformational leadership, as developed through the work of Bass and Avolio, have foundations in theory and empirical support (Bass, 1985; Bass, 2000). Yet much of the servant leadership literature in the last few decades has not created that same foundation but rather has attempted to create an identity separate from that of transformational leadership. Because Greenleaf never specifically defined or established empirical support for servant leadership, much of the academic work on servant leadership has developed independently and interpretations are less related and connected to Greenleaf’s original concept (van Dierendonck, 2011). Consequently, the concept of servant leadership has become more divergent within itself in an attempt to identify independently from transformational leadership. Nevertheless, the emphasis difference between the two models still stands and serves as the first key distinctive difference to be examined. Thus, the first question to discuss is, how much of a difference does the intention of the leader really make on the process and the outcome? In an effort to answer this question, researching both models shows theoretical differences in outcomes, but also many commonalities between the two (Stone et al., 2003; Choudhary, Akhtar, & Zaheer, 2013; Smith, Montagno, and Kuzmenko, 2004). It has also been found that transactional leadership serves as not only a groundwork for transformational leadership (Bass, 1990) but theoretically appears necessary for servant leadership as well. The second question to discuss is, what is the most effective leadership model? To fully answer this, a servant leadership model would have to be established and empirically tested, followed by an empirical analysis between the two models. Yet the research may not be conclusive because of several likely factors that cannot be controlled, such as the specific situation, context, and operating environment. Therefore, this paper proposes that leaders seek a long-term oriented contingency approach that incorporates transactional, transformational, and servant leadership models to maximize the effectiveness of their organization and its people by taking advantage of each model’s strengths and mitigating each model’s weaknesses. The framework and more full range of leadership proposed in this paper helps to clarify the differences between the three while serving as a collaborative higher-end model to better understand how transactional, transformational, and servant leadership models can theoretically relate to and complement one another.

Transformational Leadership Transformational leadership is defined as broadening and elevating the interests of employees, generating awareness and acceptance of the purpose and mission of the group, and inspiring employees to look beyond their own self-interests for the good of the group (Bass, 1990). Transformational leadership is further described as a process of creating buy-in to the organization’s objectives and empowering followers to accomplish those objectives (Yukl, 1998). Bass (1996) also adds that transformational leaders are adaptive and serve as role models who also focus on the followers’ need for growth. Transformational leadership consists of four principles, idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, as described by SLTP. 2(2), 12-26

14

B. STAATS

Bass and colleagues (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003). Idealized influence is described as ethical charisma in which followers identify with and emulate their leaders (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Bass et al., 2003). Inspirational motivation attempts to provide a meaningful purpose to inspire followers (Bass et al., 2003). Intellectual stimulation involves the leader to take actions to provoke innovation and solutions from followers (Bass et al., 2003). Lastly, individualized consideration is defined by leaders recognizing each individual’s strengths and weaknesses and taking action to develop and empower each individual to fit their specific capabilities (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Bass et al., 2003).

Servant Leadership Servant leadership is simply defined as a leadership model in which the leader is primarily focused on serving others (Keith, 2008; Stone, et al., 2003). Servant leadership is the desire to motivate and guide followers, offer hope, and provide a more caring experience through established quality relationships (Greenleaf & Spears, 2002). Servant leadership has a strong foundation in ethics and caring through empowering and developing followers that betters the quality of organizational life (Spears, 2010). However, much of the academic literature on servant leadership proposes varying definitions and characteristics in an attempt to theoretically explain and further define what it is and how it differentiates from transformational leadership (van Dierendonck, 2011). There’s no real unanimous model that is undisputed among servant leadership academic circles, primarily because of sparce empirical evidence. Regardless of the model used for servant leadership, the premise behind it is that the leader is servant first (Greenleaf, 1991). “The best test, and difficult to administer, is: do those served grow as persons; do they, while being served¸ become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit, or, at least, will they not be further deprived” (Greenleaf, 1991).

The Ethical and Achievement Outcomes Distinction Transformational leadership. The concept of transformational leadership did not always have a moral and ethical foundation even though that foundation was present in transforming leadership when Burns (1978) described it as raising ethical standards of followers. Transformational leadership theorists initially suggested that transformational leaders could be unethical and that the likes of Hitler and other tyrants were transformational leaders (Bass, 1985; Graham, 1991). Graham (1991) recognized that transformational leaders’ emphasis on individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation leads to the neglect of critical moral analysis by the followers. However, Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) and Bass (2000) further progressed transformational leadership to require leaders to be of moral character, morally uplifting, and possess ethical values. Leaders who were not, were described as pseudo-transformational leaders, in that they differ in their values, power motive, and concern for follower development (Bass, 2000; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) go on

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

ADAPTABLE EMPHASIS MODEL 15

to describe authentic transformational leadership as being morally uplifting and pseudotransformational leadership as false, clarifying Bass’ (1985) mistake of identifying Hitler as an (authentic) transformational leader. Barling, Christie, and Turner (2008) later empirically found that pseudo-transformational leaders showed high inspirational motivation (charisma) but low idealized influence, consequently creating higher perceptions of fear, obedience, and job insecurity by followers, similar to that of a tyrant. Yet this does not completely answer Graham’s (1991) initial concern over how the process itself, of committing to the organization first, influences moral and ethical outcomes. Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) answered who transformational leaders should be and not what results from the process of transformational leadership independent of the leader’s character. Transformational leadership clearly relies on leaders already possessing ethical and moral values to authenticate the process. If leaders are not moral, then the process results in a pseudo-transformational leadership style where the leader would initially appear authentic but is manipulating followers as described by Bass (2000). As transformational leaders commit to the organization’s goals, those objectives serve as their primary focus and source of motivation (Patterson, Redmer, Stone, 2003; Stone et al., 2003). This leads to transformational leaders becoming results-oriented (Patterson et al., 2003) which can lead to one of three concerns in the transformational leadership model: (1) Ethical and moral leaders can feel pressure to manipulate followers in order to achieve goals that were otherwise unattainable; (2) Ethical and moral followers can feel pressure from transformational leaders to achieve objectives and consequently act in an unethical manner to accomplish those desired objectives; (3) followers who are not in positions to contribute to organizational goals may fall into an out-group, becoming alienated and lack development opportunities (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). The first and second concerns will inevitably lead to a deontological versus teleological ethics debate because some may argue for the case of utilitarianism by justifying unethical actions to achieve a greater good. Addressing the ethics of the first two concerns clearly extends beyond the scope of this paper, yet identifies two valid issues with a strictly transformational approach to leadership. The first concern addresses an issue of teleological ethics (i.e. utilitarianism) in that ethical leaders may conduct unethical actions because they believe the ethical ends will justify the unethical means. The second concern addresses the pressures transformational leaders may place on followers unintentionally that leads to them behaving unethically because of the resultsoriented culture created. In addition, the third concern addresses how transformational leadership can exacerbate the negative aspects of the leader-member exchange and forge in and out-groups that decrease the overall effectiveness of out-group followers unless leaders are capable of mitigating those effects (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Nevertheless, these three issues demonstrate concerns with a leadership process that prioritizes the completion of objectives. Consider the Atlanta Public Schools cheating scandal of 2009: 140 teachers along with 38 principals were found to have been fixing incorrect answers on students’ tests prior to submitting them to the state. The district set unrealistic test-score goals which created a culture of pressure to achieve those objectives and gain public praise, SLTP. 2(2), 12-26

16

B. STAATS

consequently leading to the initial acts of cheating (Vogell, 2011). Once those objectives were achieved, the standards and expectations continued to raise, ultimately forcing the cheating and unethical practices to continue and exacerbate in order to keep up with the district’s goals (Vogell, 2011). As shown through fallible human actions, when objectives become the priority there exists the inevitable possibility of overriding moral and ethical values to achieve those objectives. No doubt that those school teachers and staff may have very well done this with the best interests of their students at heart and were focused on the greater good, nevertheless, they acted in an unethical manner to achieve the standard that was set. Though it can be argued that it is the culture that motivates people to behave unethically and not the results-orientation, I would proffer that it is indeed the results-orientation that can lead to an unethical culture. Joosten, Dijke, and Hiel (2014) suggest that organizations that exert constant pressure on leaders, such as a result of transformational leaders, can be so demanding that it leads them to more likely behave in an unethical manner. Depending on the transformational leader’s stance on what is ethical or not, can also be troubling. If the principals or superintendent viewed ethics in a teleological manner, they viewed the cheating as a means to later serve the greater good. In addition, Bass (2000) suggests that transformational leaders develop followers to exhibit a self-concept that is aligned with the leader’s self-concept. Transformational leaders initially influence followers to override their own perspectives and values to conform to the organization, which can include moral and ethical values (Whittington, 2004). Therefore, the teachers who approached ethics from a deontological perspective may have aligned their ethical views to be more teleological. Although Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) might suggest that this instance would be a form of pseudo-transformational leadership, it’s evident that this results from the process of transformational leadership in collaboration with an ethical dilemma. Pseudo-transformational leaders, who emphasize high inspirational influence and charisma, behave unethically, which likely leads to an unethical climate within organizations and leads to employees following suit (Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum, & Kuenzi, 2012). Servant Leadership. Servant leadership on the other hand is argued to be less results-oriented when compared to transformational leadership (Patterson et al., 2003) and therefore can be seen as more process-oriented. The primary focus of servant leaders differs in that they commit to followers and focus on service to them first (Patterson et al., 2003; Stone et al., 2003). In fact, organizational goals are not a priority or central to the servant leadership model. Transformational leadership strives to align followers’ interests with the good of the group, organization, or society, but servant leadership goes beyond transformational leadership by serving the needs of others as the highest priority (Bass, 2000). Graham (1991) additionally suggests that servant leadership takes transformational leadership even further by developing the moral reasoning capacity and moral autonomy within followers. Servant leadership produces outcomes such as followers’ growing wisdom, building autonomy, and becoming more service oriented (Greenleaf, 1991) in addition to building their moral reasoning capacity (Graham, 1991). However, the fundamental flaw of servant leadership is that servant leaders, to an extent, assume that followers will act in alignment with the organization. They trust followers to © 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

ADAPTABLE EMPHASIS MODEL 17

take actions that are in the best interest of the organization (Patterson et al., 2003), even though servant leaders put the focus of others before the organizational objectives. Servant leadership therefore relies on the followers’ objectives to align with the organization. While servant leadership goes beyond transformational leadership because it leads to developing servant leaders that will freely choose to be responsible moral agents at work and in society (Graham, 1991), it does not mean that they will primarily focus on helping the organization achieve its objectives. Servant leadership can be contagious, motivate, and inspire followers (Graham, 1991), but it may motivate them in different directions than where the organization is going. While some transformational leaders attempt to manipulate followers, it’s argued that servant leaders can be susceptible to manipulation by their followers (Whetstone, 2002). Whetstone (2002) suggests that followers will attempt to take advantage of a weakness, particularly a perceived naivety, in servant leaders. Yet, this suggestion only takes into account the “servant” aspect of the term servant leader and not the “leader” part, because a true leader of any sort has competency, tenacity, and presence and would not be so “naive” as Whetstone would imply. However, Stone et al. (2003) identified a more likely source of manipulation which servant leaders could use in an unethical manner. The principle of reciprocation can be used by servant leaders in the form of performing acts of service for followers in order to induce them to return the courtesy (Stone et al., 2003). Consequently, leaders could use this as coercion against followers and guilt and pressure them into returning acts of service that could very well be selfish or unethical. Obviously, this would not fall into the model of servant leadership because of the selfish nature of such action, so analogous with pseudo-transformational leadership, this might be called pseudo-servant leadership. Nevertheless, as pseudotransformational leadership is not part of the transformational leadership process, pseudoservant leadership falls outside the realm of the servant leadership process because it violates the foundation of the character a servant leader should possess. Identical to pseudo-transformational leadership, a pseudo-servant leader possesses an unethical character that violates the principle foundation of who a servant leader should be. Both pseudo-type leaders corrupt the true nature of both leadership processes.

Transactional Leadership Setting the Foundation As leaders build their leadership skills through experience and practice, they will develop their ability to practice transformational leadership and servant leadership. However, transactional leadership can be seen as a foundation to support transformational leadership. Transactional leadership, also known as active management by exception, is defined by followers acknowledging to behave in a manner such that there is an exchange for praise, resources, rewards, or avoidance of disciplinary action from the leader (Bass, 1985). Transactional leadership can build a base level of trust in the leader as he or she reliably executes what has been agreed to over time (Bass et al., 2003) and emphasizes rewarding followers for achieving performance standards (Whittington, 2004). Bass (1990) explained how transformational leadership augments transactional leadership and takes it further to incorporate a relational component. Transactional leadership is psychologically contractual in nature and does not align and build the leader and follower SLTP. 2(2), 12-26

18

B. STAATS

(Whittington, 2004). The strength in transactional leadership is that it greatly helps to maintain the status quo, yet fails to significantly develop followers or help organizational change. However, leaders set the ethical tone of an organization not by just having a moral identity, but by actively modeling behaviors and using transactional styles to influence followers’ behaviors (Mayer et al., 2012). By identifying the collaborative connection between transactional and transformational leadership, Avolio and Bass (1999) proposed that transactional leadership provides the base for transformational leadership to have a greater impact on motivation and performance. Avolio (1999) further described this as “full range of leadership” in which the most effective method of transformational leadership is in conjunction with transactional leadership practices (Whittington, 2004). Transactional leadership is needed to establish clear standards and expectations of performance objectives so that followers understand what is expected of them (Bass et al., 2003). In their study examining Army platoons in field training environments, Bass and colleagues (2003) posited that both were required to achieve higher levels of performance. Very little theory or research has been invested into how transactional leadership sets a foundation for servant leadership. While more research is needed, it appears that volunteer organizations benefit more from a purely servant leader than a transformational leader (Schneider & George, 2011), yet those organizations are substantially different compared to for-profit and other conventional organizations. Volunteer organizations consist of individuals that are volunteering their time and generally not in need of any sort of sustainment from the organization, whereas individuals within corporate organizations are working there for many reasons, one of which is to receive compensation. While several other factors influence whether an individual works somewhere or not, one of the primary reasons is to provide for themselves, their family, and sustain a level of well-being. It is likely very difficult to motivate and empower employees without an operative system in which to compensate followers fairly. Just like transformational leadership requires transactional leadership to build the initial trust (Bass et al., 2003), so too, does servant leadership. Transactional leadership is likely necessary to be a practical servant leader. Unless operating in a volunteer organization, where followers are not seeking a means of compensation, servant leadership requires a foundation of good management, or transactional leadership. Though Greenleaf doesn’t thoroughly discuss this in The Servant as Leader, he does suggest that using such management techniques are only adverse if the organization is people-using oriented, rather than people-building oriented (Greenleaf, 1991). By taking Avolio’s (1999) concept of “full range of leadership” and understanding the weakness of transformational leadership described earlier, one can further complement the concept with servant leadership. Even though Bass (2000, p. 27) states that “depending on the circumstances… leaders should focus on their relations with their followers,” it still implies that the process is organizationally oriented and it is about developing the followers to benefit the organization still. Conversely, servant leadership serves the needs of others as the highest priority (Bass, 2000; Greenleaf, 1991; Stone et al., 2003) and creates more autonomous and moral followers (Graham, 1991). In addition, by focusing on followers, servant leaders should be able to more effectively © 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

ADAPTABLE EMPHASIS MODEL 19

identify the potential in followers and not just their capabilities that bring immediate value to the organization. Yet, as already discussed, servant leadership still assumes that followers will always act in alignment with the organization, where transformational leadership serves the best interest of the organization. Avolio’s (1999) “full range of leadership” can be expanded to include the benefits of servant leadership to create a higher-order model of leadership, in which, dependent on the situation, leaders take a specific approach that is in the best interest of the leader, followers, and organization together. Transformational leadership and servant leadership can be viewed as high-order evolutions in leadership paradigms yet neither is inherently superior to the other (Stone et al., 2003). They both, however, may be superior to transactional leadership, but require forms of transactional leadership to operate effectively in today’s organizations. With transactional leadership as a foundation, transformational leadership in collaboration with servant leadership may theoretically be an effective long-term approach to leadership, leading to a more developed, higher-order, and more full range of leadership.

Leadership from a Contingency Perspective The contingency view of leadership has already demonstrated how the most effective leadership behavior is based on several different situational factors. Bass (2000) suggests that transformational leadership can be effective in all situations and has done several studies to empirically support its effectiveness in broad situational ranges (Avolio & Bass, 1999). It should be acknowledged though that transformational leadership is not the best approach for every situation (Humphrey, 2012). The Hersey and Blanchard model suggests taking a laissez-faire approach over a transformational approach with highly competent and motivated subordinates (Humphrey, 2012). However, a better approach may theoretically be for leaders to adopt a servant leadership approach because of the greater sense of autonomy that can be built through empowerment while maintaining positive leadership exchanges. Much like transformational leadership advocates however, servant leadership advocates such as Greenleaf (1991) and Stone and colleagues (2003), also believe that servant leadership can be effective in all situations. However, transformational leadership advocates may argue that it’s not as effective as transformational leadership would be in those same situations. Regardless of these perspectives, the best model of leadership is most likely dependent upon the situation because both bring about real change in organizations, albeit through different means (Stone et al., 2003). By employing a more full range of leadership, an effective leader can employ either a servant leadership or a transformational leadership approach over a given period and shift to the other as the organization or its people evolve or develop. Smith et al. (2004) discuss situational factors such as political, cultural, and economic, among other contextual influences that impact the type of leadership approach or model that should be used. While both models can be effective in all situations, most scenarios may require a leader to be adaptive and aware of the contingencies present in order to employ a combination of each model or, in other cases, employ the best model SLTP. 2(2), 12-26

20

B. STAATS

for the given contingency. In doing so, leaders can maximize their effectiveness by taking advantage of the strengths of each of the three models. Yet Smith et al. (2004) proposed that servant leadership is more effective in volunteer organizations because they are in more static environments and attract employees seeking personal growth. They also proposed that transformational leadership is more suitable for a dynamic external environment because the organizational objectives would be oriented on addressing those external challenges (Smith et al., 2004). This research was in the right direction, however, it eludes the concept that while organizations, their people, and the environments constantly change, they can be more effective if applying the most effective leadership process for the situation. The Adaptable Emphasis Leadership Model. This paper proposes the adaptable emphasis leadership model as shown in Figure 1. This model advances Avolio’s (1999) “full range of leadership” concept, incorporates the practice of servant leadership, stresses the awareness of emphasis between objectives and people, and operates in a contingency fashion. As seen in exhibit one below, there are two spectrums of emphasis;

Figure 1: Adaptable Emphasis Leadership Model Emphasis between Objectives and People

Emphasis on Leadership Emphasis on Management

Emphasis between Management and Leadership

Emphasis on Objectives

Transformational Leadership

Aware and Adaptable Leader

Transactional Leadership

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

Emphasis on People

Servant Leadership

ADAPTABLE EMPHASIS MODEL 21

Avolio’s (1999) “full range of leadership” in principle, expresses an emphasis between management and leadership as seen on the y-axis spectrum, and this model adds the emphasis between objectives and people as seen on the x-axis spectrum. Each major leadership model is associated with one another and the middle triangle represents the collaboration between the three models in which an adaptable and aware leader would operate. As discussed, transactional leadership, which emphasizes management and lacks an emphasis on leadership, is illustrated in Figure 1 at the bottom of the triangle, serving as a foundation that enables both transformational and servant leadership. Being exclusively focused on management with an emphasis on objectives, it excludes itself from placing emphasis on people. Therefore, there is no bottom right of the adaptable emphasis leadership model because it would result in a contradiction of the managementleadership dichotomy. Both servant leadership and transformational leadership models, including transactional leadership, are complimentary but distinctly different concepts (Stone et al., 2003) that promote organizational performance (Choudhary, et al., 2013). As Patterson et al. (2003) suggest though, a leader can shift his or her focus from the organization’s objective, to the service of followers, and vice versa. In other words, effective leaders would adapt their leadership emphasis while using aspects from each leadership model based on as many contingency factors the leader is aware of and adapt his or her behaviors to capitalize on opportunities to best lead the organization and its people. Leaders should recognize if the situation requires a servant leadership approach, which emphasizes a sense of egalitarianism and service to followers (Greenleaf, 1991; Stone et al., 2003; Smith et al., 2004), or if it requires a transformational leadership approach, which emphasizes a sense of organizational achievement (Bass, 1985; Bass, 2000; Smith et al., 2004). Both leadership models bring about real change in organizations, albeit through a different emphasis (Stone et al., 2003), and these different motives between servant leadership and transformational leadership inevitably create distinctly different cultures (Smith et al., 2004). Yet by identifying which model is the best fit for the situation, the organization and individual leaders can take advantage of the strengths of each model and minimize the disadvantages, thus creating a distinct culture that can potentially maximize the effectiveness of leaders and, subsequently, the organization.

Awareness and Adaptability Awareness becomes essential when analyzing the adaptable emphasis leadership model because it serves as an antecedent to be adaptable and encompasses two aspects. Self-awareness, is a sense when one is aware of oneself as a distinct entity within their environment and is aware that they interrelate with this environment (Pavlovich & Corner, 2014). External-awareness comes from knowledge of behavior and through experience where one develops awareness of interconnectedness, which emerges over time given disciplined practice of techniques through consciousness raising experiences (Pavlovich & Corner, 2014). Without the awareness of everything external to leaders and of themselves, leaders become ignorant of the other models of leadership. Strictly transformational leaders or servant leaders can develop a bias in which leadership model is best because both can work in all situations as suggested by Greenleaf (1991) and Bass SLTP. 2(2), 12-26

22

B. STAATS

et al. (2003), albeit not perfectly. Leaders are likely to continue to practice those behaviors because they were good enough to be successful. However, if leaders are developed to better understand organizational behavior and how the process of their leadership style or model influences followers in particular ways, then they are more enlightened of how to improve themselves, their followers, and the organization. Leaders must be aware of as many contingency variables as possible and focus on the most potentially impactful ones to increase the likeliness of being as effective as possible. In order to do so, leaders will be able to apply this keen sense of awareness to identify where the emphasis of leadership should be. For example, servant leadership is satisfying to organizational members, but the leaders and followers can become passive to the external environment (Smith et al., 2004). However, if applying the awareness concept, leaders would acknowledge the changing external environment, realize the need for change, adapt, and then shift their leadership emphasis to employ the most effective model that is in the best interest of all parties. Awareness also plays into fully understanding the weaknesses of each style or how an effective approach may be ineffective or misperceived to a small cohort of followers. Take transformational leaders for example, who focus on assigning challenging objectives; they will likely lead to increasing most of their followers’ self-efficacy (Robbins & Judge, 2010) but not all employees like to be challenged nor will some of them have their self-efficacy increase. This perspective further demonstrates the importance of understanding organizational behavior and the impact of contingency variables (Robbins & Judge, 2010). As proposed by the contingency approach of leadership, there must be an appropriate fit between a leader’s behavior and the present and future conditions. The more aware the leader is, the more opportunities present themselves that allow for leaders to adapt and apply a different leadership approach.

Foundations of Leadership As stated earlier in this paper, transformational and servant leadership styles require a foundation of skills and experience to effectively apply the two models while avoiding their pseudo-type models. The same logic can also apply to transactional leaders (i.e. the difference between good and bad managers). The skills and characteristics necessary to be an effective leader come through experience and can be enhanced through learning and practice (Spears, 2010). Efforts in academics, reading, and self-development can also help make those experiences in leadership more valuable. This foundation creates a sense of awareness, both of one’s external environment and self-awareness. The more knowledgeable one is in the subject of leadership and organizational behavior, the better one can understand how the impacts of their leadership behaviors influence their followers and the organization. Yet even at a deeper level, leaders also require a sense of desire to be a leader, to make a difference, or accomplish a vision for a better future (Daft, 2008).

DISCUSSION How does one best serve followers? How does one best serve the organization? What is it to best serve or effectively lead? The idea of a contingency approach on a © 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

ADAPTABLE EMPHASIS MODEL 23

leader’s emphasis would somewhat counter Greenleaf’s (1991) belief that servant leaders are servants first (Stone et al., 2003; Keith, 2008). But consider the following scenarios: Scenario one: most leaders at some point served others and were followers, such as during jobs in high school and college, internships at entry level jobs, or as a family member, thus serving first and then a conscious choice to lead (Greenleaf, 1991). But, given the current nature of businesses and other organizations, leaders may not have been servants first when entering as professional managers, or leaders, yet they grow and learn from experience and may later realize they should be servants first at times, thus contradicting what Greenleaf (1991) originally proposed. Scenario two: organizations are operating in less and less stable environments particularly as technology advances, competition can easily cross industrial boundaries, and competition comes from international emerging markets (Cullen & Parboteeah, 2014). During such a period, an emphasis on achieving organizational outcomes may be what keeps the organization competitive and thus best serves its employees. This example clearly demonstrates the theoretical overlap between the two models because in a sense, the leader still emphasizes serving his followers, but is required to emphasize achieving organizational outcomes in doing so. In other words, to best serve the followers, the situation required implementation of the transformational leadership model, but later in the organization’s life span, may require a servant leadership approach. It can be argued that a servant leader is really just a transformational leader or that a transformational leader who is people-oriented is really just a servant leader. Both of those arguments however, are based on the premise that they are distinctly different models. The adaptable emphasis leadership model dissolves the border that separates the two and demonstrates how they are interrelated. Leadership in today’s society requires leaders to be people-oriented regardless of the model used. When a servant leadership approach is less effective, and a transformational leadership approach is then taken, an effective leader can remain people-oriented even though the focus has shifted onto organizational objectives. The leader can still be described as a servant leader, his focus has just shifted to objectives because that is the most effective way to serve their followers. Conversely, when a transformational approach becomes less effective, a servant leadership approach may then be taken. An effective leader recognizes that the most efficient way to sometimes accomplish organizational goals is to focus on followers and become more people-oriented. Either way, the distinction between servant leadership and transformational leadership is more blurred and the adaptable emphasis leadership model unites the two that operate collaboratively to maximize leader effectiveness. What is exciting about this higher-order model, is that not all leaders have to be either transactional, transformational, or servant leaders at the same time or in unison with the organization. An aware and adaptable leader best recognizes when to shift his or her emphasis to best serve not just the followers, but the organization and other stakeholders as well. While one department may be focused on achieving organizational goals another department may be focusing on employee development, yet even within those departments, individual leaders may be employing different models than the SLTP. 2(2), 12-26

24

B. STAATS

broader department because they best understand their local situation and context. This flexibility may be required in the type of business environments being created today in which employee development, organizational outcomes, and innovations all have to occur simultaneously.

CONCLUSION Yes, the adaptable emphasis leadership model is purely theoretical and needs more development, but it is a step in a different and new direction that may promise to be beneficial for developing leaders. Viewing leadership from this framework can hopefully improve effectiveness within organizations because leaders should be that much more aware of how their actions can impact the organization and their followers, not just in the short term, but over the course of months and years. The adaptable emphasis leadership model can mitigate the ethical and out-group concerns of transformational leadership as well as the misalignment of motivation and manipulation concerns of servant leadership. Understanding that each leadership model is viable and can lead to increasing success and performance (Bass et al., 2003) has led to tunnel vision on the type of leadership model that leaders employ. Leaders need to be more open, aware, and recognize the impacts, both short and long term, that their behaviors have on the organization and their followers. In doing so, educated, adaptable, and aware leaders can identify when to focus more on the organization’s objectives, their people, or exchanges with followers.

Future Research Since this article suggests a new perspective on the framework of leadership, there are several avenues for future research. To start with, empirical evidence can explore the proposed adaptable emphasis leadership model whether it specifically tests the concept itself or each of the leadership corners, particularly servant leadership. In addition, more empirical research on servant leadership will help clarify the adaptable emphasis leadership model and how it may be effective. Stone et al. (2003) and other servant leadership proponents suggest that more research should clearly distinguish it from transformational leadership. While this can be beneficial to better clarify the two, it has inevitably led to the previously discussed issues with the servant leadership literature becoming more divergent. The concept of pseudo-servant leadership should also be further researched in conjunction with ethics and morality. Defining pseudo-servant leadership would further define how servant leadership is practiced and who is and who is not a servant leader. The theoretical distinction between ethical outcomes as discussed earlier can be a starting point for empirically testing the distinctions between servant leadership and transformational leadership. More quantitative and qualitative research should be focused on this model’s relation to the original leadership studies encompassed in the model (i.e. people-oriented versus task-oriented). Were the Michigan and Ohio State studies just the tip of the iceberg? The adaptable emphasis leadership model expands those concepts within the situational leadership context.

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

ADAPTABLE EMPHASIS MODEL 25

REFERENCES Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full Leadership Development. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Avolio, B. J. & Bass, B. M. (1999) Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462. Barling, J., Christie, A., & Turner, N. (2008). Pseudo-transformational leadership: Towards the development and test of a model. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 851-861. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York: The Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31. Bass, B. M. (1996). New Paradigm of Leadership: An Inquiry into Transformational Leadership. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Bass, B. M. & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181-227. Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3), 18-40. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207-218. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Choudhary, A. I., Akhtar, S. A., & Zaheer, A. (2013). Impact of transformational and servant leadership on organizational performance: A comparative analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 116: 433-440. Cullen, J. & Parboteeah, K. (2014). Multinational Management: A Strategic Approach. Mason, OH South-Western Cengage Learning. Daft, R. L. (2008). The Leadership Experience. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning. Graen, G. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multilevel multi-domain perspective. University of Nebraska – Management Department Faculty Publications. Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 105-119. Greenleaf, R. K. (1991). The Servant as Leader. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. Greenleaf, R. K. & Spears, L. C. (2002). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness, 25th Anniversary Edition, Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ. Humphrey, A. (2012). Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors: The role of organizational identification. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 15, 247-268.

SLTP. 2(2), 12-26

26

B. STAATS

Joosten, Dijke, & Hiel. (2014). Feel good, do good?! On consistency and compensation in moral self-regulation. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(1), 71-84. Keith, K. M. (2008). The Case for Servant Leadership. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. Macik-Frey, M., Quick, J. C., & Cooper, C. L. 2009. Authentic leadership as a pathway to positive health. Journal of Organizational Behavior, (30), 453-458. Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum, and Kuenzi. (2012). Who displays ethical leadership and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 151-171. Patterson, K., Redmer, T.A.O., & Stone, G. A. (2003). Transformational leaders to servant leaders versus level 4 leaders to level 5 leaders – The move from good to great. Presented at CBFA Annual Conference, October, 2003. Pavlovich, K. & Corner, P. D. (2014). Conscious enterprise emergence: Shared value creation through expanded conscious awareness. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 341-351. Robbins, S. P. & Judge, T. A. (2010). Essentials of Organizational Behavior. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Schneider, S. K. & George, W. M. (2011). Servant leadership versus transformational leadership in voluntary service organizations. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 32(1), 60-77. Smith, B. N., Montagno, R.V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-91. Spears, L. C. (2010). Character and servant-leadership: Ten characteristics of effective, caring leaders. The Journal of Virtues and Leadership, 1(1), 25-30. Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., Patterson, K. (2003). Transformational versus servant leadership: A difference in leader focus. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25: 349361. van Dierendonck, D. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business & Psychology, 26, 149-267. Vogell, H. (2011). Investigation into APS cheating finds unethical behavior across every level. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved from http://people.uncw.edu/imperialm/uncw/PLS_505/Cheating_AtlantaTeachers_7_5_11.pdf. Whetstone, J. T. (2002). Personalism and moral leadership: The servant leader with a transforming vision. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(4), 385-392. Whittington, J. L. (2004). Corporate executives as beleaguered rulers: The leader’s motive matters. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 3, 163-169. Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in Organizations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

Servant Leadership: Theory and Practice Volume 2, Issue 2, 27-56 August 2015

Servant Leadership and Organizational Citizenship in Rwanda: A Moderated Mediation Model Timothy A. Brubaker, Mission pour la Nouvelle Créature Mihai C. Bocarnea, Regent University Kathleen Patterson, Regent University Bruce E. Winston, Regent University

Abstract The present study proposed and tested a moderated mediation model of the effects of servant leadership on two types of organizational citizenship behaviors (altruism and courtesy). Proposed relationships between study variables are explained on the basis of two theoretical trajectories: social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) and reciprocity/clientelism (Gouldner, 1960; Landé, 1977). The sample for this study was 194 adult Rwandans working in non-government settings. Analysis showed adequate support for the full mediation effects of perceived leader effectiveness on the relationship between servant leadership and both forms of organizational citizenship. However, concerning the moderating effects of exchange ideology in the mediation models, exchange ideology only moderates the mediation model with respect to courtesy and not altruism. The study ends with a discussion of theoretical and practical implications along with suggestions for future research. This study makes a unique contribution to understanding the nature of leader-follower relationships among non-government organizations in Rwanda and is helpful for generally advancing the study of leadership in Africa. Keywords: Servant Leadership, Organizational Citizenship, Moderated Mediation Model, Regression

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SLTP. 2(2), 27-56

28 T. BRUBAKER, M. BOCARNEA, K. PATTERSON, AND B. WINSTON Although Western theories form the conceptual framework for much of the writing and teaching on leadership in Africa (Jackson, 2004), empirical literature demonstrates distinct differences in organizational dynamics and management principles that must be further explored, such as attitudes, assumptions, motivations, and satisfactions underlying leader-subordinate relationships (Jones, 1988). To add to the complexity, theorists and researchers alike have long wrestled with the roles of industrialization and development in the evolution of leadership styles (Harbison & Myers, 1959). However, Hofstede (2001) explains that although modernization leads to some societal similarities, it “does not wipe out variety” (p. 34). Thus, comparative global studies of cultural variation and its effects within organizations (e.g. Hofstede, 1980; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004) emphasize the stability and uniqueness of cultures as well as the importance of considering national culture when attempting to understand how people organize themselves (Hofstede, 1997). Servant leadership theory has been promoted as a universally endorsed leadership construct similar to the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) study’s (House, et al., 2004) humane orientation dimension of culture (Winston & Ryan, 2008). Empirical studies have confirmed the acceptability of servant leadership in relationship to positive organizational outcomes in cultures across the globe, including China (e.g. Ding, Lu, Song, & Lu, 2012), Turkey (Öner, 2012), Iran (Bardeh & Shimei, 2011), India (Mehta & Pillay, 2011), South Africa (Chatbury, Beaty, & Kriek, 2011), Indonesia (Pekerti & Sendjaya, 2010), and Bulgaria (Bocarnea & Dimitrova, 2010). Servant leadership theory is a relevant subject for further study in Africa and has the potential for reconceptualizing the process of selection and preparation of leaders (Agulanna, 2006). Brubaker (2013) demonstrated a strong correlation between servant leadership behaviors and perceived leader effectiveness in Rwanda. By showing the similar effects of servant leadership behaviors and behaviors consistent with the African philosophy of ubuntu on leader effectiveness, Brubaker has shown that “interconnectedness of self within society and the extension of humanness within shared community” (pp. 96-97) helps to account for the relevance and acceptability of servant leadership within Rwanda. This current study contributes to the developing body of knowledge on servant leadership in three significant ways: first, this study explores the extent to which perceived leader effectiveness mediates the effect of servant leadership on Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter’s (1990) concept of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB). Second, this study examines the extent to which the mediating effect of perceived leader effectiveness depends upon Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa’s (1986) concept of exchange ideology. Exchange ideology refers to individual expectations of the extent to which reciprocity is necessary and important for repaying others for their positive behaviors (Scott & Colquitt, 2007). The effect of a moderator in a mediation model is what Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007) call a conditional indirect effect, which is defined as “the magnitude of an indirect effect at a particular value of a moderator” (p. 186). Accordingly, this study analyzes the conditional indirect effect of servant leadership on OCB (Edwards & Lambert, 2007). The hypothesized moderating effects of exchange ideology are cast within the theoretical framework of clientelism, © 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN RWANDA 29 which refers to vertical quid pro quo dyadic alliance-building that exists between individuals of unequal status for the purpose of ensuring that one’s needs are met (Landé, 1977). Patron-client exchanges are a unique form of motivation, particularly within developing societies, as the norm of reciprocity has the long-term effect of curtailing risk and ensuring security (Hicken, 2011). Third, this study provides a unique contribution to organizational research by focusing on leader-follower dynamics in Rwanda.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES This study presents and analyzes a moderated-mediation model that incorporates servant leadership (independent variable), organizational citizenship (dependent variable), perceptions of leader effectiveness (mediating variable), and exchange ideology (moderating variable). Building on previous research, this study responds to the following research question: Does an individual’s exchange ideology moderate the indirect effect of perceived leader effectiveness on the relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior? The model for the proposed relationships between study variables is presented in Figure 1, and the hypotheses are: Hypothesis 1. Perceived leader effectiveness mediates the relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), mediation is established by testing three relationships: (a) the independent variable must predict the mediator variable; (b) the mediator variable must predict the dependent variable; and (c) the independent variable must predict the dependent variable. Additionally, organizational citizenship, which refers to an employee’s discretionary behaviors that are beneficial to an organization (Organ, 1988), covers a broad range of employee behaviors that focus on both the organization in general and other individuals within the organization in particular (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). The present study is concerned with citizenship behaviors that are directed at individuals within the organization. These behaviors are conceptualized using two subscales, which represent altruistic citizenship behaviors and courteous citizenship behaviors. According to Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, and Bachrach (2000), altruism refers to behaviors that help coworkers with work-related problems, whereas courtesy refers to “foresightful [sic] gestures that help someone else prevent a problem” (p. 518). Therefore, the testing of Hypothesis 1 involves testing five sub-hypotheses: Hypothesis 1a. Follower perceptions of servant leadership positively predict perceived leader effectiveness. Hypothesis 1b. Perceived leader effectiveness positively predicts altruistic organizational citizenship behavior. Hypothesis 1c. Follower perceptions of servant leadership positively predict altruistic organizational citizenship behavior. Hypothesis 1d. Perceived leader effectiveness positively predicts courteous organizational citizenship behavior SLTP. 2(2), 27-56

30 T. BRUBAKER, M. BOCARNEA, K. PATTERSON, AND B. WINSTON Hypothesis 1e. Follower perceptions of servant leadership positively predict courteous organizational citizenship behavior: The second hypothesis establishes the moderating effects of exchange ideology on the indirect effects of perceived leader effectiveness in the relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Hypothesis 2. Exchange ideology moderates the strength of the mediated relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. According to Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt (2005), testing a moderated mediation model necessitates examining the effects of the moderator on two relationships: (a) the relationship between the independent variable and the mediating variable; and (b) the relationship between the mediating variable and the dependent variable. According to Edwards and Lambert (2007), this is a moderated mediation model that examines firstand second-stage indirect effects. Muller, et al. explain that if the moderator affects either of these relationships (or both), then moderated mediation is established within the model. Therefore, in light of the two outcome variables incorporated in this study, testing Hypothesis 2 involves testing three sub-hypotheses: Hypothesis 2a. Exchange ideology moderates the relationship between servant leadership and perceived leader effectiveness such that perceptions of leader effectiveness increase as exchange ideology increases. Hypothesis 2b. Exchange ideology moderates the relationship between perceived leader effectiveness and altruistic organizational citizenship behaviors such that altruistic organizational citizenship behaviors increase as exchange ideology increases. Hypothesis 2c. Exchange ideology moderates the relationship between perceived leader effectiveness and courteous organizational citizenship behaviors such that courteous organizational citizenship behaviors increase as exchange ideology increases. Figure 1. Model of Study Variables.

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN RWANDA 31

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The conceptual framework for the present study is rooted in two theoretical trajectories: social learning theory and clientelism. First, social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) provides the framework for the basic supposition that positively perceived leadership behaviors result in positive follower behaviors. Social learning theory (also called social cognitive theory) posits that learning is governed by four processes: (a) attention to the important aspects of behavior that is being modeled; (b) retention or memory of the modeled behavior; (c) production and attempt to match the modeled behavior; and (d) motivation to persist in the modeled behavior increases when the learner perceives that the behavior is tied to positive outcomes (Gibson, 2004). Thus, with respect to the model incorporated in this study, the positive perceptions of the follower-focused behaviors of servant leadership are expected to correlate significantly with extra-role behaviors, as has already been shown by Hunter, et al. (2013), Walumbwa, Hartnell, and Oke (2010), and Vondey (2010). Bandura (2002) notes the significance of culture (as a context, not necessarily as a level of analysis) in understanding the environmental forces at work in determining behavior. Bandura explains that although there is commonality across cultures in the processes of learning, the diversity of language, customs, and practices results in complex and subtle differences in the behavior that is learned and reproduced. Yet, Bandura opines that the subtlety of these differences is largely oversimplified in cross-cultural research. Bandura writes, “Modeling is a universalized human capacity but how it is used varies in different cultural milieus” (p. 273). Herein is the rationale within the present study for pursuing better understanding of how exchange ideology, as a facet of the culturally important concept of clientelism, impacts the indirect effects of perceived leader effectiveness on the relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship. The literature on patron-client relationships (also called clientelism; Hicken, 2011) makes a significant theoretical contribution to the hypothesized moderating role of exchange ideology. As is demonstrated within more recent publications on clientelism (e.g., Hicken, 2011; Muno, 2010), Landé’s (1977) classic work is integral to theorizing the nature of patron-client relationships. Additionally, the conceptual centrality of Gouldner’s (1960) theory of reciprocity to both Landé’s work and to the organizational construct of exchange ideology (Eisenberger, et al., 1986) justifies the relevance of Landé’s older work. According to Landé (1977), the vertical relationships that characterize patron-client systems are established upon the premise that both patron and client have needs that are satisfied by the quid pro quo nature of dyadic alliance-building. Although the obligations are to each other for the pursuit of one’s own interests and goals, Landé notes that reciprocity is a significant and powerful norm that ensures that “unrepaid favors will be returned” (p. xvii). Accordingly, un-repaid debt within patron-client relationships becomes a powerful motivating influence for ensuring reliability and response in the time of need. The strength of patron-client exchanges is very influential within developing SLTP. 2(2), 27-56

32 T. BRUBAKER, M. BOCARNEA, K. PATTERSON, AND B. WINSTON societies where such relationships are significant for curtailing risk and ensuring security (Hicken, 2011). However, as needs are met through formalization (e.g. contracts) and institutionalization (e.g. clearly defined benefits and responsibilities), patron-client relationships become less significant (Landé, 1977). Hicken notes that patron-client relationships are most prevalent in developing societies. According to Landé (1977), one of the primary mechanisms utilized to ensure the reliability of patron-client relationships is the norm of reciprocity. Gouldner (1960) explains that the norm of reciprocity is a universally regarded duty, although its enactments vary with circumstances and contexts. Gouldner maintains that the norm of reciprocity is based on two inter-related demands: “People should help those who have helped them [and] people should not injure those who have helped them” (p. 171). Thus, according to Gouldner, reciprocity (as a universal norm) is a strong motivating influence that maintains societal balance and protects against exploitation of power differentials. Three considerations, then, make the norm of reciprocity (conceptualized and measured as exchange ideology; Eisenberger, et al., 1986) a significant factor in studying the relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: (a) Rwanda is a developing country (ranked 167 out of 187 countries within the United Nations Human Development Index; United Nations Development Programme, 2013) in which patron-client relationships are likely to be a prevalent societal force (Hicken, 2011); (b) Podsakoff, et al. (2000) have proposed the importance of reciprocity in understanding follower OCB; and (c) the norm of reciprocity, as a primary motivating mechanism (Gouldner, 1960), may minimize the indirect effects of perceived leader effectiveness, meaning that followers may be motivated to reciprocate leaders’ prosocial behaviors with their own extra-role behaviors - even when they do not think the leader is effective.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES This study used a non-experimental cross-sectional quantitative methodology to test the hypotheses. A quantitative approach to this study is appropriate in light of the study’s interest in building on existing quantitative research as well as its focus on statistical relationships between study variables (Cozby, 2009). According to Bordens and Abbott (2010), cross-sectional research has the advantage of allowing the researcher to obtain data in a short period of time, especially in comparison with longitudinal research, which could take years to gather. However, according to Cozby (2009), non-experimental research requires attention to at least two significant threats to validity: (a) extraneous variables (variables that are not considered in the research design) may be responsible for the observed relationships in the data; and (b) it is difficult to infer direction of causality from non-experimental research.

Sampling and Data Collection This study used a non-probability purposive sampling technique (Cozby, 2009). Purposive sampling is appropriate for the objectives of the present study because of the need for a large sample and the scarcity of large organizations in Rwanda.

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN RWANDA 33 The population from which the sample for this study was drawn is adult Rwandans (over 18 years of age) working in non-government organizations in Rwanda. Therefore, the predetermined criteria for inclusion in the study were (a) Rwandan nationality; (b) at least 18 years of age; and (c) full-time employment in non-government setting. Data was drawn from multiple organizational contexts convenient to the primary researcher. Data were collected from 208 individuals; yet 14 of these responses were unusable. Nine were rejected based upon the specific sampling criteria for inclusion in the study, as the respondents were from countries other than Rwanda. Five other responses showed significant evidence of misunderstanding the survey instructions (e.g. placing a checkmark beside items rather than rating items on the scales provided). The number of independent variables required for the regression analyses used to test the study hypotheses did not exceed eight. Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham’s (2005) note that a desirable ratio of observations to independent variable in regression analyses is 15:1 or 20:1. Additionally, they explain that sample size is important for detecting the prediction accuracy of regression models. Following Hair, et al. (2005), in the current study, a sample size of 160 respondents allowed for detecting R2 values of approximately 13% at the α = 0.01 level or 10% at the α = 0.05 level with a power level of 0.80.

Instrumentation Data for this study were collected using anonymous and confidential surveys translated from English into Kinyarwanda. Preexisting psychometric instrumentations with established validity and reliability were used to measure five of the study variables. Servant leadership behaviors were measured using Winston and Fields’ (2015) 10-item Essential Servant Leadership Behaviors scale (α = 0.96). Respondents utilized a fivepoint Likert scale to respond to items (1 = definitely no; 5 = definitely yes). A sample item from this scale is the following: “[My leader] practices what he/she preaches.” In the present study, this scale also had adequate reliability (α = 0.94). Perceptions of leader effectiveness were measured using a six-item scale developed by Ehrhart and Klein (2001) for assessing followers’ ratings of their leaders (α ranges between 0.88 and 0.92). Respondents were asked to rate their leaders using a five-point Likert scale (1 = definitely no; 5 = definitely yes). A sample item from this scale is: “I work at a high level of performance under my leader.” This scale was found to have adequate reliability in the present study (α = 0.90). Organizational citizenship behavior was measured using two subscales developed by Podsakoff, et al. (1990) for measuring altruistic and courteous OCBs. According to Podsakoff, et al. (2000), altruism refers to behaviors that help coworkers with workrelated problems, whereas courtesy refers to “foresightful gestures that help someone else prevent a problem” (p. 518). Although these items originally comprised two subscales within Podsakoff, et al.’s multidimensional conceptualization of OCB, theory demonstrates that these two factors are closely related as a “class of OCB [that is] targeted toward an individual as they are acted out” (Organ, 1997, p. 94). Indeed, this distinction between extra-role behaviors that benefit individuals in the organization and SLTP. 2(2), 27-56

34 T. BRUBAKER, M. BOCARNEA, K. PATTERSON, AND B. WINSTON extra-role behaviors that generally benefit the organization has been broadly upheld within theoretical and empirical literature on OCB (e.g. Settoon & Mossholder, 2002; Williams & Anderson, 1991). Items were reworded for self-reporting (Fields, 2002). Participants responded on a five-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree). Sample items are: “[I] willingly help others who have work related problems” (altruism) and “[I] take steps to try to prevent problems with other workers” (courtesy). Podsakoff, et al. (1990) reported adequate reliability for both subscales (α = 0.85 for each scale). In the present study, these scales had slightly lower reliability (altruism, α = 0.76; courtesy, α = 0.79). Exchange ideology refers to the extent to which employees believe that they ought to reciprocate positive behavior, as those with strong exchange ideology believe that they should help those who help them and not injure those who have helped them (Scott & Colquitt, 2007; Gouldner, 1960). In the present study, exchange ideology was measured using a five-item scale (α = 0.80) developed by Eisenberger, et al. (1986). Participants responded on a five-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree). A sample item from this scale is: “An employee who is treated badly by the organization should lower his or her work effort.” In the present study, this scale suffered from significant reliability concerns, as the full five-item scale was found to have Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of α = 0.49. After two items were removed (which is further explained in the analysis and limitations sections of this paper), reliability was found to be sufficient at α = 0.75. The remaining three-item scale was used in the remaining analyses.

Control Variables This study also controlled for the effects of five additional variables in order to avoid improper inferences from the data and increase internal validity of the study: gender, age, tenure with organization, tenure under leader, and satisfaction with salary. Previous research has demonstrated the significance of personal/demographic factors in predicting OCB (Turnipseed & Murkison, 1996). Studies have shown that gender affects employee perceptions and responses to supportive measures within the workplace (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Scandura & Lankau, 1997). Additionally, Ehrhart and Klein (2001) demonstrated the importance of controlling for gender and age when assessing perceived leader effectiveness, as perceptions of effective types of leadership were found to be significantly correlated with these demographic factors. Dennis and Bocarnea (2005) also showed that perceptions of servant leadership behaviors may vary across gender. Additionally, Organ and Ryan (1995) showed that tenure within the organization and tenure under leader are both related to OCB. Finally, this study also controlled for the effects of satisfaction with one’s salary, as Robinson and Morrison (1995) showed that an employer’s fulfillment of transactional obligations has a significant effect on employee OCB. This is consistent with Rousseau’s (1990) supposition that employee behaviors are sensitive to employer fulfillment of transactional obligations. In the model in the current study, it is possible that an employee’s lack of extra-role behavior (OCB) may be affected by dissatisfaction with salary. Therefore, this study controlled for employee’s satisfaction with salary using a two-item subscale from Hackman and Oldham’s (1974) Job Diagnostic Survey. Items © 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN RWANDA 35 are rated following the respondent’s level of satisfaction (1 = extremely dissatisfied; 7 = extremely satisfied). A sample item from this scale is: “The degree to which I am fairly paid for what I contribute to this organization.” Mathieu, Hofmann, and Farr (1993) report a satisfactory reliability coefficient (α = 0.88). The present study also found satisfactory reliability for Hackman and Oldham’s scale (α = 0.87).

Translation of the Instrument Survey instrumentation was translated from English for use in this study following methods adapted from Brislin (1970). According to Brislin, a robust strategy for translation and back-translation is necessary to avoid problems caused by the perception without the actuality of equivalence. Following Brislin, six steps were adopted for survey translation: (a) a translatable English version was established using the aforementioned instruments; (b) one bilingual with knowledge of both English and Kinyarwanda, as well as the subject material, translated the survey into Kinyarwanda; (c) a second bilingual translated the survey from Kinyarwanda into English without having access to the original English survey; (d) based on the back-translation, the researcher (also bilingual) worked with the first two bilinguals to refine the Kinyarwanda translation; (e) two other bilinguals were utilized to compare the original English with the refined Kinyarwanda translation, after which additional corrections were made; and (f) the survey was pretested with four people who speak the target language, and revisions were made where there was confusion in comprehension.

ANALYSIS Descriptive statistics of the sample are reported in Table 1. Table 1. Population Sample Demographics and Control Variables.

Variable Gender

Age (years)

Tenure in organization (years)

Tenure under leader (years)

N 194

Details

Sample

Male Female

55% 45%

Range Mean Median Standard deviation

19-89 35.21 33.00 9.78

Range Mean Median Standard deviation

1.00-20.00 4.85 4.00 3.87

Range Mean Median

1.00-18.00 3.07 2.00

189

192

188

SLTP. 2(2), 27-56

36 T. BRUBAKER, M. BOCARNEA, K. PATTERSON, AND B. WINSTON Items comprising psychometric scales were transformed into variables representing mean scores. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated for each scale to assess the reliability of these instruments among the population being sampled. The two-item scale for measuring satisfaction with salary (Hackman & Oldham, 1974) was found to be reliable (α = 0.87), as were the six-item scale for measuring leader effectiveness (Ehrhart & Klein, 2001; α = 0.90) and the ten-item scale for measuring servant leadership (Winston & Fields, 2015; α = 0.94). The two five-item subscales for measuring OCB (Podsakoff, et al., 1990) were also found to be reliable (altruism, α = 0.76; courtesy, α = 0.79). However, the five-item scale for measuring Exchange Ideology was found to have an extremely low alpha coefficient (α = 0.49). After deleting one item, reliability increased to 0.64. After deleting a second item, reliability increased to α = 0.75. Therefore, this three-item version of Eisenberger, et al.’s (1986) five-item scale was maintained for subsequent analyses. The remaining three items are provided in Table 2. These three items were used in subsequent analyses. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables are presented in Table 3. Table 2. Refined Scale for Measuring Exchange Ideology.

Item 1 How hard an employee works should not be affected by how well the organization treats him or her (reverse coded) 2 An employee’s work effort should have nothing to do with the fairness of his or her pay (reverse coded) 3 The failure of the organization to appreciate an employee’s contribution should not affect how hard he or she works (reverse coded) Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to study the mediating effects of perceived leader effectiveness on the relationship between servant leadership and altruistic OCB (Hypothesis 1a, 1b, and 1c) and courteous OCB (Hypothesis 1a, 1d, and 1e). According to Baron and Kenny (1986), assessing mediation consists of analyzing three relationships: (a) independent variable as predictor of mediating variable (IV to M); (b) mediating variable as predictor of dependent variable (M to DV); and (c) independent variable as predictor of dependent variable (IV to DV). Additionally, according to Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), if controlling for the mediating variable eliminates the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, then the relationship is perfect; if the relationship is only diminished, then it is partial (p. 160). Therefore, consideration of the mediating effects of perceived leader effectiveness concluded with analysis of the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable while controlling for the effects of the mediator. Tests of the mediating effects of perceived leader effectiveness in the relationship between servant leadership and OCB-altruism (Hypothesis 1a-c) began with initial review of bivariate correlations, which suggested that mediation was likely, as independent, dependent, and mediating variables were all significantly correlated (p < 0.01; see bivariate correlations in Table 3). The first hierarchical multiple regression analysis assessed the relationship between servant leadership and perceived leader © 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN RWANDA 37 effectiveness (see Table 4). Control variables (age, gender, organizational tenure, tenure under leader, and salary satisfaction) were entered in Step 1, explaining 22.4% of the variance in perceived leader effectiveness. After entering servant leadership in Step 2, the total variance explained by the model was 65.5%, F (6, 176) = 58.71, p < 0.001. Servant leadership explained an additional 44.3% of the variance in perceived leader effectiveness, R2 change = 0.44, F change (1, 176) = 233.79, p < 0.001. In the final model, only servant leadership was found to be statistically significant (β = 0.79, p < 0.001). The second hierarchical regression analysis assessed the relationship between perceived leader effectiveness and OCB-altruism (see Table 5). Control variables (age, gender, organizational tenure, tenure under leader, and salary satisfaction) were entered in Step 1, explaining 10.9% of the variance in OCB-altruism. After entering perceived leader effectiveness in Step 2, the total variance explained by the model was 15.9%, F (6, 168) = 5.29, p < 0.001. Table 3 (part 1). Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Study Variables. M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

1 OCBaltruism

4.14

.59



4.47

.53

.59**

3.88

.82

.33**

.40**

4.06

.81

.35**

.41**

.81**

2.37

.99

-.27**

-.26**

-.19**

4.95

1.57

.31**

.29**

.51**

.45**

35.21

9.78

.18*

.05

.31**

.20**

8 Gender

1.45

.50

-.08

-.09

9 Org. tenure

4.85

3.87

.07

.07

3.07

2.69

.06

.04

2 OCBcourtesy



3 Servant leadership



4 Leader effectiveness



5 Exchange ideology

-.17*



6 Salary satisfaction 7 Age

-.08

.24** -.05

-.09

-.07

.17*

.13

-.04

.02

.03

-.06

10 Tenure under leader

Note: *p < .05. **p < .01

SLTP. 2(2), 27-56

38 T. BRUBAKER, M. BOCARNEA, K. PATTERSON, AND B. WINSTON Table 3 (part 2). Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Study Variables. M

SD

6

7

8

9

10

1 OCBaltruism

4.14

.59

4.47

.53

3.88

.82

4.06

.81

2.37

.99

4.95

1.57



35.21

9.78

.39**

8 Gender

1.45

.50

.04

9 Org. tenure

4.85

3.87

.14*

.05**

.02



3.07

2.69

.04

.30**

.02

.60**

2 OCBcourtesy 3 Servant leadership 4 Leader effectiveness 5 Exchange ideology 6 Salary satisfaction 7 Age

— -.03



10 Tenure under leader



Note: *p < .05. **p < .01 Perceived leader effectiveness explained an additional 5% of the variance in OCBaltruism, R2 change = 0.05, F change (1, 168) = 10.05, p < 0.01. In the final model, salary satisfaction (β = 0.17, p < 0.05) and perceived leader effectiveness (β = 0.26, p < 0.01) were found to be statistically significant.

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN RWANDA 39 Table 4. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis of Servant Leadership with Perceived Leader Effectiveness.

b

Standard error

β

Constant Age Gender Org tenure Leader tenure Salary sat

3.16 0.00 -0.18 0.02 -0.01 0.24

0.28 0.01 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.04

-0.03 -0.11 0.11 -0.04 0.45**

Constant Age Gender Org tenure Leader tenure Salary sat Servant leader

1.14 -0.01 -0.06 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.78

0.23 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05

-0.10 -0.04 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.79**

Step 1

Step 2

Note. R2 = 0.22 (p = 0.00) for Step 1; ΔR2 = 0.44 (p = 0.00) for Step 2. ** p < 0.01 Table 5. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis of Perceived Leader Effectiveness with OCB-Altruism.

b

Standard error

Constant Age Gender Org tenure Leader tenure Salary sat

3.59 0.00 -0.10 -0.01 0.01 0.11

0.22 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.03

0.07 -0.08 -0.04 0.05 0.29**

Constant Age Gender Org tenure Leader tenure Salary sat Leader effect

3.01 0.01 -0.07 -0.01 0.01 0.07 0.18

0.28 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.06

0.08 -0.06 -0.07 0.06 0.17* 0.26**

β

Step 1

Step 2

Note. R2 = 0.11 (p = 0.00) for Step 1; ΔR2 = 0.05 (p = 0.00) for Step 2. * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 The third analysis assessed the relationship between servant leadership and OCBaltruism (see Table 6). Control variables (age, gender, organizational tenure, tenure under leader, and salary satisfaction) were entered in Step 1, explaining 10.9% of the variance in OCB-Altruism. After entering servant leadership in Step 2, the total variance SLTP. 2(2), 27-56

40 T. BRUBAKER, M. BOCARNEA, K. PATTERSON, AND B. WINSTON explained by the model was 14.6%, F (6, 168) = 4.78, p < 0.01. Servant leadership explained an additional 4% of the variance in OCB-altruism, R2 change = 0.04, F change (1, 168) = 10.05, p < 0.01. In the final model, salary satisfaction (β = 0.18, p < 0.05) and servant leadership (β = 0.23, p < 0.01) were found to be statistically significant. Table 6. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis of Servant Leadership with OCBAltruism.

b

Standard error

Constant Age Gender Org tenure Leader tenure Salary sat

3.59 0.00 -0.10 -0.01 0.01 0.11

0.22 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.03

0.07 -0.08 -0.04 0.05 0.29**

Constant Age Gender Org tenure Leader tenure Salary sat Servant leader

3.17 0.00 -0.07 -0.01 0.02 0.07 0.16

0.27 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.06

0.05 -0.06 -0.06 0.07 0.18* 0.23**

β

Step 1

Step 2

Note. R2 = 0.11 (p < 0.01) for Step 1; ΔR2 = 0.04 (p < 0.01) for Step 2. * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 Finally, the fourth analysis assessed the relationship between servant leadership and OCB-altruism while controlling for the effects of perceived leader effectiveness (see Table 7). According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), if controlling for the effects of M eliminates the effect of the IV on the DV, then the relationship is perfect. Control variables (age, gender, organizational tenure, tenure under leader, and salary satisfaction) were entered in Step 1, along with perceived leader effectiveness, explaining 15.9% of the variance in OCB-altruism. After entering servant leadership in Step 2, the total variance explained by the model was 16.0%, F (7, 167) = 4.55, p < 0.01. Servant leadership explained no additional variance in OCB-Altruism, R2 change = 0.00, F change (1, 167) = 0.25, p > 0.05. In the final model, no variables were found to be statistically significant.

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN RWANDA 41 Table 7. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis of Servant Leadership with OCBAltruism while Controlling for Perceived Leader Effectiveness.

b

Standard error

Constant Age Gender Org tenure Leader tenure Salary sat Leader effect

3.01 0.01 -0.07 -0.01 0.01 0.07 0.18

0.28 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.06

0.08 -0.06 -0.07 0.06 0.17* 0.26**

Constant Age Gender Org tenure Leader tenure Salary sat Leader effect Servant leader

2.99 0.00 -0.06 -0.01 0.01 0.06 0.15 0.05

0.29 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.09 0.09

0.07 -0.05 -0.07 0.06 0.16 0.21 0.07

β

Step 1

Step 2

Note. R2 = 0.16 (p < 0.01) for Step 1; ΔR2 = 0.00 (p > 0.05) for Step 2. * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 In summary, all three conditions for mediation were met, as servant leadership predicted perceived leader effectiveness, perceived leader effectiveness predicted OCBaltruism, and servant leadership predicted OCB-altruism. Additional analysis showed that perceived leader effectiveness perfectly mediates the effects of servant leadership on OCB-altruism, as controlling for the effects of the mediator removed the effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable. Therefore, Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 1c are fully supported. Tests of the mediating effects of perceived leader effectiveness in the relationship between servant leadership and OCB-courtesy (Hypothesis 1a, 1d, and 1e) followed the same order as the testing of previous hypotheses. Analysis began with initial review of bivariate correlations, which suggested that mediation was likely, as independent, dependent, and mediating variables were all significantly correlated (p < 0.01; see bivariate correlations in Table 3). The first hierarchical multiple regression analysis assessing the relationship between servant leadership and perceived leader effectiveness was performed in testing Hypothesis 1a (see Table 4); therefore it was not repeated for this analysis. The second hierarchical regression analysis assessed the relationship between perceived leader effectiveness and OCB-courtesy (see Table 8). Control variables (age, gender, organizational tenure, tenure under leader, and salary satisfaction) were entered in Step 1, explaining 10.2% of the variance in OCB-courtesy. After entering perceived leader effectiveness in Step 2, the total variance explained by the model was 19.1%, F (6, SLTP. 2(2), 27-56

42 T. BRUBAKER, M. BOCARNEA, K. PATTERSON, AND B. WINSTON 167) = 6.57, p < 0.001. Perceived leader effectiveness explained an additional 9% of the variance in OCB-Altruism, R2 change = 0.09, F change (1, 167) = 18.44, p < 0.01. In the final model, salary satisfaction (β = 0.17, p < 0.05) and perceived leader effectiveness (β = 0.34, p < 0.01) were found to be statistically significant. Table 8. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis of Perceived Leader Effectiveness with OCB-Courtesy.

b

Standard error

β

Step 1 Constant Age Gender Org tenure Leader tenure Salary sat

4.27 -0.01 -0.11 0.01 0.00 0.11

0.20 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.03

-0.13 -0.10 0.08 0.02 0.33**

Constant Age Gender Org tenure Leader tenure Salary sat Leader effect

3.57 -0.01 -0.07 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.22

0.25 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05

-0.12 -0.07 0.04 0.03 0.17* 0.34**

Step 2

Note. R2 = 0.10 (p < 0.01) for Step 1; ΔR2 = 0.09 (p < 0.00) for Step 2. * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 The third analysis assessed the relationship between servant leadership and OCBcourtesy (see Table 9). Control variables (age, gender, organizational tenure, tenure under leader, and salary satisfaction) were entered in Step 1, explaining 10.2% of the variance in OCB-courtesy. After entering servant leadership in Step 2, the total variance explained by the model was 19.0%, F (6, 167) = 6.51, p < 0.01. Servant leadership explained an additional 8.8% of the variance in OCB-courtesy, R2 change = 0.09, F change (1, 167) = 18.09, p < 0.01. In the final model, only servant leadership (β = 0.35, p < 0.01) was found to be statistically significant.

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN RWANDA 43 Table 9. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis of Servant Leadership with OCBCourtesy.

b

Standard error

β

Step 1 Constant Age Gender Org tenure Leader tenure Salary sat

4.265 -0.01 -0.11 0.01 0.00 0.11

0.202 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.03

-0.13 -0.10 0.08 0.02 0.33**

Constant Age Gender Org tenure Leader tenure Salary sat Servant ldr

3.68 -0.01 -0.08 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.23

0.24 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05

-0.16 -0.07 0.04 0.05 0.16 0.35**

Step 2

Note. R2 = 0.10 (p < 0.01) for Step 1; ΔR2 = 0.09 (p < 0.01) for Step 2. * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 Finally, the fourth analysis assessed the relationship between servant leadership and OCB-courtesy while controlling for the effects of perceived leader effectiveness (see Table 10). Control variables (age, gender, organizational tenure, tenure under leader, and salary satisfaction) were entered in Step 1, along with perceived leader effectiveness, explaining 19.1% of the variance in OCB-courtesy. After entering servant leadership in Step 2, the total variance explained by the model was 20.3%, F (7, 166) = 6.03, p < 0.01. Servant leadership explained no additional variance in OCB-courtesy, R2 change = 0.01, F change (1, 166) = 2.41, p > 0.05. In the final model, no variables were found to be statistically significant.

SLTP. 2(2), 27-56

44 T. BRUBAKER, M. BOCARNEA, K. PATTERSON, AND B. WINSTON Table 10. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis of Servant Leadership with OCBCourtesy while Controlling for Perceived Leader Effectiveness.

b

Standard error

β

Step 1 Constant Age Gender Org tenure Leader tenure Salary sat Leader effect

3.57 -0.01 -0.07 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.22

0.25 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05

-0.12 -0.07 0.04 0.03 0.17* 0.34**

Constant Age Gender Org tenure Leader tenure Salary sat Leader effect Servant leader

3.53 -0.01 -0.07 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.13 0.13

0.25 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.08 0.08

-0.14 -0.06 0.04 0.05 0.15 0.20 0.20

Step 2

Note. R2 = 0.19 (p < 0.01) for Step 1; ΔR2 = 0.01 (p > 0.05) for Step 2. * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 In summary, all three conditions for mediation were met, as servant leadership predicted perceived leader effectiveness, perceived leader effectiveness predicted OCBcourtesy, and servant leadership predicted OCB-courtesy. Additional analysis showed that perceived leader effectiveness perfectly mediates the effects of servant leadership on OCB-courtesy, as controlling for the effects of the mediator removed the effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable. Therefore, Hypotheses 1d and 1e are fully supported. A summary of mediation results is provided in Table 11. Table 11. Summary of Mediation Results (Beta Values; Standard Errors in Parenthesis). IV

M

DV

A

B

C

C’

SL PLE OCB-A 0.79** (0.05) 0.26** (0.06) 0.23** (0.06) 0.07 (0.09) SL PLE OCB-C 0.79** (0.05) 0.34** (0.05) 0.35** (0.05) 0.20 (0.08) Note. IV = independent variable; M = mediator; DV = dependent variable; A = effect of IV on M; B = effect of M on DV; C = effect of IV on DV; C’ = effect of IV on DV while controlling for M; SL = servant leadership; PLE = perceived leader effectiveness; OCBA = altruistic organizational citizenship behaviors; OCB-C = courteous organizational citizenship behaviors. ** p < 0.01 Hypothesis 2 predicts the moderating effects of exchange ideology on the mediated relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Three sub-hypotheses were tested using a framework for moderated mediation. Following Edwards and Lambert (2007), moderated mediation refers to “a mediated effect that © 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN RWANDA 45 varies across levels of a moderator variable” (p. 6). Muller, et al. (2005) note that two stages of moderation are the basis for assessing moderated mediation. Thus, testing for moderated mediation entails analyzing the moderating effects of exchange ideology on the path from the independent variable to the mediator and the path from the mediator to the dependent variable. Therefore, in light of the two subscales used in this study to conceptualize organizational citizenship, the moderating effects of exchange ideology were analyzed in the following three relationships, which are accounted for by Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c: (a) servant leadership and perceived leader effectiveness; (b) perceived leader effectiveness and OCB-altruism; and (c) perceived leader effectiveness and OCB-courtesy. Significance levels for interaction terms were lightened to p < 0.10, as interaction effects are often difficult to detect and frequently suffer from low power (McClelland & Judd, 1993). The first analysis considered the moderating effects of exchange ideology on the relationship between servant leadership and perceived leader effectiveness (see Table 12). Control variables (age, gender, organizational tenure, tenure under leader, and salary satisfaction) were entered in Step 1 and were found to account for 22% of the variance in perceived leader effectiveness. Servant leadership and exchange ideology were entered in Step 2; these variables accounted for an additional 44% of the variance in perceived leader effectiveness. The interaction terms (Servant Leadership × Exchange Ideology) were entered in Step 3. The total variance explained by the model was 67.1%, F (8, 170) = 43.34, p < 0.01. However, the interaction terms did not explain any additional variance in perceived leader effectiveness, as R2 change = 0.00, F change (1, 170) = 2.14, p > 0.10. Therefore Hypothesis 2a is not supported.

SLTP. 2(2), 27-56

46 T. BRUBAKER, M. BOCARNEA, K. PATTERSON, AND B. WINSTON Table 12. Regression Analysis of Moderating Role of Exchange Ideology on Relationship Between Servant Leadership and Perceptions of Leader Effectiveness.

b

Standard error

β

Step 1 Constant Age Gender Org tenure Leader tenure Salary sat

3.16 0.00 -0.18 0.02 -0.01 0.24

0.28 0.01 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.04

-0.03 -0.11 0.11 -0.04 0.45**

Constant Age Gender Org tenure Leader tenure Salary sat Servant leader Exchange ideo

1.15 -0.01 -0.06 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.78 0.00

0.27 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04

-0.10 -0.04 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.79** 0.00

Constant Age Gender Org tenure Leader tenure Salary sat Servant leader Exchange ideo Exchange mod

0.61 -0.01 -0.06 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.91 0.22 -0.06

0.46 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.10 0.15 0.04

-0.10 -0.04 0.03 0.03 0.10 0.92** 0.26 -0.28

Step 2

Step 3

Note. R2 = 0.22 (p < 0.01) for Step 1; ΔR2 = 0.44 (p < 0.05) for Step 2; ΔR2 = 0.00 (p > 0.05) for Step 3 * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 The second analysis considered the moderating effects of exchange ideology on the relationship between perceived leader effectiveness and OCB-altruism (see Table 13). Control variables (age, gender, organizational tenure, tenure under leader, and salary satisfaction) were entered in Step 1 and were found to account for 10.9% of the variance in OCB-altruism. Perceived leader effectiveness and exchange ideology were entered in Step 2; these variables accounted for an additional 8.5% of the variance in OCB-altruism. The interaction terms (Perceived Leader Effectiveness × Exchange Ideology) were entered in Step 3. The total variance explained by the model was 19.6%, F (8, 166) = 5.05, p < 0.01. However, the interaction terms did not explain any additional variance in OCB-altruism, as R2 change = 0.00, F change (1, 166) = 0.37, p > 0.10. Therefore Hypothesis 2b is not supported.

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN RWANDA 47 Table 13. Regression Analysis of Moderating Role of Exchange Ideology on Relationship Between Servant Leadership and OCB-Altruism.

b

Standard error

Constant Age Gender Org tenure Leader tenure Salary sat

3.59 0.00 -0.10 -0.01 0.01 0.11

0.22 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.03

0.07 -0.08 -0.04 0.05 0.29**

Constant Age Gender Org tenure Leader tenure Salary sat Exchange ideo Leader effect

3.42 0.01 -0.08 -0.01 0.01 0.05 -0.12 0.17

0.32 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06

0.09 -0.07 -0.06 0.04 0.13 -0.19** 0.24**

Constant Age Gender Org tenure Ldr tenure Salary sat Exchange ideo Leader effect Exchange mod

3.69 0.01 -0.08 -0.01 0.01 0.05 -0.23 0.11 0.03

0.56 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.20 0.12 0.05

0.09 -0.07 -0.07 0.05 0.12 -0.39 0.15 0.20

β

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Note. R2 = 0.11 (p < 0.01) for Step 1; ΔR2 = 0.09 (p < 0.05) for Step 2; ΔR2 = 0.00 (p > 0.05) for Step 3. * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 The third analysis considered the moderating effects of exchange ideology on the relationship between perceived leader effectiveness and OCB-courtesy (see Table 14). Control variables (age, gender, organizational tenure, tenure under leader, and salary satisfaction) were entered in Step 1 and were found to account for 10.2% of the variance in OCB-courtesy. Perceived leader effectiveness and exchange ideology were entered in Step 2; these variables accounted for an additional 12.1% of the variance in OCBcourtesy. The interaction terms (Perceived Leader Effectiveness × Exchange Ideology) were entered in Step 3. The total variance explained by the model was 30.6%, F (8, 165) = 9.11, p < 0.01. The interaction terms explained additional variance in OCB-courtesy, as R2 change = 8.4%, F change (1, 165) = 19.88, p < 0.01. Therefore Hypothesis 2c is supported. The moderating effects of exchange ideology in the relationship between perceived leader effectiveness and OCB-courtesy are illustrated in Figure 2. SLTP. 2(2), 27-56

48 T. BRUBAKER, M. BOCARNEA, K. PATTERSON, AND B. WINSTON Table 14. Regression Analysis of Moderating Role of Exchange Ideology on Relationship Between Servant Leadership and OCB-Courtesy.

b

Standard error

Constant Age Gender Org tenure Leader tenure Salary sat

4.27 -0.01 -0.11 0.01 0.00 0.11

0.20 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.03

-0.13 -0.10 0.08 0.02 0.33**

Constant Age Gender Org tenure Leader tenure Salary sat Exchange ideo Leader effect

3.92 -0.01 -0.08 0.01 0.00 0.05 -0.10 0.21

0.28 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

-0.11 -0.08 0.04 0.02 0.13 -0.19* 0.32**

Constant Age Gender Org tenure Leader tenure Salary sat Exchange ideo Leader effect Exchange mod

5.63 -0.01 -0.09 0.00 0.01 0.03 -0.81 -0.18 0.18

0.47 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.16 0.10 0.04

-0.12 -0.08 0.01 0.03 0.09 -1.51** -0.28 1.39**

β

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Note. R2 = 0.10 (p < 0.01) for Step 1; ΔR2 = 0.12 (p < 0.05) for Step 2; ΔR2 = 0.08 (p < 0.05) for Step 3. * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN RWANDA 49 Figure 2. Illustration of the moderating effects of exchange ideology.

Note: The only significant coefficients in the final regression model are for exchange ideology (B = -1.51; p < 0.01) and for the interaction of exchange ideology and leader effectiveness (B = 0.18; p < 0.01). This graph utilizes unstandardized beta values for the significant variables in the final regression model and illustrates two equations representing high (mean + one standard deviation) and low (mean – one standard deviation) exchange ideology.

Theoretical Implications There are at least two significant theoretical implications of this study. The first implication concerns the differing results from the analyses of the moderating effects of exchange ideology in the two moderated mediation models. The second implication concerns the strong relationship between servant leadership and perceived leader effectiveness in Rwanda.

Implications of the Moderating Effects of Exchange Ideology The relationship between exchange ideology and OCB-courtesy was observed to be significant and negative, which indicates that an employee’s reciprocity beliefs are likely to result in diminished organizational courtesy. However, the interaction of exchange ideology and perceptions of leader effectiveness was found to be significant and positive, meaning that as an employee increasingly perceives that his/her leader is effective, then reciprocity beliefs have an increasingly important role in explaining organizational courtesy. An employee with strong exchange ideology is more likely to perform courteous organizational behaviors than an employee with weak exchange ideology – SLTP. 2(2), 27-56

50 T. BRUBAKER, M. BOCARNEA, K. PATTERSON, AND B. WINSTON even more so as perceptions of leader effectiveness increase. More broadly, this study confirms the full mediating effects of perceived leader effectiveness on the relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship. Thus, with respect to the study’s full model, servant leadership behaviors have their strongest effect on OCBcourtesy when an employee has high reciprocity beliefs. Therefore, it is concluded that with respect to OCB-courtesy, exchange ideology does indeed moderate the mediation model.

Implications of the Perceived Effectiveness of Servant Leadership in Rwanda A second theoretical implication of this study is found in the strong relationship between servant leadership and perceptions of leader effectiveness in Rwanda. Hannay (2009) proposes that lower power distance and low uncertainty avoidance are among the critical cultural dimensions indicative of the success of servant leadership. Hofstede’s (2001) aggregated data for East Africa, of which Rwanda is a part, describes the region as having high power distance and moderately high uncertainty avoidance. This is also consistent with GLOBE study’s (House, et al., 2004) findings of other sub-Saharan African countries (e.g., Nigeria, Zambia, and Zimbabwe) with respect to societal practices of power distance and uncertainty avoidance. In contrast with Hannay’s (2009) propositions, in the present study, there was a strong correlation between servant leadership and perceptions of leader effectiveness (β = 0.79, p < 0.01). Accordingly, this study provides further evidence that the construct of servant leadership is helpful in identifying leadership behaviors that are consistent with general implicit assumptions about positive prototypes of leadership (cf. Den Hartog, et al., 1999). Yet, while this relationship between servant leadership and perceived leader effectiveness is strong, it is important to consider the reasons for this relationship from an emic perspective.

Practical Implications There are at least two practical implications of this study. First, notwithstanding the fact that the correlational nature of the present study makes it difficult to determine causality or directionality (perhaps followers’ pro-organizational behaviors are partially responsible for eliciting leader servant behaviors), it is worth noting that working to increase followers’ perceptions of servant leadership is likely to have positive results on follower outcome behaviors. The sample in the present study strongly endorsed servant leadership behaviors. However, this leads to a second practical implication. The moderating effects of exchange ideology in the mediation model proposed in this study highlights the importance of vigilance and caution so that leadership does not utilize the perception of servant leadership behaviors as a mechanism for manipulation or exploitation. Gouldner (1960) maintains that the norm of reciprocity guards powerful people from the temptations to exploit and “inhibits the emergence of exploitative relations which would undermine the social system” (p. 174). However, Hall (1977) notes that broader contextual pressures (e.g. economic and social) can lead to repressive uses of patronclient relationships for the purpose of solidifying control. The social pressure to © 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN RWANDA 51 reciprocate can trap the weak in a vicious cycle of exploitation (especially in work relationships without formal contracts; Landé, 1977) in which the only response for one’s survival is to support the repressive structure. Consequently, from a practical perspective, leadership development should focus not just on the adoption of servant leadership behaviors, but, perhaps more importantly, on the reorientation of the leader’s understanding of authority, power, and purpose (i.e. moral reorientation not just behavioral reorientation).

Limitations One significant limitation of the present study was the unanticipated lack of reliability of Eisenberger, et al.’s (1986) scale for measuring exchange ideology. After recoding reverse-coded items in the scale, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was found to be exceptionally low (α = 0.49). After deleting one item, reliability increased to 0.64. After deleting a second item (leaving a three-item scale), reliability increased to an acceptable level of 0.75 (Pallant, 2005). Additionally, this study is limited by its use of self-report surveys, which makes it susceptible to common method variance (CMV). Although Spector (2006) proposes that CMV has become a “methodological urban legend” (p. 222), Conway and Lance (2010) provide suggestions for addressing CMV concerns, including demonstrating why selfreport measures are appropriate, evidence that measures have construct validity, and demonstration that CMV concerns have been considered. Notwithstanding this limitation, all of these suggestions were addressed in the present study. Additionally, as Chan (2009) explains, the use of non-self-report measures for OCB do not necessarily provide more valid assessments of OCB, but rather measure a different construct, as supervisor- or peer-reported measures of OCB may be interpreted differently than by the individual. A final limitation to note is the ability of this study to generalize to a broader population. This study utilized a purposive sampling technique and included only the type of individuals described by the population being studied (adult Rwandans employed in non-government settings). According to Cozby (2009), one disadvantage of purposive sampling is that “results may not generalize to [the] intended population” (p. 141). However, as Bordens and Abbott (2010) explain, psychological research often depends on nonrandom samples, using theories and models to make hypotheses that are then tested within a subset of the population.

Suggestions for Further Research There are a few notable directions for further research stemming from the present study. First, based upon the distinction observed in the different moderating effects of exchange ideology on OCB-altruism and OCB-courtesy, it would be appropriate to continue to explore variation in the effects on other dimensions of OCB utilizing other subscales developed by Podsakoff, et al. (1990) to measure sportsmanship, civic virtue, and conscientiousness, as well. OCB-altruism and OCB-courtesy are both extra-role behaviors that are focused on other individuals within the organization (Organ, 1997). Yet, it is important to further consider extra-role behaviors that generally benefit the SLTP. 2(2), 27-56

52 T. BRUBAKER, M. BOCARNEA, K. PATTERSON, AND B. WINSTON organization (sportsmanship, civic virtue, and conscientiousness). Given that the norm of reciprocity exists within relationships among people, it is possible that exchange ideology would not moderate similar mediation models with OCBO behaviors as dependent variables, as these behaviors do not directly benefit other people. However, if an individual perceives that these behaviors are a form of reciprocation, then exchange ideology could function as a significant moderator.

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN RWANDA 53

REFERENCES Agulanna, C. (2006). Democracy and the crisis of leadership in Africa. The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, 31(3), 255-264. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology, 51(2), 269– 290. Bardeh, M. K., & Shaemi, A. (2011). Comparative study of servant leadership characteristics in management texts and Imam Ali’s tradition (Case study: Najaf Abad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran). Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(2), 129-141. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173. Bocarnea, M. C., & Dimitrova, M. (2010). Testing servant leadership theory with Bulgarian students. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(3), 255-268. Bordens, K. S., & Abbott, B. B. (2010). Research design and methods: A process approach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. doi:10.1177/135910457000100301 Brubaker, T. A. (2013). Servant leadership, ubuntu, and leader effectiveness in Rwanda. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 6, 95–131. Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad? In C. E. Lance, et al. (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 309-336). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC. Chatbury, A., Beaty, D., & Kriek, H. S. (2011). Servant leadership, trust and implications for the “Base-of-the-Pyramid” segment in South Africa. South African Journal of Business Management, 42(4), 57-61. Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325–334. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6 Cozby, P. C. (2009). Methods in behavioral research. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., & Dorfman, P. W. (1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 219–256. Dennis, R. S., & Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(8), 600-615. Ding, D., Lu, H., Song, Y., & Lu, Q. (2012). Relationship of servant leadership and employee loyalty: The mediating role of employee satisfaction. iBusiness, 4, 208-215.

SLTP. 2(2), 27-56

54 T. BRUBAKER, M. BOCARNEA, K. PATTERSON, AND B. WINSTON Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1 Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K. J. (2001). Predicting followers’ preferences for charismatic leadership: The influence of follower values and personality. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 153-179. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507. Fields, D. L. (2002). Taking the measure of work: A guide to validated scales for organizational research and diagnosis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Gibson, S. K. (2004). Social Learning (Cognitive) Theory and Implications for Human Resource Development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, 193-201. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 161–178. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1974). The Job Diagnostic Survey: An instrument for the diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects (Tech. Rep. No. 4). New Haven, CT: Yale University, Department of Administrative Sciences. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2005). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hall, A. (1977). Patron-client relations: Concepts and terms. In S. Schmidt, et al. (Eds.), Friends, followers and factions: A reader in political clientelism (pp. 510-512). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hannay, M. (2009). The cross-cultural leader: the application of servant leadership theory in the international context. Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies, 1, 59–69. Harbison, F., & Myers, C. A. (1959). Management in the industrial world: An international analysis. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Hicken, A. (2011). Clientelism. Annual Review of Political Science, 14(1), 289–310. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.031908.220508 Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Hunter, E. M., Neubert, M. J., Perry, S. J., Witt, L. A., Penney, L. M., & Weinberger, E. (2013). Servant leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 316–331. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.12.001

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN RWANDA 55 Jackson, T. (2004). Management and change in Africa: A cross-cultural perspective. New York, NY: Routledge. Jones, M. (1988). Managerial thinking: An African perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 25(5), 481-505. Landé, C. H. (1977). The dyadic basis of clientelism. In S. Schmidt, et al. (Eds.), Friends, followers and factions: A reader in political clientelism (pp. xiii-xxxvii). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychology Bulletin, 108(2), 171-94. Mathieu, J. E., Hoffmann, D. A., & Farr, J. L. (1993). Job perception-job satisfaction relations: An empirical comparison of three competing theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 370-387. McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 376-390. Mehta, S., & Pillay, R. (2011). Revisiting servant leadership: An empirical study in Indian context. Contemporary Management Research, 5(2), 24-41. Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 852-863. Muno, W. (2010, August). Conceptualizing and measuring clientelism. Paper presented at the German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Hamburg, Germany. Öner, Z. H. (2012). Servant leadership and paternalistic leadership styles in the Turkish business context: A comparative empirical study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33(3), 300–316. doi:10.1108/01437731211216489 Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802. Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual. Crows Nest NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Pekerti, A. A., & Sendjaya, S. (2010). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: Comparative study in Australia and Indonesia. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(5), 754-780. doi:10.1080/09585191003658920 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563.

SLTP. 2(2), 27-56

56 T. BRUBAKER, M. BOCARNEA, K. PATTERSON, AND B. WINSTON Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227. Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 289-298. Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employer's obligations: A study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 389-400. Scandura, T. A., & Lankau, M. J. (1997). Relationships of gender, family responsibility and flexible work hours to organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(4), 377-91. Scott, B. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2007). Are organizational justice effects bounded by individual differences? An examination of equity sensitivity, exchange ideology, and the big five. Group & Organization Management, 32(3), 290–325. doi:10.1177/1059601106286877 Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person- and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 255–267. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.2.255 Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221–232. doi:10.1177/1094428105284955 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc. Turpinseed, D., & Murkison, G. (1996). Organization citizenship behaviour: An examination of the influence of the workplace. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 17(2), 42-47. United Nations Development Programme. (2013). The rise of the south: Human progress in a diverse world: Rwanda. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/CountryProfiles/RWA.pdf Vondey, M. (2010). The relationships among servant leadership, organizational citizenship behavior, person-organization fit, and organizational identification. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1), 3-27. Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 517-529. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617. Winston, B. E., & Fields, D. (2015). Seeking the essence of servant leadership. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal. 36(4), Pages not yet determined Winston, B. E., & Ryan, B. (2008). Servant leadership as a humane orientation: Using the GLOBE study construct of humane orientation to show that servant leadership is more global than Western. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(2), 212-222.

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice Volume 2, Issue 2, 57-75 August 2015

Discovering the Servant in Fire and Emergency Services Leaders Eric J. Russell, Utah Valley University Rodger E. Broomé, Utah Valley University Rhiannon Prince, Utah Valley University

Abstract This qualitative grounded theory designed study identified perceptions and interpretations of leaders and leadership from the perspective of mid-level fire and emergency services officers. The findings from this study discovered a possible pathway for instilling the philosophy of servant leadership into the fire and emergency services. The study took place at a large metropolitan fire and emergency services agency in the Western United States. The 15 participants in the study were affiliated, uniformed and sworn, mid-level fire and emergency services officers. The literature used to form this study, identified negative issues associated with current leadership practices within the fire and emergency services and their relations to both the physical and mental stresses that many responders suffer. The study’s theoretical finding was mid-level fire and emergency service officers interpreted the role of a leader to be that of serving their followers. The theoretical finding seemingly aligns closely with the philosophy of servant leadership. Keywords: Servant Leadership, Fire and Emergency Services, Bureaucracy

The approach towards leadership within the fire and emergency services often results in negative and somewhat destructive environments (Carter, 2007; Fishkin, 1990; Floren, 1984; Kates, 2008; Kirschman, 2004, 2007; Perez, Jones, Englert, & Sachau, 2010; Sweeney, 2012; Yuan et al., 2011). Specifically, the issue involves the

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SLTP. 2(2), 57-75

58 RUSSELL, BROOMÉ, AND PRINCE bureaucracy within fire and emergency services organizations that seemingly stifles a leadership approach towards people consisting of positive human interactions and relationships, replacing them instead with top-down, and at times constraining, managerial policies and procedures (Alexander & Sanjay, 2013; Edwards, 2010; Kirschman, 2004, 2007; Marinucci, 2009; Mitchell & Casey, 2007; Rhodes, 2006; Weber 1978). Greenleaf (1977/2002) argued that the practice of servant leadership could overcome such toxic bureaucracies. Based upon existing literature, there is a possibility that instilling the philosophy of servant leadership into the fire and emergency services, through training and education, could lessen the policy driven bureaucratic approach towards leadership. Furthermore, current research shows the promise of servant leadership within the fire and emergency services and its potential positive impact on the overall health and wellbeing of fire and emergency services responders (Baker, 2011; Carter, 2007; Cortrite, 2007; Moonsbrugger & Patterson, 2008; Reed, 2015; Russell, 2014a, 2014b; Stanley, 1995). However, before one can create academic offerings regarding servant leadership for the fire and emergency services, there needs to be a deeper understanding of the current perceptions and interpretations that affiliated fire and emergency services personnel possess regarding leaders/leadership. The bureaucracy is, by human design, a somewhat closed system that seeks to absorb and integrate things compatible with it (Mills 1959/2000; Weber, 1978). The potential big ideas must come from both inside and outside the system to help it grow and develop. Therefore, the fire and emergency services research project must step outside its applied and practical frame to get fresh eidetic material. Borrowing from its cousin business management has only proven incestuous in the realm of the intellect and its subsequent manifestation in the bureaucratic milieu. The fire and emergency services operate like other non-emergency services organizations except that their operations are conducted under time-pressure, and consequence. This qualitative study explored the understanding of leadership within the fire and emergency services in order to discover possible pathways for infusing the philosophy of servant leadership into the career field. The data associated with this grounded theory study was derived from questionnaires completed by uniformed and sworn, fire and emergency services company level officers serving in a large metropolitan fire and emergency services agency in the Western United States. The central question that guided the research asked how professional fire and emergency services responders interpreted the role and characteristics of leadership as it compared to servant leadership. The researchers chose to conduct a qualitative study in order to give a voice to the participants, thus allowing for a richer understanding often missed in statistical analysis (Camic, Rhodes, & Yardley, 2003). The importance of qualitative research involving servant leadership is in the methodological ability to glean a deeper understanding of what servant leadership means and how it is perceived (Winston, 2010). Utilizing a grounded theory design allowed for theoretical development based upon the study’s findings (Glaser & Strauss, 1999). Furthermore, the emergent theoretical finding from this study, coupled with existing empirical works, allowed the researchers to discover a

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT IN EMERGENCY SERVICES 59 possible pathway for infusing the philosophy of servant leadership into the fire and emergency services.

LITERATURE REVIEW The following literature review utilized existing empirical works to identify current leadership and managerial practices within the fire and emergency services. A major finding in the literature was the problem associated with bureaucratic practices and its negative impact on the responder (Alexander & Sanjay, 2013; Kirschman, 2004, 2007; Rhodes, 2006). Because of this finding, the literature review begins by defining bureaucracy and its impact within organizations. The literature review then addresses the specific problems bureaucracy creates within the fire and emergency services as well as the toll such practices takes on responders. The literature review then moves on to give an overview of servant leadership philosophy. Finally, the review of the literature identifies the commonalities between the philosophy of servant leadership and the fire and emergency services.

Bureaucracy Bureaucracy is the structure and process to control assets and people (Weber, 1978). Maslow (1965) described the value of fostering creativity among people in an organization of any kind by applying it to the managerial situation. Within the fire and emergency services the bureaucratic process is to control the chaos of the emergency scene. The concepts of safety and order on the emergency scene are ingrained into the minds of responders at the start of their professional training and education and constantly reiterated throughout their career. This process exists to meet emergency objectives that are under time-pressure and consequences. Thus, when it is proposed to have a different leadership approach outside of the emergency scene it is typical to have some objections raised by some in the group who need more structure, these are the individuals who believe that without structural order, anarchy and chaos could result. It is important to proceed with this discussion rationally, but also, with an understanding that they come from deeply emotional and often irrational places (Maslow, 1965). This is a demand for a set of rules and principles in the form of policies and procedures that are written for controlling the future and for anticipating any problem that may arise (May, 1991; Mills 1959/2000; Perez et al., 2010; Weber, 1978). Maslow (1965) continued pointing out that this is realistically impossible and that the future by nature is somewhat unpredictable. Trying to construct a comprehensive and exhaustive book of rules for any contingency is a futile effort. He proposes that this is a mistrust of our own self that drives a need to prepare. Maslow (1965) goes on to argue that it is better for most situations that the organization works toward a minimum of the rules rather than to a maximum. Perhaps it is best to regard the size of the book of rules needed as proportional to the size and complexity of the organization of people it is meant to serve. It needs noting that bureaucracy emerged as a self-created arrangement by human beings, and that both human will and judgment are governed by predetermined ideas so that freedom of ideas is constrained before it is born. Additionally, governments and organizations have

SLTP. 2(2), 57-75

60 RUSSELL, BROOMÉ, AND PRINCE argued the need for bureaucracy as a way to protect the people (de Vries, 2001; Weber, 1978). Bureaucratic hierarchies frame the employee’s world in such a way that makes promotion the only real progress; meaning that the only way for someone to be successful is to promote (May, 1991). Moreover, the pyramid structure of hierarchies creates an ever-diminishing possibility for the employee to promote because each level gets smaller in number (Seigal, 2006). In a competitive-individualist culture, each level of success comes with a winner and multiple losers. How hierarchies deal with this is to refer back to the rugged individualist’s ethos of, “get back up, dust yourself off, and go back to working hard.” If one were to look at the standard distribution (bell curve), one would see that in any group of people performing the same job, there is a right-tail group of excellent performers. On the other hand, there is also a left-tail group who are insufficient performers that need to increase performance. Finally, in the distribution, there is the middle-group made up of those performers that hover about the mean, which is the hypothetical middle performer. What this means is that the right-tail group is ideally where the next “best-man for the job” is coming from. Nevertheless, by promoting only one or two, others who are statistically the same in performance are rejected and pushed back toward the middle-group to try again (Kezar, 2001; Vinzant & Crothers, 1996). The mythology of the rugged individual promotes the idea that one gets to the top of the organization through hard work, loyalty, and dependability (May, 1991). Yet a scientific-style examination process, which is meant to be unbiased, moderates these objectively, but does not guarantee that the best overall candidate is even securely in the right tail of the distribution. As a result, decision-makers must deal with the dilemma of choosing. The choice is between promoting the person who had the best performance determined by these artificial measures within a one-time context, or the person they believe has been the dependable and efficacious performer over time. More often than some would like to see, there is a functional abandonment of the first choice because it is the qualities of the second choice that adds a contributing member to the next level of the organization. After all, if each rank in the organization has fewer and fewer people, the people need to be increasingly stronger groups in terms of teamwork and performance (Bruegman, 2012; Vinzant & Crothers, 1996). These groups must not only be efficacious, but they must also insulate themselves in terms of political power because they have ascended in an organization that is competitive at every turn; it is an exclusionary ethos. Once one becomes a winner in a bureaucracy, the fall from the upper levels becomes disastrous because he or she lands among the losers. At what point can the rugged individual keep being passed-over and thus pushed back to the middle to try again? Does that person begin to be influenced by that push back (especially when one considers that each promotional opportunity in bureaucracies is meant to be objective and scientific in its process of validating its selections from among the applicants)? The result is that the promotion process begins with application, resume, performance testing, and interviews (Anglin, 2001). Each audition, if you will, becomes artificially a new contrived context that intentionally ignores the history and past efforts of the candidate. Moreover, it also invites new candidates that did not try out © 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT IN EMERGENCY SERVICES 61 in the last audition, so now the field of competition has changed. Overall, the employee’s career is one thing that evolves over time in his or her experience. Nevertheless, at promotion time, the evaluation process becomes a performance snapshot moment by which the employee’s entire history is negated. If it is not entirely negated by the bureaucracy implementing resume, performance reviews, and other instruments, his or her historical trajectory as an employee is still moderated. The employee’s history is then moderated by the snapshot style evaluation mode of written exams, role-plays, and interviews, seemingly creating a bait-and-switch (Flemming, 2010).

Bureaucracy in the Fire and Emergency Services The bureaucracy is the container in which the organization exists; it sets the parameters, conditions, and minimal standards. When the capacity of the individual becomes greater than the bureaucratic structure, problems arise, hence the reason to have an organization in a state of constantly developing followers (Keith, 2008). This bureaucratic empiricism creates problems that affect the fire and emergency services responder as they come to the career with a desire to serve others (Russell, 2014a; Salka & Neville, 2004). This is why the bureaucracy is a problem within the fire and emergency services, for as Mills (1959/2000) wrote, “[bureaucrats] are among the humanistically impoverished, living with reference to values that exclude any arising from a respect for human reason” (p. 106). Often times the fire and emergency services is driven to be problem focused rather than solutions focused. This creates an environment that symbolizes mundane issues causing them to seem the same as real problems and chaos (May, 1991). Inconvenience becomes a problem; something missing means things are missing. Followers begin equating labeling the kitchen drawers and cabinets or the cleaning supply closet to the importance of labeling the paramedic drug-box compartments. The responder begins to believe that they cannot handle exceptions because they believe they might fail to exercise good judgment (Maslow, 1965). By mistrusting their abilities as professionals, they imagine that using the bureaucratic approach of policy building ad infinitum will serve use with safety and security from the imagined terrible tragedy that might befall them. However, over burdening people with policies creates a world of servants serving the rulebook instead of the rules serving their essential role. This destructive environment damages responders and unfortunately is common throughout fire and emergency services organizations (Kirschman, 2004). The bureaucracy leaves people desiring for a far different situation than the one they currently find themselves functioning (de Vries, 2001). The formal bureaucratic structure works under normal operating conditions; however, the formal must be flexible in order to function within the abnormal situation (Lyden, 1974). Vinzant and Crothers (1996) found that those who operate in the field possess a leadership style that holds to their values, values that lead to questioning the need for the bureaucracy. Moreover, responders often need to bypass or even disregard the bureaucratic policy in order to save a life (Henderson & Pandey, 2013; Rhodes, 2006). Henderson and Pandey (2013) found that paramedics operating on an emergency scene had to ignore policies and protocols in order to save the lives of patients in their care. When writing on the fire and emergency

SLTP. 2(2), 57-75

62 RUSSELL, BROOMÉ, AND PRINCE services response to hurricane Katrina, Rhodes noted that for the responders to be successful, they needed to rise above the bureaucracy in order to save lives (Rhodes, 2006). Furthermore, the bureaucratic structure slows and stifles emergency and disaster planning that will make the difference to the least fortunate within society (Aryal & Dobson, 2011; Henderson, 2004). The least fortunate of society are of great concern to servant leaders (Greenleaf, 1977/2002). Lloyd (2003) argued that a failure to develop leaders within the fire and emergency services is an immoral act. Furthermore, intervening in the aftermath of a traumatic situation with programs such as critical incident stress debriefings may be too late. Instead, there is a need to build a culture of support that strengthens the individual before the incident ever occurs (Gilmartin, 2002; McNally, Bryant, & Ehlers, 2003; Paton, 2005; Paton, Violanti, Dunning, & Smith, 2004; Sheehan & Van Hasselt, 2003); therefore, a need also exists to build a leadership culture that supports such practices. Included in this culture, is meeting the needs of individuals by fostering their intelligence and building a community of social support (McNally et al., 2003; Patton, 2005; Patton et al., 2004). That concept is found at the core of the servant leadership philosophy (Greenleaf, 1977, 2002; Patterson, 2003; Sipe & Frick, 2009; Spears, 2010). The problems that arise between the responder and the bureaucracy go beyond the operational aspect of the profession. Fire and emergency services responders make meaning out of their work; the profession becomes a part of their identity (Jensen, 2005). This is also the case for those that assume officer level ranks, their rank adds to their identity. Part of what defines these individuals is their role as fire and emergency services leaders. However, many promote to officer positions without ever receiving an education or even a class on being a leader (Russell, 2014a). The research of Taylor, Martin, Hutchinson, and Jinks (2007) found a need for leadership preparatory programs for followers in order to mold them into the leaders of the future. The rationale for finding a pathway for servant leadership within the fire and emergency services has to do with the servant leader being held in much higher regard by followers than others leaders (Taylor et al., 2007). In addition, unlike any other approach towards leadership, the virtues of servant leadership align with the virtues that define what it means to be a fire and emergency services responder (Carter, 2007; Russell, 2014a).

Servant Leadership Robert K. Greenleaf penned the philosophy of servant leadership over four decades ago. Such thinking revolutionized leadership thought and academics by bringing an approach to the world that is opposite of a desire to lead first. Greenleaf’s (1977/2002) work embeds a desire to serve others first, to meet their needs, arguing that the path to true happiness comes from the idea of serving others (Greenleaf, 1977/2002; Stramba, 2003; Keith, 2008). However, unlike current leadership theory, servant leadership bases itself on the notion that the servant leader is one that possesses specific characteristics (Spears, 2010) and thus a servant’s pathway. The idea of servant leadership is not the weakening of leaders and subduing their legitimacy but rather, strengthening their role through service (Greenleaf, 1977/2002), empathy (Spears, 2010), and humility (Hayes &

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT IN EMERGENCY SERVICES 63 Comer, 2010). As it is with the fire and emergency services profession, being a servant leader gives meaning to one’s life (Keith, 2008). When writing on the individual, Greenleaf (1977/2002) discusses the notion of those that wish to serve and from that service comes leadership, a byproduct of serving. The theory places the individual within society, regardless of stature, as a servant to the needs of others (Greenleaf, 1977/2002). Such a notion involves the improvement and development of others as the cornerstone. Spears (2010) held such a concept, the committing oneself to the betterment and growth of others, as a core characteristic of the servant leader. Here is the individual, impressive, educated and self-aware, committing their life to the service of others for their betterment (Greenleaf, 1977/2002). The essential component of Greenleaf’s (1977/2002) theory is the individual and the power they hold in the service to others as well as the outcomes of the practice. Greenleaf (1977/2002) posed two specific questions about servant leadership, the first involved whether the leader grows as an individual and the second involved the growth of the individual served. Greenleaf (1977/2002) places the idea of putting people first as the central tenet of success for an organization, he argued that the institution that places the needs of its people before all else will in fact see everything turn positive. Such an idea bases itself on the premise that if your people are taken care of then they in turn take care of everything else. Greenleaf (1977/2002) wrote that the institution that practices servant leadership flourishes because those served desire to make it so. It was from the roots of servant leadership that Spears (2010) established what are known as the ten characteristics of the servant leader. Spear’s (2010) work took Greenleaf’s (1970) writings regarding servant leadership from a theory to a usable and identifiable model based upon these ten characteristics. Because of Spear’s (2010) work, the theory of servant leadership now contained specific and measurable characteristics one could use to identify servant leadership qualities within individual leaders. Derived from an interpretation of Greenleaf’s (1970) original essay, the 10 characteristics of the servant leader according to Spears are listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community (Spears, 2010). Specific and yet not exhaustive (Spears, 2010), these characteristics describe the servant leader. Besides being able to use these characteristics to measure servant leaders, they also function as a way to look inward into one’s own leadership characteristics. A groundbreaking work by Patterson (2003) moved beyond the notion of characteristics of the philosophy into the virtues that make up servant leadership. The constructs of servant leadership derive from Patterson’s (2003) work that involved identifying specifics within Greenleaf’s servant leadership philosophy. Unlike the 10 characteristics that Spears (2010) established, which described the servant leader, the seven virtuous constructs identified by Patterson (2003), embody the theoretical core of Greenleaf’s (1970) original essay, The Servant as Leader. Patterson (2003) argued that the theory of servant leadership extended from and beyond the transformational leadership model and therefore demanded its own set of parameters, leading to the seven virtuous constructs specific to servant leadership. Patterson (2003) identified differences,

SLTP. 2(2), 57-75

64 RUSSELL, BROOMÉ, AND PRINCE which led to the creation of seven virtuous constructs specific only to the practice of servant leadership. In order, these constructs are agapao love, humility, altruism, vision, trust, empowerment, and service. Patterson (2003) displayed how each construct flows into the next with the pinnacle being that of service. The seven virtuous constructs and their relation to the fire and emergency services are expanded upon in the next section of the literature review. With the expansion of conceptual writings by celebrated authors regarding the philosophy of servant leadership, Farling, Stone, and Winston (1999) argued for the need of empirical studies as well as the development of models and measurement instruments. A major study that followed was by Laub (1999), whose research led to the development of one of the first instruments to be used to study servant leadership known as the Organizational Leadership Assessment Instrument (OLA). Developed through a Delphi study, the OLA became a sought after instrument to assess the presence and amount of servant leadership in organizations (Laub, 1999). Laub’s (1999) OLA identified six specific areas of measurement for servant leadership, values people, develops people, builds community, displays authenticity, provides leadership, and shares leadership. Since its publication, the OLA has led to dozens of published dissertations and theses.

Servant Leadership and the Fire and Emergency Services The career of the fire and emergency services professional still holds true to the same traditions and passions as those who came before and the love of serving others is still the foundation of what it means to be a fire and emergency services responder (Fleming, 2010; Lasky, 2006; Morris, 1955; Smeby, 2005). Leadership in the fire and emergency services poses a unique set of challenges, where leaders must take two separate, yet simultaneous paths. The first path is leadership associated with on-scene emergency management; this situation involves a direct-authoritative role, including giving commands and orders to crews (Anglin, 2001; Coleman, 2008; van Doren, 2006). On the emergency scene, a command and control style of leadership is necessary for safe and effective operations (Smeby, 2005). Command and control of an emergency scene are a complex system, where time is of the essence and the environment is one of danger and risk (Bigley & Roberts, 2001). Within the fire and emergency services, bureaucracy needs to exist for safety and order during emergency operations, the more lethal the task the more rigid the structure of command and control. However, this control has little place outside of emergency response (Kirschman, 2004). The second path is leadership away from an emergency scene, which is a very different role. As stated before, the fire and emergency services becomes a personal identifier for the individuals that operate in the career field. The majority of fire and emergency services responders work 24-hour to 48-hour shifts and live with one another in a family-like community; fire and emergency services stations are commonly referred to as houses. Therefore, relationships go beyond the stereotypical coworker to a brotherhood/sisterhood (Salka & Neville, 2004; Sargent, 2006; Seigal, 2006; Smith, 1972; Smoke, 2010).

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT IN EMERGENCY SERVICES 65 There is a commonalty between the philosophy of servant leadership and the desire to serve that brings the professional fire and emergency services responder to the career field. Specifically, servant leadership and the fire and emergency services responder, seemingly share the same virtues (Russell, 2014a), agapao love, humility, altruism, vision, trust, empowerment, and service (Patterson, 2003). Patterson (2003) placed agapao love as the first virtuous construct of servant leadership. For the fire and emergency services, it is a love for people that brings the individual to the profession, and it is love that allows one to remain (Lasky, 2006). The conscious decision to enter into a fire and emergency services career comes with an understanding of the inherent dangers associated with the profession (Salka & Neville, 2004). It is a love of serving others in their most vulnerable time of need that throughout history has called individuals to the profession (Morris, 1955). Hayes and Comer (2010) argued that humility is humanity, and for the fire and emergency services responder, that humility shows outwardly with acts of self-sacrifice and care. The fire and emergency services responder deals with others in their most vulnerable situations and in their most critical time of need (Smeby, 2005). Through humility, one can reach out to others (Nielson, Marrone, & Slay 2010). Invited into the life of others, the fire and emergency services responder becomes the humble servant, who when called upon, is willing to give their all (Smith, 1972; Useem, Cook, & Sutton, 2005). Such an act is altruism in its purest form, the giving of oneself for another (Patterson, 2003). The altruistic nature of the fire and emergency services profession is one that reaches out to others through a willingness to sacrifice in order to save others. Altruism stems from those with a passion to serve others without question and in so doing, willing to give other people ones all (Day, 2004). For the fire and emergency services leader, vision involves seeing the future needs of those one serves and in doing so ensuring those needs are met. Bell and Habel (2009) argued that the visionary rejects complacency and looks towards the future. Inwardly, vision protects the fire and emergency services profession, keeping the career field viable by meeting future needs (Whetstone, 2002). The fire and emergency services professional remains committed to being at the ready, which includes taking on different responsibilities for individuals within the organization, as well as the community in which they serve (Anglin, 2001; Fleming; 2010). The nature of the fire and emergency services operation is built upon trust. Individuals thrust into emergencies must rely on not only their own abilities, but also the abilities of others (Klinoff, 2012). At the core of the operation is a trust between leaders and followers, as well as coworkers. This trust involves believing in the abilities of those in command to make the right decisions and from this trust comes a willingness to carry out orders without question (Caldwell, Davis, & Devine, 2009). A leader earns trust in the fire and emergency services; it does not come automatically with a position (Sargent, 2006). Instead, it comes over time through a leader’s actions (Caldwell et al., 2009). Furthermore, trust must exist from the leader to the follower, where the actions, commitment, and abilities of the follower allow for the leader to trust them to operate without direct supervision (Caldwell & Hayes, 2007; Smoke, 2010). SLTP. 2(2), 57-75

66 RUSSELL, BROOMÉ, AND PRINCE The trust of the follower leads to a willingness of leaders to empower their followers. Within the fire and emergency services, centralized leadership is a standard practice that seemingly flows over from the emergency scene to the day-to day activities. Ndoye, Imig, and Parker (2010) argued for removing centralized leadership practices as a way to share the decision making and empower followers. The very nature of the fire and emergency response organization involves multiple independent companies controlled by junior officers who operate in designated strategic areas (Choo, Park, & Kang, 2011; Fleming, 2010; Smoke, 2010). Companies and crews are empowered to respond to emergencies and make tactical and patient decisions, depending on the size and severity of the situation, free from the direct supervision of chief officers (Coleman, 2008; Salka & Neville, 2004; Smeby, 2005). Therefore, the fire and emergency services profession operates in a continuous state of trust and empowerment. Leaders have to empower their officers in order to function. As Patterson (2003) explained, the constructs come together to form the core construct of service, which Sipe and Frick (2009) argued was the absolute giving of self to service of others. Service is indeed the core value of the fire and emergency services responder; it is in that essential desire to serve that the individual steps forward. As Greenleaf (1977/2002) wrote, it is from a desire to serve that the leader appears. Likewise, it is from that same desire to serve that the fire and emergency services professional comes forth and through that desire, leads. Servant leadership is at the core of the fire and emergency services profession, because the constructs that bring forth the individual and formulate their desire to serve, are the very same that make up the servant leader (Carter, 2007; Patterson, 2003; Russell, 2014a). Cortrite (2007) found that the practice of servant leadership showed promise for overcoming toxic leadership practices that stifle human relationships and often times lead to destructive work environments within public safety organizations. In addition, as noted earlier, Greenleaf (1977/2002) argued that the practice of servant leadership could overcome toxic practices within organizations, the fire and emergency services being among them.

METHODOLOGY The setting of this qualitative research study took place at a large metropolitan fire and emergency services organization in the Western United States. To conduct the study, the researchers employed a grounded theory design. Grounded theory is a systematic approach of data collection and analysis, which leads to theoretical discovery (Glaser & Strauss, 1999). The researchers used theoretical sampling, a process used for theoretical discovery involving data collection and analysis, to determine the sample size and reach saturation (Glaser & Strauss, 1999). Saturation, as it pertains to qualitative research, involves data collection analysis to a point where nothing new emerges (Glaser & Strauss, 1999). To conduct the study, the researchers developed a script consisting of open-ended questions to be used in the questionnaire. To avoid researcher bias towards any specific leadership theory or philosophy, the script avoided key terms and language that would compel participants to answer questions in a specific way. The researchers © 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT IN EMERGENCY SERVICES 67 developed the script using existing empirical works within the fire and emergency services in order to glean an understanding of the participants’ interpretations and perceptions of leaders and leadership. Participants answered the questions privately in writing by accessing the questionnaire anonymously online through SurveyMonkey. Data collection consisted of 15 questionnaires obtained from uniformed and sworn fire and emergency services officers. Prior to conducting this study, the researchers obtained permission from their University’s Institutional Review Board to conduct a pilot study to determine the script’s veracity. The pilot study involved fire and emergency services company level officers that answered the questions in the form of a written answer survey (Babbi, 1998, 2010). The pilot study allowed the researchers to edit and refine the questions in order to develop a rich and meaningful script (Babbi, 2010). To protect the study participants, the researchers sought permission to conduct the study from the Institutional Review Board at the University where the study took place, ensuring participant anonymity through the removal of any personal identifiers. To ensure trustworthiness, the researchers triangulated data sources from multiple participants, had another researcher preform an analysis for comparison, and present the data as in-depth rich descriptions (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). In addition, the researchers followed a specific, systematic grounded theory approach to analyze the data and established a secure database for data collection and storage to ensure data reliability (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Garson, 2013; Glaser, 1998). The data analysis began with the researchers organizing and preparing the data for analysis, removing any personal identifiers of each of the participants and assigning numbers, then reading through the data, taking notes, and writing memos (Glaser, 1998). Researchers utilized a tiered process for the sorting and analysis of the data that consisted of constant comparisons (Glaser & Strauss, 1999). The coding process began with open coding, then developing relationships through axial coding, to finally, selective coding that reached saturation to reveal and relate core categories allowing for theoretical development with attributes (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Glaser & Strauss, 1999). The researchers then interpreted the theoretical findings, reporting them in the conclusions. These findings resulted in a greater understanding of how fire and emergency services company officers perceive and interpret leadership, as well as the development of propositions for further study (Glaser & Strauss, 1999).

RESULTS A single theoretical finding emerged from the data analysis of the questionnaires: fire and emergency services leaders must serve their followers. The three attributes that converged to form the theoretical finding were, develop followers, meet the needs of followers, and listen to followers. The following section presents the theoretical finding’s attributes that resulted from the data analysis in the words of the participants. To protect the identity of the participants, each was assigned a “P” and a number. Develop followers. The first attribute within the theoretical finding was a leader must develop their followers. P1 stated that “the front line officer is the most influential

SLTP. 2(2), 57-75

68 RUSSELL, BROOMÉ, AND PRINCE to the crews, they need to educate and always be learning.” P1 went on to argue that functioning within this role “allows the people to do their job without micromanaging them.” P7 added to this by arguing that in order to develop followers a leader must have “a working knowledge of the fire ground and administration.” P2 acknowledged that the officer must possess the “technical knowledge to run a crew, and ensure that tactics are preformed correctly and timely.” After acknowledging this, P2 stated, “the main role of a leader is to be a teacher and mentor.” P2 elaborated on the role of teacher/mentor as “an attitude of learning and improving with personnel management, interpersonal relationships, and communication. It takes a culture of education, continued improvement, and mentoring.” P3 argued, “leadership is accomplished through mentoring and modeling this service in you so that they can also in turn reflect what they have learned out into the community.” P4 discussed the leader developing followers into something more, “extraordinary and uncommon are the things that inspire others to be more than they are.” P5 stated that a leader “prepares followers to do their job through training followers.” P5 went on to state that a leader is “always teaching his replacement by his actions and coaching.” To add to this, P10 stated, “a leader within the fire service must have the ability to effectively organize, direct, and mentor followers.” Meet the needs of followers. The second attribute within the theoretical finding was a leader must meet the needs of followers. P1 claimed that leaders needed to “provide followers with what they need to overcome challenges.” P2 argued, “a leader should have crew's well-being in mind in all things.” P3 stated that a leaders responsibility involves “facilitating the support to the firefighters so that they may safely, efficiently and effectively deliver emergency service.” P3 added to this by stating leadership involves the “support of others in the accomplishment of a common task.” P3 identified that “servant leadership is built into responders, a leader needs to realize that a lot of it just needs to be brought out of people.” P4 stated that a leader “acquires the things necessary for the crew to do their job.” P4 then went on to state that “leadership is what more or less sets the standard for the future of the fire service, a leader can be a follower and a follower can be a leader.” P5 discussed that “leaders need to make the crews feel like they are there for them, and that they have their backs; going to bat for employees that are having problems.” P5 went on to say that this was about “fostering an environment where the employees feel important and protected.” This is accomplished by “encouraging employees to do the right thing to make every situation better.” P6 suggested that leaders had a responsibility to “ensure that people are operating as safely as possible and that people have the resources needed to accomplish their tasks.” P7 argued that leaders needed to “help followers communicate better, respectfully both up and down the chain.” P7 went on to say that leaders must “know the needs of our citizens, what are their needs and how can we serve them; relating that to members and listen to how they would address issues.” P8 argued that a leader must “make sure self and crews are ready to act and make sure it happens appropriately.” P9 stated that a leader is responsible for keeping the “crew happy and mentally stable.” P11 discussed specific traits a leader needed to have in order to successfully meet the needs of followers, “to be calm, wise and knowledgeable, a leader should also be approachable, non-judgmental.” Adding to this idea, P12 argued that a © 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT IN EMERGENCY SERVICES 69 leader must be “knowledgeable and have the ability to influence persons below him/her to believe and follow.” To meet the needs of followers, P12 stated, “a leader works with the group and for the group.” Meeting the needs of followers comes from a leader desiring “to do good and care about individuals.” According to P14, when you meet followers’ needs, leaders “empower their people.” P15 stated that leaders “needed to get what followers need.” P15 went on to state that a leader “should be worrying about followers needs before your needs, because in the end they’re the ones doing the work.” Listen to followers. The third attribute within the theoretical finding was a leader must listen to their followers. P1 argued that through listening, leaders attempt to “understand the challenges followers face.” P15 argued, “Leaders need to be better listeners than talkers.” P2 stated, “this requires a culture of open communication; it also requires that systems be evaluated to allow for that communication.” P3 discussed that listening was done to “keep your finger on the pulse of the boots on the ground.” P4 stated that a good leader “must ask questions and truly attempt to understand the follower’s concerns and voices.” P5 argued, leaders must “visit the stations and talk with the crews.” P7 also stated, “leaders need to visit the stations as well as the supporting departments.” This was also the case for P8, “heeding feedback from followers and conducting station visits.” P5 elaborated more on this idea by arguing that it was about “asking for feedback and being open to suggestions; crews need to feel like the leaders at the top think about how their decisions affect those people fighting fire and touching patients.” P6 stated, “leaders need to have an open door policy.” P9 argued that leaders “must make a point to listen to followers.” P10 stated, “Executive level leaders need to stay engaged in all levels of the department, through daily interaction.” P11 discussed that is was important to have “face-to-face conversations, leaders have to be willing to listen, not just hear.” P12 argued for “open forums and daily interaction, they seem to be a better way to understand what the organization’s employees feel.” P13 stated interaction allows a leader to, “be a part what goes on everyday.” According to P14, this is accomplished by “meeting with all crews multiple times throughout the year.”

DISCUSSION The emergent theoretical finding discovered in the data analysis was fire and emergency services leaders must serve their followers. The attributes that formed the theoretical finding were develop followers, meet the needs of followers, and listen to followers. The theoretical finding emerged from the writings of the study’s participants, 15 affiliated and sworn fire and emergency services officers. In comparison to existing servant leadership literature, the study’s theoretical finding and its attributes hold commonality to the characteristics and constructs of the philosophy of servant leadership The first of the three attributes, develop followers, aligns with the servant leadership characteristic of a commitment to the growth of people (Spears, 2010). The servant leader focuses on making their followers better, seeing their potential and nurturing it (Keith, 2008; Laub, 1999). Developing followers leads to stronger individuals and thus a stronger organization (Greenleaf, 1977/2002; Hayes & Comer, 2010; Keith, 2008).

SLTP. 2(2), 57-75

70 RUSSELL, BROOMÉ, AND PRINCE The second attribute, meet the needs of followers, goes to the heart of what it means to be a servant leader (Greenleaf, 1977/2002; Laub, 1999). As Greenleaf (1977/2002) argued, “The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served” (p. 27). When the follower’s needs are met, they in turn can self-actualize and serve the needs of the organization (Maslow, 1943). The third attribute, listen to followers, is another characteristic of servant leadership (Spears, 2010). It takes humility for the leader to listen to followers (Frick, 2011; Hayes & Comer, 2010; Laub, 1999). Servant leader listening involves hearing both what is and is not being said (Frick, 2011). The servant leader is keenly aware of the need to listen (Frick, 2011). The three attributes converged to form the theoretical discovery; fire and emergency services leaders must serve their followers. The theoretical finding directly relates to the philosophy of servant leadership and what it means to be a servant leader. For at the core of servant leadership philosophy is a desire to serve others (Greenleaf, 1977/2002; Keith; 2008; Laub, 1999; Patterson, 2003; Spears, 2010).

CONCLUSION This study builds upon current literature involving the philosophy of servant leadership within the fire and emergency services (Reed, 2015; Russell, 2014b). The work expands Russell’s (2014a) work by discovering that fire and emergency service responders perceive and interpret leadership in such a way that it relates to the characteristics and virtues of servant leadership. Discovering that fire and emergency services professionals possess commonly shared servant leadership characteristics and virtues highlights a need to cultivate the philosophy within the profession. This study is limited to the data collected from the participants in the form of a written questionnaire. The questionnaire did not allow the researchers to ask follow-up questions or further seek clarification to answers. The researchers recommend future studies that utilize interviews with the participants. In addition, the researchers recommend future studies that recruit participants from other fire and emergency service ranks, as well as different geographical locations. The implication of the theoretical finding and its relationship to the philosophy of servant leadership is the identification of a possible springboard for infusing servant leadership into fire and emergency services education, training, and literature. The attributes that formed the emergent theoretical finding are ones that are personally held by current mid-level fire and emergency service leaders. Nurturing these attributes in current and future leaders could possibly overcome destructive bureaucratic practices that many fire and emergency services organizations experience (Kirschman, 2004).

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT IN EMERGENCY SERVICES 71

REFERENCES Alexander C, H., & Sanjay K, P. (2013). Leadership in street-level bureaucracy: An exploratory study of supervisor worker interactions in emergency medical services. Review of Public Administration, 18(1), 7-23. Anglin, G. (2001). Company officer training and development-maintaining consistency in a dynamic environment. Executive Fire Officer Program. Emmetsburg, MD: National Fire Academy. Aryal, K., & Dobson, O. (2011). A case study from the national disaster management institute in the republic of Korea. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 26(4), 34. Babbi, E. (1998). Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Babbi, E. (2010). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Baker, T. (2011). Effective police leadership: Moving beyond management. Flushing, NY: Looseleaf Law Publications. Bell, M., & Habel, S. (2009). Coaching for a vision for leadership: Oh the places we'll go and the things we can think. International Journal of Reality Therapy, 29(1), 18-23. Bigley, G. A., & Roberts, K. H. (2001). The incident command system: High-reliability organizing for complex and volatile task environments. Academy Of Management Journal, 44(6), 1281-1299. Bruegman, R. (2012). Advanced fire administration. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Caldwell, C., Davis, B., & Devine, J. (2009). Trust, faith, and betrayal: Insights from management for the wise believer. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(1), 103–114. Caldwell, C. & Hayes, L. (2007). Leadership, trustworthiness, and the mediating lens. The Journal of Management Development, 26(3), 261–274. Camic, P., Rhodes, J., & Yardley, L. (2003). Naming the stars: Integrating qualitative methods into psychological research. In Camic, P., Rhodes, J., & Yardley, L. (Ed.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Carter, H. (2007). Approaches to leadership: The application of theory to the development of a fire service-specific leadership style. International Fire Service Journal of Leadership and Management, 1(1), 27-37. Choo, S., Park, O., & Kang, H. (2011). The factors influencing empowerment of 119 emergency medical technicians [Korean]. Korean Journal of Occupational Health Nursing, 20(2), 153-162. Coleman, J. (2008). Incident management for the street-smart fire officer. Tulsa, OK: PennWell. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). The basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cortrite, M. (2007). Servant leadership for law enforcement (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses Database. (UMI No. 3299572)

SLTP. 2(2), 57-75

72 RUSSELL, BROOMÉ, AND PRINCE Day, C. (2004). The passion of successful leadership. School Leadership and Management, 24(4), 425-437. de Vries, M. (2001). The anarchist within: Clinical reflections on Russian character and leadership style. Human Relations, 54(5), 585-627. Edwards, S. (2010). Fire service personnel management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Farling, M., Stone, A., & Winston, B. (1999). Servant leadership: Setting the stage for empirical Research. The Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 6(1), 49–72. Fishkin, G. (1990). Firefighter and paramedic burnout. Los Angeles, CA: Legal Books Distributing. Fleming, R. (2010). Effective fire and emergency services administration. Tulsa, OK: PennWell. Floren, T. (1984). Impact of death and dying on emergency care personnel. Emergency Medical Services, 13(2), 43-47. Frick, D. (2011). Greenleaf and the servant-leader listening. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. Garson, G.D. (2013). Grounded theory. Asheboro, NC: Statistical Publishing Associates. Gilmartin, K. (2002). Emotional survival for law enforcement: A guide for officers and their families. Tucson, AZ: E-S Press. Glaser, B. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1999). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Piscataway, NJ: Adline Transaction. Greenleaf, R.K. (1970). The servant as leader. The Robert K. Greenleaf Center, Indianapolis, IN. Greenleaf, R. (1977/2002). Servant-leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Hayes, M., & Comer, M. (2010). Start with humility: Lessons from America’s quiet CEOs on how to build trust and inspire others. Indianapolis, IA: Greenleaf Center for ServantLeadership. Henderson, A., & Pandey, S. (2013). Leadership in street level bureaucracy: An exploratory study of supervisor worker interactions in emergency medical services. International Review of Public Administration, 18(1), 7. Henderson, L. J. (2004). Emergency and disaster: Pervasive risk and public bureaucracy in developing nations. Public Organization Review, 4(2), 103-119. Jensen, M. (2005). The Relationship of the sensation seeking personality motive to burnout: Injury and job satisfaction among firefighters. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.uno.edu/ Kates, A. (2008). CopShock: Surviving posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Cortaro, AZ: Holbrook Street Press Keith, K. (2008). The case for servant leadership. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. Kezar, A. (2001). Investigating organizational fit in a participatory leadership environment. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 23(1), 85-101.

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT IN EMERGENCY SERVICES 73

Kirschman, E. (2004). I love a firefighter: What every family needs to know. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Kirschman, E. (2007). I love a cop: What every family needs to know. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Klinoff, R. (2012). Introduction to fire protection. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar. Lasky, R. (2006). Pride and ownership: A firefighter’s love for the job. Tulsa, OK: PennWell. Laub, J. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the servant organizational leadership assessment (SOLA) instrument. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses Database. (UMI No. 9921922) Lloyd, H. B. (2003). Morale matters. Memphis Fire Department. Memphis, TN. Retrieved from www.usfa.fema.gov/pdf/efop/efo36355.pfd Lyden, F. (1974). How bureaucracy responds to crisis. Public Administration Review, 34(6), 597. Marinucci, R. (2009). Fire chief’s guide to administration and management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396. Maslow, A. (1965, May). Self-actualization and beyond. Conference on the Training of Counselors of Adults, Chatham, MA. May, R. (1991). The cry for myth. New York: W.W. Norton. McNally, R. J., Bryant, R. A., & Ehlers, A. (2003). Does early psychological intervention promote recovery from posttraumatic stress? Psychological science in the public interest, 4(2), 4579. Mills, C. (1959/2000). The sociological imagination. New York, NY: Oxford. Mitchell, M. & Casey, J. (2007). Police leadership and management. Annandale, NSW: The Federation Press. Moonsbrugger, D. & Patterson, K. (2008). The servant leadership of a law enforcement chaplain. Regent University-Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Morris, J. (1955). Fires and firefighters. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Company. Ndoye, A., Imig, S., & Parker, M. (2010). Empowerment, leadership, and teachers' intentions to stay in or leave the profession or their schools in North Carolina charter schools. Journal of School Choice, 4(2), 174-190. Nielsen, R., Marrone, J., & Slay, H. (2010). A new look at humility: Exploring the humility concept and its role in socialized charismatic leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17(1), 33–43. Paton, D. (2005) Posttraumatic growth in protective services professionals: Individual, cognitive and organizational influences. Traumatology, 11, 335-346. Paton, D., Violanti, J., Dunning, C. & Smith, L.M. (2004) Managing traumatic stress risk: A proactive approach. Springfield, Ill., Charles C. Thomas.

SLTP. 2(2), 57-75

74 RUSSELL, BROOMÉ, AND PRINCE Patterson, K. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses Database. (UMI No. 3082719) Perez, L. M., Jones, J., Englert, D. R., & Sachau, D. (2010). Secondary traumatic stress and burnout among law enforcement investigators exposed to disturbing media images. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 25(2), 113-124. Reed, L. (2015). Servant leadership, followership, and organizational citizenship behaviors in 9-1-1 emergency communications centers: Implications of a national study. Servant Leadership: Theory and Practice, 2(1), 71-94. Rhodes, D. (2006). Katrina: “Brotherhood vs. bureaucracy". Fire Engineering, 159(5), 71. Russell, E. (2014a). The desire to serve: Servant leadership for fire and emergency services. Westfield, IN: Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. Russell, E. (2014b). Servant leadership theory and the emergency services learner. Journal of Instructional Research, 3(1). Salka, J. & Neville, B. (2004). First in, last out: Leadership lessons from the New York Fire Department. New York, NY: Penguin. Sargent, C. (2006). From buddy to boss: Effective fire service leadership. Tulsa, OK: PennWell. Seigal, T. (2006). Developing a succession plan for United States Air Forces in Europe fire and emergency services chief officers. Executive Fire Officer Program. Emmetsburg, MD: National Fire Academy. Sheehan, D. C., & Van Hasselt, V. B. (2003). Identifying law enforcement stress reactions early. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 72(9), 12-19. Sipe, J., & Frick, D. (2009). Seven pillars of servant leadership: Practicing the wisdom of leading by serving. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Smeby, C. (2005). Fire and emergency services administration: Management and leadership practices. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett. Smith, R. (1972). Report from engine company 82. New York, NY: Warner Book. Smoke, C. (2010). Company officer. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar. Spears, L. (2010). Servant leadership and Robert K. Greenleaf’s legacy. In K. Patterson & D. van Dierendonck (Eds.), Servant leadership: Developments in theory and research (pp. 1124). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Stanley, M. (1995). Servant leadership in the fire service: It's never lonely at the top when you're leading. Fire Engineering, 148(8), 30. Stramba, L. (2003). Servant leadership practices. Community College Enterprise, 9(2), 103. Sweeney, P. (2012). When serving becomes surviving: PTSD and suicide in the fire service. Retrieved from http://sweeneyalliance.org/grievingbehindthebadge/servingsurvivingsweeney/ Taylor, T., Martin, B. N., Hutchinson, S., & Jinks, M. (2007). Examination of leadership practices of principals identified as servant leaders. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(4), 401-419.

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT IN EMERGENCY SERVICES 75 Useem, M., Cook, J., & Sutton, L. (2005). Developing leaders for decision making under stress: Wildland firefighters in the south canyon fire and its aftermath. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(4), 461-485. van Doren, J. A. (2006). Leading in a tactical paradise. Fire Engineering, 159(1), 12. Vinzant, J., & Crothers, L. (1996). Street-level leadership: Rethinking the role of public servants in contemporary governance. American Review of Public Administration, 26(4), 457. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Whetstone, J. (2002). Personalism and moral leadership: the servant leader with a transforming vision. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(4), 385-392. Winston, B. (2010). A place for qualitative research methods in the study of servant leadership. In Patterson, K., & van Dierendonck, D. (Ed.), Servant leadership: Developments in theory and research. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Yuan, C., Wang, Z., Inslicht, S., McCaslin, S., Metzler, T., Henn-Haase, C., Apfel, B., Tong, H., Neylan, T., Fang, Y., & Marmar, C. (2011). Protective factors for posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in a prospective study of police officers. Psychiatry Research, 188(1), 45-50.

SLTP. 2(2), 57-75

Servant Leadership: Theory and Practice Volume 2, Issue 2, 76-96 August 2015

Servant Leadership: A Quantitative Review of Instruments and Related Findings Mark T. Green, Our Lady of the Lake University Richard A. Rodriguez, Lone Star College Carol A. Wheeler, Our Lady of the Lake University Barbara Baggerly-Hinojosa, Our Lady of the Lake University

Abstract Although Robert K. Greenleaf’s servant leadership philosophy is almost 35 years old, only in the past decade have validated instruments been developed and described in peer-reviewed literature. This article provides a review of six instruments that measure constructs related to servant leadership, and summarizes 84 statistical results from 20 quantitative, peer-reviewed studies. Keywords: Servant leadership instruments, organizational leadership

Among many leadership enthusiasts, the idea of being a servant leader is very appealing. However, the implementation of servant leadership brings to mind a bevy of academic queries. For instance, what is the most commonly accepted definition of servant leadership? Also, how do we know if someone is high or low on servant leadership? Finally, can we empirically confirm or deny the effectiveness of servant leadership? Obviously, servant leadership is a theory that needs measureable components. As such, social scientists are charged with developing and validating instruments that will help us gain a better understanding of servant leadership and its related concepts.

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SLTP. 2(2), 76-96

SERVANT LEADERSHIP: QUANTITATIVE REVIEW 77 Since the 1970s, servant leadership has been a popular philosophy, but it has generally lacked a testable set of constructs. A step toward a more concrete definition occurred when Spears (1995) put forth his 10 aspects of servant leadership. Consequently, several researchers used his work as a foundation from which they were able to develop various models and instruments related to servant leadership. However, despite the appearance of advanced scholarly evolution on this topic, the current conceptual consensus leaves much to be desired. Therefore, true academic achievement with respect to servant leadership will require movement beyond the prevailing status quo of theoretical disunity (Brown & Bryant, 2015). To that end, our readers will benefit from scholarly evidence presented primarily from a two-pronged approach. First, this article will provide data related to six major instruments that have been used to measure servant leadership. Next, because “more empirical research of servant leadership is needed at multiple levels of analysis in order to increase construct clarity,” the tables in Appendix A provide a summary of the emerging empirical base for servant leadership (Brown & Bryant, 2015, p. 18). These tables reveal scientifically established relationships between servant leadership and a host of individual, dyadic and organizational level variables. It is our hope that this dual combination of information will serve as the impetus for continued academic inquiry in to the concept of servant leadership. Figure 1 provides us with a general sense that interest in servant leadership has multiplied since the year 2000. Despite the large amount of attention that servant leadership has received, there is no widely agreed upon model of servant leadership, and there is no widely used instrument to measure servant leadership. Moreover, we do not believe that a sufficient number of studies exists that would allow for the creation of a meta-analysis. This assertion would appear to contradict the work of Hunter and Schmidt (2004) who posit that a minimum of six studies are needed in order to conduct a metaanalysis. To meet that minimum, however, would require that the same independent and dependent variables be used in each of the six studies. Nonetheless, we anxiously await the first meta-analysis on servant leadership, and we are optimistic that this review will serve as a catalyst for such erudite work. Figure 1. Rise in Publications on Servant Leadership. ■ Dissertations ■ Peer-Reviewed Articles

■ Book Publications

SLTP. 2(2), 76-96

78 GREEN, RODRIGUEZ, WHEELER, AND BAGGERLY-HINOJOSA

LITERATURE REVIEW Models of Servant Leadership Parris and Peachey (2013) found that many writers use all or part of Greenleaf’s (1977) definition as a foundation for discussing servant leadership. “The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous and more likely themselves to become servants?” (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 6). In addition to Greenleaf’s quotation, the two models proposed by Spears (1995, 1998) and Laub (1999) are often used as foundational models of servant leadership. Table 1 provides the constructs posited by Spears and Laub. Table 2 provides the servant leadership constructs created by researchers who have developed instruments over the last decade. Table 1. The Most Frequently Referenced Models of Servant Leadership. Spears (1995, 1998) Listening Persuasion Helping people grow Empathy Conceptualization Community building Healing Foresight Awareness Stewardship Valuing people Building community

Laub (1999) Providing leadership Developing people

Table 2. Emerging Models of Servant Leadership. Ehrhart (2004) Forming relationships Helping subordinates grow with subordinates and succeed Empowering Behaving ethically Subordinates Putting subordinates first

Altruistic calling Wisdom

Emotional healing Creating value for the community

Voluntary Subordination Authentic self Empowerment Standing back Authenticity

Displaying authenticity Sharing leadership

Having conceptual skills Creating value for those outside the organization

Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) Emotional healing Persuasive mapping Organizational stewardship Liden, Wayne, Zhao and Henderson (2008) Helping subordinates grow Putting subordinates first and succeed Behaving ethically Conceptual skills Empowering Sendjaya, Sarros and Santora (2008) Covenantal relationship Transcendental spirituality Responsible morality Transforming influence van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) Interpersonal acceptance Courage Accountability Stewardship Humility

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP: QUANTITATIVE REVIEW 79

Measuring Servant Leadership To date, there are six instruments for which a sufficient amount of psychometric development has been reported in the peer-reviewed literature. First, Laub’s (1999) dissertation provides us with details regarding the robust creation of the Organizational Leadership Assessment. Second, Ehrhart (2004) successfully reveals discriminant validity for his Servant Leadership Scale. Third, Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) provide us with evidence regarding four types of validity (face, convergent, discriminant and predictive) for the Servant Leadership Questionaire; additionally, Mahembe and Engelbrecht (2013) report acceptable reliability scores for this instrument. Fourth, Liden, Wayne, Zhao and Henderson (2008) report empirical data related to face, convergent and predictive validity for their Servant Leadership Scale. Fifth, Sendjaya, Sarros and Santora (2008) reveal face validity and content validity with respect to the Servant Leadership Behavior Scale. Lastly, van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) report convergent validity and acceptable reliability scores for the Servant Leadership Survey. Based on these rich forms of empirical evidence, we have elected to include the aforementioned instruments in our review. Table 3 is a listing of these six instruments and their authors. Table 3. Instruments to Measure Servant Leadership. Instrument

Author(s)

Organizational Leadership Assessment

Laub (1999)

Servant Leadership Scale

Ehrhart (2004)

Servant Leadership Questionnaire

Barbuto and Wheeler (2006)

Servant Leadership Scale

Liden, Wayne, Zhao and Henderson (2008)

Servant Leadership Behavior Scale

Sendjaya, Sarros and Santora (2008)

Servant Leadership Survey

van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011)

Organizational Leadership Assessment The Organizational Leadership Assessment indicates that it measures six aspects of servant leadership, as shown in Table 4.

SLTP. 2(2), 76-96

80 GREEN, RODRIGUEZ, WHEELER, AND BAGGERLY-HINOJOSA Table 4. Dimensions Measured by the Organizational Leadership Assessment. Laub (1999) Valuing people

Believing in people Serving other’s needs before his or her own Receptive, non-judgmental listening

Developing people

Providing opportunities for learning and growth Modeling appropriate behavior Building up others through encouragement and affirmation

Building community

Building strong personal relationships Working collaboratively with others Valuing the differences of others

Displaying authenticity

Being open and accountable to others A willingness to learn from others Maintaining integrity and trust

Providing leadership

Envisioning the future Taking initiative Clarifying goals

Sharing leadership

Facilitating a shared vision Sharing power and releasing control Sharing status and promoting others

Development Laub (1999) developed the Organizational Leadership Assessment as part of his doctoral dissertation. First, he developed a pool of questions based on his review of the literature on servant leadership. In order to bolster his question bank, Laub recruited between 14 and 25 servant leadership experts to participate in a three step Delphi process. After the third iteration of the Delphi process, the Organizational Leadership Assessment contained 80 items. Those items were field tested with 828 participants, and a series of exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) were conducted. Laub found that 27 items loaded on one component (organizational assessment), and 53 items loaded on another component (leadership assessment). After the EFAs, the instrument was reduced to 60 questions in order to decrease the time it took to complete the instrument. Laub reported Cronbach Alpha scores for each subscale in the range of .90 to .93.

Research Acquisition As of 2015, researchers interested in using the Organizational Leadership Assessment should contact Dr. Laub at the OLA Group.

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP: QUANTITATIVE REVIEW 81

The Servant Leadership Scale (Ehrhart, 2004) The Servant Leadership Scale (Ehrhart, 2004) is based on seven aspects of servant leadership, as shown in Table 5. Table 5. Dimensions Measured by the Servant Leadership Scale (Ehrhart, 2004) Forming relationships with subordinates

Putting subordinates first

Empowering subordinates

Having conceptual skills

Helping subordinates grow and succeed

Creating value for those outside the

Behaving ethically

organization

Development Ehrhart (2004) hypothesized seven aspects of servant leadership and developed 14 questions based on those seven aspects. He administered his Servant Leadership Scale, the LMX-7 and the MLQ-5X to 254 employed, university students. Next, he conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) that included all three measures. The results of the CFA showed loadings for three different factors (Χ2 = 429, df = 167, CFI = .95, SRMR = .04, RMSEA = .08). This lent some support for discriminant validity, the notion that his Servant Leadership Scale seemed to be measuring something different from the MLQ-5X and the LMX-7. The average of the correlations between his Servant Leadership Scale dimensions and the LMX-7 was .61; other mean correlation scores included .61 for idealized influence, .53 for inspirational motivation, .53 for intellectual stimulation and .56 for individualized consideration.

Research Acquisition As of 2015, researchers should contact Dr. Ehrhart at San Diego State University in order to acquire permission to use the instrument. The questions for his Servant Leadership Scale can be found in Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 61–94.

The Servant Leadership Questionnaire The Servant Leadership Questionnaire measures five aspects of servant leadership as shown in Table 6. Table 6. Dimensions Measured by the Servant Leadership Questionnaire. Altruistic calling

A leader’s deep-rooted desire to make a positive difference in others’ lives. A generosity of the spirit consistent with a philanthropic purpose in life.

Emotional healing

A leader’s commitment and skill in fostering spiritual recovery from hardship or trauma. Leaders high on emotional healing are highly empathetic and great listeners. SLTP. 2(2), 76-96

82 GREEN, RODRIGUEZ, WHEELER, AND BAGGERLY-HINOJOSA Wisdom

A combination of an awareness of surroundings and anticipation of consequences. Leaders are adept at picking up environmental cues and understanding their implications.

Persuasive mapping

The extent to which leaders use sound reasoning and pragmatic mental frameworks. Leaders are skilled at mapping issues and conceptualizing greater possibilities, and they are compelling when articulating these opportunities.

Organizational stewardship

The extent to which leaders prepare an organization to make a positive contribution to society through community development programs and outreach. An ethic or value for taking responsibility for the well-being of the community.

Development Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) created a conceptual model using 10 characteristics of servant leadership proposed by Spears (1995). They also added an 11th item (calling). In order to establish face validity, the authors generated between five and seven potential questions for each of the eleven posited factors. Next, they asked 11 experts to place the 56 potential questions into several different categories. After an iteration involving the revision of four questions, the experts were able to place each question into the most appropriate category with more than 80% accuracy. The 56-item version of the questionnaire was then tested with 388 followers. A series of EFAs using Varimax and Oblique rotations resulted in a reduced, five-factor model; twenty-three questions loaded on the five components with factor loadings greater than .50. A CFA was then conducted on the 23 questions produced by the EFA. With data from 80 leaders, this CFA generally supported the five-factor model (Χ2 = 1,410.69, df = 220, CFI = .96, RFI = .95, RMSEA = .10). Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) also sought to reveal evidence of three additional types of validity: convergent, discriminant and predictive. In order to establish convergent validity, the 388 followers from the Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) study were also asked to respond to seven leader-member exchange questions from the LMX-7. The five subscales of the Servant Leadership Questionnaire were correlated with the overall LMX-7 score in the range of .55 to .73. With respect to discriminant validity, the 388 followers also completed 16 transformational leadership questions from the MLQ-5X. The five subscales of the Servant Leadership Questionnaire were correlated with an overall transformational score in the range of .25 to .34. Lastly, in order to establish predictive validity, Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) ran correlations for the three outcome scores from the MLQ-5X. The follower ratings of servant leadership were weakly correlated with follower extra effort (.16 to .27) and moderately correlated with follower satisfaction with the leader (.23 to .44) and leader effectiveness (.27 to .55).

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP: QUANTITATIVE REVIEW 83 Mahembe and Engelbrecht (2013) conducted their own research study, ran a CFA, and also found a good fit for five, first-order factors (CFI = .99, RFI = .98, RMSEA = .06). With respect to internal reliability, they reported Cronbach’s Alpha scores of between .87 and .93 for the five subscales of the Servant Leadership Questionnaire.

Research Acquisition The Servant Leadership Questionnaire is copyrighted by Dr. Barbuto and Future Leadership. As of 2015, researchers should contact Dr. Barbuto at California State University, Fullerton to acquire permission to use the instrument. The Servant Leadership Questionnaire is included in Barbuto Jr., J. E., and Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale Development and Construct Clarification of Servant Leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 300-326.

The Servant Leadership Scale (Liden et al., 2008) The Servant Leadership Scale (Liden et al., 2008) measures seven dimensions of servant leadership, as shown in Table 7. Table 7. Dimensions Measured by the Servant Leadership Scale (Liden et al., 2008). Emotional healing

The act of showing sensitivity to others' personal concerns.

Creating value for the community

A conscious, genuine concern for helping the community.

Conceptual skills

Possessing knowledge of the organization and tasks to be accomplished. Effectively supporting and assisting others, especially immediate followers.

Empowering

Encouraging and facilitating others, especially immediate followers, in identifying and solving problems. Determining when and how to complete work tasks.

Helping subordinates grow and succeed

Demonstrating genuine concern for others' career growth and development by providing support and mentoring.

Putting subordinates first

Using actions and words to make it clear to others, especially immediate followers, that satisfying their work needs is a priority.

Behaving ethically

Interacting openly, fairly, and honestly with others.

Development Liden et al. (2008) began with a conceptual model that included nine characteristics of servant leadership: emotional healing, empowering, creating value for the community, helping subordinates grow and succeed, relationships, conceptual skills, behaving ethically, putting subordinates first, and servanthood. The authors sought to establish three types of validity: face, convergent and predictive. In order to show face validity, SLTP. 2(2), 76-96

84 GREEN, RODRIGUEZ, WHEELER, AND BAGGERLY-HINOJOSA they reviewed extant servant leadership instruments by Page and Wong (2000), Ehrhart (2004) and Barbuto and Wheeler (2006). Next, they created 85 potential questions to measure the nine characteristics from their conceptual model. From a sample of 283 undergraduate students, an EFA was run on responses to the 85 questions. Seven distinguishable factors were found. Relationships and servanthood failed to load on a single factor and were eliminated from the instrument. The authors kept four questions from each of the seven factors that had the highest factor loadings in order to create a 28item version of their instrument. Scale reliabilities were as follows: conceptual skills (α = .86), empowering (α = .90), helping subordinates grow and succeed (α = .90), putting subordinates first (α = .91), behaving ethically (α = .90), emotional healing (α = .89) and creating value for the community (α = .89). Following the EFA, a CFA was conducted with data obtained from 182 followers who rated their superiors. The authors tested multiple models using CFAs and concluded that a seven-factor model was most appropriate (X2 = 549, df = 329, CFI = .98, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .06). In order to establish convergent validity, the authors found that all seven servant leadership dimensions were moderately to strongly correlated with transformational leadership (.43 to .79) and high-quality leader-member exchange (.48 to .75). Finally, as a means of establishing predictive validity, Liden et al. (2008) found that the seven dimensions of their instrument were weakly to moderately correlated with the affective commitment scale of the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (.18 to .45).

Research Acquisition As of 2015, researchers should request permission to use the Servant Leadership Scale (Liden, et. al., 2008) from Dr. Liden at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The instrument can be found in Liden, R., Wayne, S., Zhao. H. and Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161-177.

The Servant Leadership Behavior Scale The Servant Leadership Behavior Scale measures six dimensions of servant leadership, as shown in Table 8. Table 8. Dimensions Measured by the Servant Leadership Behavior Scale. Scale Voluntary subordination

Consists of Being a servant Acts of service

Definition A willingness to take up opportunities to serve others whenever there is a legitimate need, regardless of the nature of the service, the person served or the mood of the servant leader.

Authentic self

Humility Integrity Accountability Security Moral action Vulnerability

A consistent display of humility, integrity, accountability, security and vulnerability. A willingness to work quietly behind the scenes, spend time on small things and make seemingly inconsequential decisions in an unrewarded and unnoticed fashion.

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP: QUANTITATIVE REVIEW 85 Covenantal relationship

Collaboration Equality Availability Acceptance

Engaging with and accepting others for who they are, not for how they make servant leaders feel.

Responsible morality

Moral reasoning Moral action

Ensuring that both the ends they seek and the means they employ are morally legitimized, thoughtfully reasoned and ethically justified.

Transcendental Interconnectedspirituality ness Sense of mission Religiousness Wholeness

Attuned to the idea of calling in seeking to make a difference in the lives of others through service, from which one derives the meaning and purpose of life.

Transforming influence

Positively transforming others in multiple dimensions (e.g. emotionally, intellectually, socially and spiritually) into servant leaders themselves.

Trust Mentoring Modeling Vision Empowerment

Development Sendjaya et al. (2008) established face validity for their instrument by interviewing 15 senior executives about what servant leadership entailed. Next, they performed a content analysis of those responses and identified 22 possible dimensions of servant leadership. Based on a literature review of servant leadership and the results of their content analysis, the authors reduced the original 22 dimensions to six. One hundred and one possible questions were then generated for those six dimensions. In order to establish content validity, 15 servant leadership experts were identified and recruited from a mailing list of the International Leadership Association. These content experts were scholars who taught, performed research or both; they possessed the ability to create content validity ratios for each of the 101 possible items. Content validity ratios are numbers that range from -1 (meaning none of the experts believed a question was essential to servant leadership) to +1 (meaning all of the experts believed a question was essential to servant leadership). Based on this analysis, 73 items were retained from the original 101 questions. Sendjaya et al. (2008) then ran a series of CFAs for each of the six subscales. Their final CFA was able to reduce the number of questions within each scale while concomitantly improving the model fit. The scale and number of questions were as follows: voluntary subordination (7), authentic self (6), covenantal relationship (6), responsible morality (5), transcendental spirituality (4) and transforming influence (7). In these reduced question sets, the goodness of fit indices were all above .97 and the RMSEA’s ranged from .00 to .07. Also, the Cronbach Alpha scores for the scales ranged from .72 to .93.

SLTP. 2(2), 76-96

86 GREEN, RODRIGUEZ, WHEELER, AND BAGGERLY-HINOJOSA Research Acquisition The Servant Leadership Behavior Scale is copyrighted by Dr. Sendjaya. As of 2015, researchers who want to use the Servant Leadership Behavior Scale should contact Dr. Sendjaya at Monash University to request permission to use the instrument.

The Servant Leadership Survey The Servant Leadership Survey measures eight dimensions of servant leadership, as shown in Table 9. Table 9. Dimensions Measured by the Servant Leadership Survey. Empowerment

A motivational concept focused on enabling people and encouraging personal development.

Accountability Holding people accountable for performances that they can control. Standing back

The extent to which a leader gives priority to the interests of others by giving them the necessary support and credit.

Humility

The ability to put one’s own accomplishments and talents in a proper perspective.

Authenticity

Closely related to expressing the “True Self,” expressing oneself in ways that are consistent with inner thoughts and feelings.

Courage

The ability to take risks and try out new approaches to old problems.

Interpersonal acceptance

The ability to understand and experience the feelings of others, and the ability to let go of perceived wrongdoings by not carrying a grudge into other situations.

Stewardship

The willingness to take responsibility for the larger institution and go for service instead of control and self-interest.

Development The development of the Servant Leadership Survey occurred in three stages. First, van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) enlisted a sample of 688 volunteers to complete a 99-item survey. Based on that data, the authors conducted an EFA that found 14 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. An iterative set of EFAs using Varimax and Oblimin rotations eventually produced a six-factor model that was based on 28 items. At this stage of development, neither Humility nor Stewardship loaded on a unique, single component. Consequently, the authors added 11 additional questions that were designed to measure these hypothesized dimensions. This resulted in a total of 39 possible questions. In stage two, the authors asked an additional 263 individuals to complete the 39-question instrument. Based on those responses, a CFA was conducted, and nine questions were removed. The resulting 30-question model produced an 8-factor model (Χ2 = 623, df = 377, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, SRMR = .05, AIC = 19354, RMSEA = .05). In stage three, the © 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP: QUANTITATIVE REVIEW 87 authors asked an additional 236 individuals to complete the 30-question survey. The authors conducted another CFA and, once again, found support for an 8-factor model (Χ2 = 600, df = 397, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, SRMR = .06, AIC = 17148, RMSEA = .05). The combined sample of all three studies demonstrated Cronbach Alpha scores of .89 for empowerment (7 items), .81 for accountability (3 items), .76 for standing back (3 items), .91 for humility (5 items), .82 for authenticity (4 items), .69 for courage (2 items), .72 for forgiveness (3 items) and .74 for stewardship (3 items). As a means of establishing convergent validity, van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) found that seven of the eight scales from the Servant Leadership Survey were correlated in the range of .47 to .85 with the seven scales of the Servant Leadership Scale developed by Liden et al., (2008). The accountability scale of the Servant Leadership Survey was either uncorrelated or correlated at .20 or below for the seven scales of the Servant Leadership Scale. Five of the eight scales were highly correlated with LMX-7 scores in the range of .38 to .85. Additionally, three of the Servant Leadership Survey scales were also highly correlated with subscales from Rafferty and Griffin’s (2004) measure of transformational leadership. Lastly, six of the Servant Leadership Survey scales were highly correlated with the contents of Brown, Trevino, and Harrison’s Ethical Leadership Survey (2005).

Research Acquisition The Servant Leadership Survey is copyrighted by van Dierendonck and Nuijten. In their 2011 article, the authors indicated that the Servant Leadership Survey may be used freely for scientific purposes. The instrument can be found in van Dierendonck, D. and Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 249-267.

Quantitative Findings on Servant Leadership Parris and Peachey (2013) performed a systematic literature review of empirical articles involving servant leadership. They found 39 peer-reviewed articles published between 2004 and 2011; the primary areas in which research on servant leadership occurred were as follows: leadership (n = 9), education (n = 7), business (n = 6), psychology (n = 6) and nursing (n = 3). Parris and Peachey (2013) used appraisal tools from Letts, Wilkins, Law, Stewart, Bosch and Westmorland (2007), the Institute for Public Health Sciences (2002), and Stoltz, Udén and Willman (2004) to assess the quality of the 39 studies. Twenty-two of the 39 empirical studies were considered high-quality; four were qualitative and 18 were quantitative. As of early 2015, no meta-analyses involving servant leadership had been published. The tables in Appendix A provide details regarding 17 of the high quality studies identified by Parris and Peachey (2013) and three additional peer-reviewed studies that were published since their review. The capital letters shown in parentheses refer to 20 different peer-reviewed articles, and a list of these articles is included in Appendix B. Table 10 in Appendix A illustrates that follower ratings of servant leadership are, in general, moderately to strongly correlated with various aspects of leadership such as SLTP. 2(2), 76-96

88 GREEN, RODRIGUEZ, WHEELER, AND BAGGERLY-HINOJOSA leader trust, leader competence and leader effectiveness. Table 11 in Appendix A illustrates that follower ratings of servant leadership are, in general, weakly to moderately correlated with follower commitment and follower satisfaction, and Table 12 in Appendix A illustrates that follower ratings of servant leadership and organizational outcomes vary a great deal in their magnitude.

CONCLUSION The development and validation of a psychological instrument is a long process. For the past three decades, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) has likely been the most frequently used assessment of leadership. Nonetheless, between 1985 and 2015, the publicly used MLQ has consisted of Form 1, Form 10, Form 5R and Form 5X. Even the widely used MLQ-5X has undergone multiple scoring changes as a result of various factor studies. The main thrust of this article provided details pertaining to six instruments that have been used to measure servant leadership. These instruments are relatively new and untested, and the peer-reviewed literature generally provides us with analyses related to the validity of these assessments. A second area of importance involves a summary of scientific data related to servant leadership. Specifically, the empirical research to date (Appendix A) generally shows positive relationships between servant leadership and three types of outcomes (leader, follower and organizational). With respect to future studies, it will be important for researchers to report the results of factor analyses. In that way, we will be able to learn more about the hidden constructs that make up servant leadership. A second line of inquiry is related to the discriminant validity of these instruments. Until more research is conducted, the theoretical uniqueness of servant leadership will remain in question. For example, there is likely a great deal of overlap between servant leadership and consideration, as measured by the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ-XII), agreeableness, as measured by a big five assessment of personality, and individual consideration, as measured by the MLQ-5X. A third line of inquiry relates to the incremental validity of servant leadership. The meta-analytic literature indicates that initiation of structure and consideration, as measured by the LBDQ-XII, the quality of the leader-member relationship, as measured by the LMX-7 and LMX-MDM, and the range of leader behaviors measured by the MLQ-5X are all related to assessments of effective leadership and desired follower outcomes. Therefore, research that uses both the MLQ-5X and a measure of servant leadership as predictor variables with respect to a criterion variable, such as follower job satisfaction, will assist in determining the amount of variance explained by each leadership theory. Consequently, we will possess a better understanding of just how much servant leadership improves upon our ability to predict follower job satisfaction beyond the effects of a juxtaposed theory of leadership. Despite the need for many more empirical studies involving servant leadership, the movement toward providing a more measureable structure to the servant leadership © 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP: QUANTITATIVE REVIEW 89 philosophy is a valuable contribution to our understanding of organizational leadership. For as Greenleaf (1977) once asserted, “Except as we venture to create, we cannot project ourselves beyond ourselves to serve and lead” (p. 27).

Significant portions of this article are drawn with permission from Green, Mark, T. (2014). Graduate Leadership: A Review of the Science of Leadership. 2nd Ed. Leadership Studies. SLTP. 2(2), 76-96

90 GREEN, RODRIGUEZ, WHEELER, AND BAGGERLY-HINOJOSA

REFERENCES Babakus, E., Yavas, U., & Ashill, N. J. (2011). Service worker burnout and turnover intentions: Roles of person-job fit, servant leadership, and customer orientation. Services Marketing Quarterly, 32(1), 17–31. Barbuto Jr., J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 300-326. Brown, M., Trevino, L., & Harrison, D. Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117-134. Brown, S. & Bryant, P. (2015). Getting to know the elephant: A call to advance servant leadership through construct consensus, empirical evidence and multilevel theoretical development. Servant Leadership: Theory and Practice, 2(1), 10-35. Cerit, Y. (2009). The effects of servant leadership behaviors of school principals on teachers’ job satisfaction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(5), 600–623. Cerit, Y. (July 01, 2010). The effects of servant leadership on teachers' organizational commitment in primary schools in Turkey. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 13, 3, 301-317. Chatbury, A., Beaty, D., & Kriek, H. S. (December 01, 2011). Servant leadership, trust and implications for the "Base-of-the-Pyramid" segment in South Africa. South African Journal of Business Management, 42, 4, 57-61. Choudhary, A. I., Akhtar, S. A., & Zaheer, A. (August 07, 2013). Impact of transformational and servant leadership on organizational performance: A comparative analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 2, 433-440. Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 61–94. Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant leadership. New York, New York: Paulist Press. Retrieved from: https://www.leadershiparlington.org/pdf/TheServantasLeader.pdf Hale, J. R., & Fields, D. L. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A study of followers in Ghana and the USA. Leadership, 3(4), 397–417. Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 1–12. Hunter, E. M., Neubert, M. J., Perry, S. J., Witt, L. A., Penney, L. M., & Weinberger, E. (April 01, 2013). Servant leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 2, 316-331. Hunter, J.E., & Schmidt, F.L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Institute for Public Health Sciences. (2002). 11 questions to help you make sense of descriptive/cross-sectional studies. New York: Yeshiva University.

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP: QUANTITATIVE REVIEW 91 Irving, J. A., & Longbotham, G. J. (2007). Team effectiveness and six essential servant leadership themes: A regression model based on items in the organizational leadership assessment. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(2), 98–113. Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2009). Examining the impact of servant leadership on sales force performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29(3), 257–275. Jenkins, M., & Stewart, A. C. (2010). The importance of a servant leader orientation. Health Care Management Review, 35(1), 46–54. Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 6–22. Laub, J. A. (1999), Assessing the servant organization: development of the Servant Organizational Leadership Assessment (SOLA) instrument, Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 9921922. Letts, L., Wilkins, S., Law, M., Stewart, D., Bosch, J. and Westmorland, M. (2007). Critical review form: Qualitative studies (version 2.0). Retrieved (2007) from: http://www.sph.nhs.uk/sphfiles/caspappraisaltools/Qualitative%20Appraisal%20Tool.pdf Liden, R. C., Wayne, S., Zhao. H. & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161. Mayer, D. M., Bardes, M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2008). Do servant leaders help satisfy follower needs? An organizational justice perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(2), 180–197. Mahembe, B., & Engelbrecht, A. S. (March 20, 2013). A confirmatory factor analytical study of a servant leadership measure in South Africa. Sa Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39. Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1220–1233. Page, D., & Wong, P. T. P. (2000). A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership. In S. Adjibolooso (Ed.). The human factor in shaping the course of history and development (pp. 69−110). Washington, DC: American University Press. Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 3, 377-393. Rafferty, A., & Griffin, M. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 329-354. Rieke, M., Hammermeister, J., & Chase, M. (2008). Servant leadership in sport: A new paradigm for effective coach behavior. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 3(2), 227–239. Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 863–871. Sendjaya, S., & Pekerti, A. (2010). Servant leadership as antecedent of trust in organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(7), 643–663.

SLTP. 2(2), 76-96

92 GREEN, RODRIGUEZ, WHEELER, AND BAGGERLY-HINOJOSA Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J., & Santora, J. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behavior in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402–424. Spears, L.C. (1995). (Ed.). Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant-leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Spears, L.C. (Ed.). (1998). Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit and servantleadership. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Stoltz, P., Udén, G. and Willman, A. (2004). Support for family careers who care for an elderly person at home – A systematic literature review. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 18, 111–118. van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 249-267. Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 517–529. Washington, R. R., Sutton, C. D., & Feild, H. S. (2006). Individual differences in servant leadership: The roles of values and personality. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(8), 700–716.

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP: QUANTITATIVE REVIEW 93

APPENDIX A Quantitative Results for Servant Leadership Table 10. Conclusions for Servant Leadership and an Additional Aspect of Leadership. Variables N Instrument r Leader Trust (A) 69 Organizational Leadership Assessment .64** Servant Leadership Behavior Scale Leader Trust (B) 555 .47* (SLBS) Subscale: Voluntary Subordination Leader Trust (B) 555 SLBS Authentic Self .42* Leader Trust (B) 555 SLBS Covenantal Relationship .47* Leader Trust (B) 555 SLBS Responsible Morality .49* Leader Trust (B) 555 SLBS Transcendental Spirituality .46* Leader Trust (B) 555 SLBS Transforming Influence .50* a Leader Empathy (C) 283 Servant Leadership Scale (2003) .48* a Leader Integrity (C) 283 Servant Leadership Scale (2003) .58* a Leader Competence (C) 283 Servant Leadership Scale (2003) .57* a Leader Agreeableness (C) 126 Servant Leadership Scale (2003) .38* b Transformational Leadership 191 Servant Leadership Scale (2008) .45* b Affect-Based Trust (H) 191 Servant Leadership Scale (2008) .57* b Cognition-Based Trust (H) 191 Servant Leadership Scale (2008) .39* Role Inversion Behavior (K) 210 Servant Leadership Questionnaire .59* Initiating Structure (L) 250 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) .58** c d Leader Effectiveness (P) 97 Servant Leadership Assessment (2004) .78* (SLA) Subscale: Service Leader Effectiveness (P) 97c SLAd Humility .76* Leader Effectiveness (P) 97c SLAd Vision .54* c d Leader Effectiveness (P) 97 SLA Service .85* e d Leader Effectiveness (P) 60 SLA Humility .86* e d Leader Effectiveness (P) 60 SLA Vision .89* f Transformational 155 Servant Leadership Assessment (2006) .55** Leadership (Q) Note. aDennis and Winston. b91 teams consisting of 999 participants. cUS sample. dSix items from Dennis’ instrument. eAfrican sample. fNine items from Jacobs’ instrument. *p > .01; **p < .001.

The capital letters shown in parentheses refer to 20 different peer-reviewed articles. A list of these articles is included in Appendix B.

SLTP. 2(2), 76-96

94 GREEN, RODRIGUEZ, WHEELER, AND BAGGERLY-HINOJOSA Table 11. Findings for Servant Leadership and Follower Behaviors. Variables N Instrument Commitment to Supervisor (F) 815 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Self-Efficacy (F) 815 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Overall Need Satisfaction (I) 187 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Autonomy Need Satisfaction (I) 187 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Competence Need Satisfaction (I) 187 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Relatedness Need Satisfaction (I) 187 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Job Satisfaction (I) 187 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Intrinsic Satisfaction (J) 595 Org. Leadership Assessment Extrinsic Satisfaction (J) 595 Org. Leadership Assessment Job Satisfaction (J) 595 Org. Leadership Assessment Nurse Job Satisfaction (K) 210 Servant Leadership Questionnaire Creative Behavior (L) 250 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Helping Behaviors (L) 250 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) WRF Promotion (L) 250 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) WRF Prevention (L) 250 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) RFQ Promotion (L) 250 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Customer Orientation (M) 501 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Adaptive Selling (M) 501 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) CD Extra-Role Performance (M) 501 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Outcome Performance (M) 501 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Job Satisfaction (M) 501 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Job Stress (M) 501 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Customer Orientation (O) 530 SERV*OR⁸ Person-Job Fit (O) 530 SERV*OR⁸ Burnout (O) 530 SERV*OR⁸ Turnover Intentions (O) 530 SERV*OR⁸ Turnover Intentions (R) 425 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Disengagement (R) 92 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Organizational Commitment (S) 563 Org. Leadership Assessment Interpersonal Trust (T) 137 Servant Leadership Behavior Scale

r .19** .39** .42* .39* .30* .31* .37* .59** .57** .67** .47*** .37*** .37*** .48*** .32*** .24*** .17** .14** .15** .24** .52** -.18** .49* .42* -.30* -.32* -.21** -.32** .83*** .66*

Note. WRF = Work Regulatory Focus Scale. RFQ = Regulatory Focus Questionnaire. CD = Customer-Directed. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP: QUANTITATIVE REVIEW 95 Table 12. Findings for Servant Leadership and Organizational Behaviors. Variables N Instrument Organizational Trust (A) 69 Org. Leadership Assessment Team Potency (D) 71a Servant Leadership Scale (2008) a Team Performance (D) 71 Servant Leadership Scale (2008) a Team- Level OCB (D) 71 Servant Leadership Scale (2008) a Task Interdependence (D) 71 Servant Leadership Scale (2008) Procedural Justice Climate (E) 249 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) b OCB - Helping (E) 249 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) OCB - Conscientiousness (E)b 249 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) c OCB - Helping (E) 120 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) c OCB - Conscientiousness (E) 120 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Procedural Justice Climate (F) 815 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Service Climate (F) 815 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) OCB (F) 123 Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Team Effectiveness (G) 719 Org. Leadership Assessment Team Psychological Safety (H) Team Potency (H) Team Performance (H) Organizational Justice (I) Organizational Commitment (M) Performance Expectations (N) Performance Expectations (N) Wins (N) Wins (N) Losses (N) Losses (N) Organizational Learning (Q) Service Climate (R) Task-Focused OCB-I (R) Person-Focused OCB-I (R) Sales Behavior (R) Sales Performance (R)

191d 191d 191d 187 501 195 195 195 195 195 195 155 425 245 92 245 40

Servant Leadership Scale (2008) Servant Leadership Scale (2008) Servant Leadership Scale (2008) Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Servant Leadership Scale (2004) RSLP-S (Subscale: Trust/Inclusion) RSLP-S (Subscale: Service) RSLP-S (Subscale: Trust/Inclusion) RSLP-S (Subscale: Service) RSLP-S (Subscale: Trust/Inclusion) RSLP-S (Subscale: Service) Servant Leadership Assessment (2006)e Leadership Scale (2004) Servant Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Servant Leadership Scale (2004) Servant Leadership Scale (2004)

r .72*** * .59*** .60*** .58*** .46*** .72* .60* .55* .24* .24* .17*** .45*** .45*** R² = .39*** .37*** .22*** .38*** .51** .67*** .24*** * .16** .16** .15** -.20*** -.18** .58*** * .86*** .82*** .38*** .49*** .38***

Note. aTeams consisting of 304 employees and 60 managers. bEmployee-rated. cManager-rated. d 191 teams consisting of 999 participants. OCB = Organizational Citizenship Behavior. RSLP-S = Revised Servant Leadership Profile for Sport. eNine items from Jacobs' instrument. OCB-I = OCB directed toward co-workers. * p ≤ .05; **p < .05; ***p < .01; ****p < .001; *****p = .00

SLTP. 2(2), 76-96

96 GREEN, RODRIGUEZ, WHEELER, AND BAGGERLY-HINOJOSA

APPENDIX B Studies Referenced in Tables A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. S. T.

Joseph & Winston (2005) Senjaya & Pekerti (2010) Washington, Sutton, & Feild (2006) Hu & Liden (2011) Ehrhart (2004) Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke (2010) Irving & Longbotham (2007) Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng (2011) Mayer, Bardes, & Piccolo (2008) Cerit (2009) Jenkins & Stewart (2010) Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, & Roberts (2008) Jaramillo, Grisaffe, Chonko, & Roberts (2009) Rieke, Hammermeister, & Chase (2008) Babakus, Yavas, & Ashill (2011) Hale & Fields (2007) Choudhart, Akhtar, & Zaheer (2013) Hunter, Neubert, Perry, Witt, Penney & Weinberger (2013) Cerit (2010) Chatbury, Beaty & Kriek (2011)

© 2015 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

Master of Science in Organizational Leadership

MSOL

The Turner College of Business offers a Master of Science in Organizational Leadership (MSOL) which is a specialized degree preparing professionals for leadership and executive positions in private, public and non-profit organizations. Students in the MSOL program have the option of two focused tracks, Human Resource Management or Servant Leadership. The MSOL is a 36-hour program, requiring a student to complete 12 graduate courses. Full-time students can complete the program in four semesters. The program can also be adapted for students who wish to pace themselves. All MSOL classes are taught in the evening. Students can enter the MSOL program in spring, summer or fall semesters and have a maximum of six years from the first term of enrollment to complete all MSOL degree requirements. Please refer to http://Bursar.ColumbusState.edu/fees.php for current tuition and fees. Whether you are a seasoned professional or just getting your start in the business world, this degree allows you the opportunity to become a more effective and successful leader for your organization. The Human Resource Management track prepares professionals to develop and implement HR planning, recruiting, training, compensation, benefits, performance management and disciplinary systems in a legal and ethical framework. The track is aligned with the Society for Human Resource Management’s HR Curriculum Guidebook and Templates. Graduates of this track will be academically prepared to pass the Professional and Senior Professional in Human Resources (PHR & SPHR) exams. The knowledge and skills acquired through this track are important to all leaders, because every leader manages human resources. The Servant Leadership track prepares professionals to meet the leadership needs of their organization, by drawing on the wealth of resources situated here in Columbus, GA. Having been named the nation’s first “Servant Leadership City”, our business community is widely recognized for the number of practitioners, level of expertise, and overall commitment to servant leadership. Our community is the perfect place to study applicable case studies, learn from servant leadership practitioners, and discover opportunities for field experience. Servant Leadership is a philosophy and practice of leadership in which the leader is committed to the professional growth and development of the followers. Servant Leadership practitioners achieve results for their organization by giving priority attention to the needs and the development of those being led. Students analyze current trends and issues related to servant leadership while learning to build a culture of servant leadership in various organizational environments.

WORLD-CLASS GRADUATE EDUCATION ... with a personal touch

Turner College of Business / Graduate Programs Columbus State University, 4225 University Ave., Columbus, GA 31907 Tel: (706) 507-8150 / Fax: (706) 568-2184 Email: [email protected]

Turner.ColumbusState.edu

Accreditation

MSOL Core Curriculum

Make sure you’re considered one in a million to employers.

The MSOL core is required of all candidates in the MSOL program, regardless of track. This core consists of 15 hours (five courses).

The Turner College of Business’s degree programs are professionally accredited through The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. As an accredited member of AACSB international, our college offers business programs that achieve their distinction for high quality through an interdisciplinary curriculum providing students with a broad understanding of business and its role in society.

As an AACSB International-accredited school: •

We are recognized worldwide by top employers and other universities.



Our graduates receive higher, more competitive salaries.



The quality of our business programs is improved.



We are able to hire and retain the best professors and researchers.



Our students have high graduating GPAs and are likely to earn higher levels of education.



Our business programs are challenging and will teach you the best skills that will give you a distinct advantage in the real world.

Area 1, Program Core, Required hours: 15 Course Description

Credit

MSOL 6115

Organizational Behavior and Leadership

3

MSOL 6125

Negotiations and Conflict Resolution

3

MSOL 6135

Contemporary Economics and Finance for Leaders

3

MSOL 6145

Global Management

3

MSOL 6155

Strategic Leadership and Change Management

3

Human Resources Management concentration Area 2, Concentration, Required hours: 15 Course Description

Credit

MSHR 6116

Human Resources Management

3

MSHR 6126

Recruiting and Selection

3

MSHR 6136

Employee Development

3

MSHR 6146

Performance Management & Compensation

3

MSHR 6156

Labor Relations

3

Servant Leadership concentration Area 2, Concentration, Require hours: 15

Admissions Requirements All applicants seeking admission to one of the Turner College of Business graduate degree programs must submit the following: •

A graduate application, available online or in paper, with application fee.



An official baccalaureate degree transcript from an accredited institution.



Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) scores; students may also submit Graduate Record Exam (GRE) scores. Only scores within the past five years will be accepted.

• • •



GMAT school code: R64-XW-20 GRE school code: 5123

Two recommendation letters from professional sources such as current or former employers, faculty, and business associates are required. Please use the recommendation form provided.

Course Description MSSL 6117

Foundations in Servant Leadership

3

MSSL 6127

Contemporary Issues in Servant Leadership

3

MSSL 6137

Coaching

3

MSSL 6147

Developing an Organizational Culture of Servant Leadership 3

MSSL 6157

Organizational Ethics & Values

3

Leader Development concentration Area 2, Concentration, Require hours: 15 Course Description

Credit

MSSL 6117

Foundations in Servant Leadership

3

MSSL 6127

Contemporary Issues in Servant Leadership

3

MSHR 6136

Employee Development

3

MSSL 6157

Organizational Ethics & Values

3

POLS 7177

National Security Policy

3

A current resume.

To apply online, go to www.ColumbusState.edu/admissions/grad .

Credit

Electives

Area 3, Electives, Required hours: 6 All MSOL students must select six hours from a group of approved courses.

Smile Life

When life gives you a hundred reasons to cry, show life that you have a thousand reasons to smile

Get in touch

© Copyright 2015 - 2024 PDFFOX.COM - All rights reserved.