Servant Leadership · Servant Leadership: Theory ... From this perspective we’ve asked the ......

Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice

Volume 1, Issue 1 August 2014

Editors Phillip Bryant, Columbus State University [email protected] Steven Brown, Columbus State University [email protected] Editorial Assistant Renee Lambert [email protected] Publication Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice (SLTP) © D. Abbott Turner College of Business Columbus State University ISSN: 2332-2063 Online www.sltpjournal.org sltpjournal (Facebook) sltpjournal (Twitter) 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 Acknowledgements Special thanks to Linda Hadley and Neal Thomson

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 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 AACSB-accredited 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 of Business 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 of Business is the proud publisher of Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice.

Contents Enthusiastic Skepticism: The Role of SLTP in Advancing Servant Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Phillip Bryant and Steven Brown What If We Took Servant Leadership Seriously? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Daniel C. Feldman Servant Leadership: A Cross Cultural Study Between India and the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Brian C. Carroll and Kathleen Patterson Are Servant Leaders Born or Made? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Victor V. Claar, Lonnie L. Jackson, and Vicki R. TenHaken The Development and Initial Testing of the Purpose in Leadership Inventory: A Tool for Assessing Leader Goal-

Orientation, Follower-Focus, and Purpose-in-Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Justin A. Irving Eagle Scouts and Servant Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Frederick Rohm


Volume 1, Issue 1, 7-11 August 2014

© 2014 D. Abbott Turner College of Business. SLTP. 1(1), 7-11

Enthusiastic Skepticism: The Role of SLTP in Advancing Servant Leadership

Phillip Bryant, Ph.D. Steven Brown, Ph.D.

Co-editors, SLTP Introduction, Inaugural Issue


Skepticism or enthusiasm – These are the two responses we most often encounter upon introducing ourselves as professors and scholars of servant leadership. Skeptics of servant leadership are often so for one of two reasons. There are those who question servant leadership as unique from other existing constructs such as ethical leadership, transformational leadership, or just good leadership. There are also those who question servant leadership as a legitimate means toward organizational success. “That may be nice for religious and non-profit organizations, but in the highly competitive world faced by corporations and in the highly complex realm of international relations, the servant leader will get crushed every time,” they say. Enthusiasts of servant leadership are often so because it corroborates, and gives a name to, their own leadership style and philosophy without much need for proof that it works.

Skepticism and enthusiasm – If these are two extremes on the same continuum, then maybe we can learn a lesson from Goldilocks. Maybe skepticism toward servant leadership is too hard or too cold; and maybe unguarded enthusiasm toward servant leadership is too soft or too hot. Maybe somewhere in the middle is just right. As the co-editors of Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice (SLTP), we stand in the middle -- one as the skeptical enthusiast, the other as the enthusiastic skeptic.

From this perspective we’ve asked the question: “What is necessary to advance servant leadership as both a legitimate field of study and viable leadership practice?” Upon consideration, we narrowed it down to three elements: 1) convergence upon rigorous definition(s), 2) more evidence and additional types of evidence and 3) tighter theory built upon existing evidence and informing future research.

8 P. BRYANT AND S. BROWN

© 2014 D. Abbott Turner College of Business.

Servant leadership scholars and practitioners need to converge upon a more rigorous definition of the construct. There are plenty of lists that describe the characteristics and actions of servant leaders (c.f. Poon, 2006, Prichard, 2013, Spears, 2010, Turner, 1999) and there is even a “best test” of servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1991). Although useful, lists of characteristics and “best tests” do not suffice as definitions. Nor does it do the field justice to allow each class to generate a working definition at the beginning or end of each semester as is sometimes done. We suspect that a few definitions of servant leadership will emerge over time as accepted and researchers will continue to refine them until there is reasonable convergence. Just as in the field of entrepreneurship, it would be reasonable for multiple definitions to exist, so long as they are clear, concise, measurable, and describe both what servant leadership is and what it is not. Jim Laub (1999) offers the following definition as a starting point: “Servant leadership is an understanding and practice of leadership that places the good of those led over the self-interest of the leader” (p. 81). Page and Wong (2013) offer the following definition of a servant leader: “a leader whose primary purpose is to serve others by investing in their development and well being for the benefit of accomplishing tasks and goals for the common good.” These are both strong starts toward defining servant leadership and servant leaders. As a journal, SLTP aspires to be the forum where these few precise and measurable definitions emerge.

In addition to rigorous definitional convergence, the advancement of servant leadership as a field needs sound evidence. Josh Spiro’s 2010 Inc.com article entitled “How to Become a Servant Leader,” has been shared across various social media outlets over 1,500 times. In it, he cites Kent Keith as saying, “We’ve got plenty of evidence that it works from individuals and companies that are using it.” Yet Spiro offers no exact reference for the Keith quote and we have yet to find it. In the same article, Spiro offers phrases such as “Keith hypothesizes,” “Greenleaf believed,” “Keith feels,” and “George feels” as evidence of servant leadership’s effectiveness. Anecdotal evidence and expert opinion have their places as evidence, but they do little to advance a field. SLTP’s mission calls for research beyond anecdotal evidence: SLTP’s mission is to advance servant leadership, both as a field of academic study and as a management practice. We advance servant leadership by publishing quality empirical and theoretical work in the field as well as practitioner-centered work concerning the practical application of servant leadership principles. In “What if we took servant leadership seriously,” Feldman considers this mission and highlights that SLTP values evidence-based knowledge and we turn to evidence-based management (EBMgt) for insight into the question of evidence. EBMgt generally recognizes four sources of evidence: human experience and judgment (this is the realm of anecdotes, expert opinion, history, and philosophy), best available scientific knowledge, systematic attention to organizational facts (here organizational, geographic, cultural, and historical context are considered), and stakeholders’ values and other ethical concerns (Rousseau, 2012).

The sources of evidence found among the articles in this first edition are varied across the categories recognized by EBMgt. Irving and Carroll and Patterson offer traditional scientific knowledge as evidence. Irving develops and initially tests the

ENTHUSIASTIC SKEPTICISM 9

SLTP. 1(1), 7-11

Purpose in Leadership Inventory (PLI). With a sample size of 354 participants, Irving used factor analysis and found that a 24 item inventory provided the strongest overall set of factors, explaining approximately 70% of the variance with Cronbach’s alphas in the 0.89-0.97 range. With a sample size of 466 respondents, Carroll and Patterson also use factor analysis, as well as multiple regression and t-tests, to compare how servant leadership is played out in India versus the United States. As described in their “Servant leadership in India and the United States” India and the United States cluster on opposite ends of the culture spectrum offered by House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorman, & Gupta (2004). Therefore, Carroll and Patterson argue, if servant leadership works in both India and the United States – two locales with dissimilar cultures – then servant leadership truly is a universal concept (Greenleaf, 1977).

Whereas Irving and Carroll and Patterson offer traditional scientific knowledge as evidence, Claar, Jackson and TenHaken, as well as Rohm, offer differing, albeit just as valid according to EBMgt, sources of evidence. While Claar, et al. base their thesis on scientific knowledge, they also strongly acknowledge the importance of stakeholders’ values and other ethical concerns. In their article, “Are servant leaders born or made?,” they stress the importance of servant leaders not only looking out for the interests of their direct and immediate followers, but also their customers and suppliers, and the organization as a whole (stockholders/owners, employees and managers) Finally, the evidence put forth by Rohm in “Eagle scouts and servant leadership” can be described as systematic attention to organizational facts as he considers the oath, law, motto and slogan of the Boy Scouts of America against the backdrop of the tenants of servant leadership.

As can be seen, the articles in this premiere edition of SLTP offer evidence from all four of the sources recognized by EBMgt: traditional scientific knowledge, human experience and judgment, systematic attention to organizational facts, and stakeholders’ values and other ethical concerns. As an aside, this question of stakeholder values and ethics is important to servant leadership. Dean Amory notes that, “A challenge to servant leadership is in the assumption of the leader that the followers want to change. There is also the question of what ‘better’ is and who decides this” (2011, p. 506). It is also important to keep in mind that any leader, servant leader or otherwise, will always have multiple stakeholders with multiple, often competing, needs. How is the servant leader to keep these organized and prioritized?

Building upon precise definitions and strong evidence, sound servant leadership theory will begin to emerge. It is not enough to assert that “servant leadership works” even if we have the evidence to back up such a claim. Research needs to offer the mechanisms (mediators) through which servant leadership operates, and the contingency (moderating) relationships that affect it. Through scientific means, we can answer how servant leadership “works,” why it “works,” when and where it “works,” as well as how, why, when and where it might not “work.” And of course we must describe what we mean when we ask “if it works” or when we say that “it works.”

As we strive to advance servant leadership as both a theory and a practice, SLTP will solicit and publish articles that advance servant leadership definition(s), evidence, and

10 P. BRYANT AND S. BROWN


theories. We invite our readers and authors to journey with us as we truly explore and consider this concept and construct called servant leadership.

REFERENCES Amery, D. (2011). Essential knowledge for personal coaches. Belgium: Egdard Adriaens.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1991). The servant as leader. Indianapolis, IN: The Robert K. Greenleaf Center. [Originally published in 1970, by Robert K. Greenleaf].

House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorman, P, & Gupta, V. (Eds.) (2004). Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Patterson, K. A. (2003, March). The seven habits of servant leaders. Regent Business Review, 4, 13-14.

Poon, R. (2006). A model for servant leadership, self-efficacy and mentorship. In Proceedings of the 2006 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable.

Prichard, S. (2013). Retrieved July 14, 2014, from www. Skipprichard.com/9-qualities-of-servant-leaders.

Rousseau, D. (Ed.) (2012). The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Spears, L.C. (2010). Servant leaders: They share 10 traits. Personal Excellence, 15.2.

Spiro, J. (2010, August). How to become a servant leader. Retrieved July 14, 2014, www.Inc.com/guides/2010/08/how-to-become-a-servant-leader.html.

Turner, W.B. (1999). The learning of love: A journey toward servant leadership. Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys Publishers.

ENTHUSIASTIC SKEPTICISM 11

SLTP. 1(1), 7-11

Brief Biographical Note:

Dr. Phil Bryant, SPHR is an Assistant Professor of Management in the Turner College of Business. His research won the 2010 Academy of Management Perspectives Best Paper Award and the 2011 Academy of Management’s Outstanding Practitioner-Oriented Publication in Organizational Behavior award. Dr. Bryant is also the co-author of the 2012 book entitled Managing Employee Turnover.

Dr. Steven Brown is an Assistant Professor of Management in the Turner College of Business. His research interests include opinion leadership, organizational change, effectuation, and technology acceptance. Dr. Brown has owned several businesses and has worked as a consultant for both for-profit and non-profit organizations.




What If We Took Servant Leadership Seriously?

Daniel C. Feldman, Ph.D. Synovus Chair of Servant Leadership, University of Georgia

Preface, Inaugural Issue Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice

The arrival of a new business journal is a singular opportunity in the emergence of a field of inquiry. It signals that there is a coherent and sufficient body of knowledge about a topic to warrant a new publication outlet. It energizes and encourages other academics to consider the topic more seriously and to become more engaged in its intellectual discourse. Perhaps most critically, the arrival of a new journal also draws attention from practitioners and, in so doing, helps shape how leaders view organizations and their contributions to their firms.

I am honored to be asked to write the preface for this inaugural issue of Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice. Servant leadership is emerging not only as an important academic topic in its own right, but also as an overarching philosophy for leading others. As such, the time for this new journal dedicated to servant leadership has come. Its arrival not only acknowledges the impressive amount of evidence which has been accumulating in the field, but also presages new and exciting discoveries in the future. For both academics and practitioners alike, Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice offers the opportunity to share the best in evidence-based knowledge with interested readers.

Servant Leadership: Theory What might theory-building look like if we took servant leadership seriously? The

first major task facing researchers in servant leadership would be drawing the boundaries around the construct itself. What are the key, central elements of that construct? How does servant leadership differ from other constructs with which it shares its domain, such as participative leadership and employee-centered leadership? Are there degrees of

WHAT IF WE TOOK SERVANT LEADERSHIP SERIOUSLY? 13

SLTP. 1(1), 12-15

servant leadership, or is it an all-or-nothing proposition? Is servant leadership a kind of leadership or is it a type of organizational culture as well?

The second major task facing researchers in servant leadership is identifying the dependent (performance) variables it is likely to influence. For instance, it might be the case that servant leadership has a larger impact on organizational citizenship behaviors than on day-to-day performance on routine tasks. Alternatively, servant leadership may have little impact on creativity and innovation, but may significantly cut down on the amount of counterproductive behavior in the workplace. Servant leadership may not have an equally powerful impact on all areas of endeavor, and it is critical to understand where servant leadership has the most (and least) impact on followers.

The third major task facing researchers in servant leadership is identifying the processes through which servant leadership influences others. An interesting possibility here is that servant leadership contributes to higher quality leader-member exchanges (relationships), which in turn lead to more positive employee behaviors. Another possibility is that servant leadership is empowering and that employees who are empowered engage in more constructive behaviors at work. Yet another possibility is that servant leadership signals greater organizational support and this perceived organizational support energizes employees to go the extra mile. In sum, it is important to know not just that servant leadership has an impact on others, but also why and how servant leadership has that impact.

There are many more potential avenues for future research here, but let me identify at least two more which I believe warrant additional consideration. Most of the research on servant leadership to date has examined how servant leaders influence followers. This focus, while entirely appropriate, has left two other important questions unanswered. First, what is the impact of being a servant leader on the servant leader himself/herself? That is, how does being a servant leader shape one’s self-concept and one’s self-esteem? Second, what is the impact of a servant leadership culture on relationships among peers? That is, how does servant leadership influence how followers treat each other? For instance, perhaps servant leadership leads to the creation of more social capital, which in turn leads to greater cohesion and coherence of the organization’s culture. Thus, increases in social capital might be the key factor linking changes at the dyadic level (leader-subordinate) of analysis to changes in the overall culture and performance of a firm.

Servant Leadership: Practice In several ways, the growing interest in servant leadership in academia has mirrored

changes in the zeitgeist regarding charismatic and heroic leadership. Since 2007 in particular, our attention has been drawn to the over-sized egos, over-sized paychecks, and over-sized personalities of CEOs – and, simultaneously, to the underwhelming performance of their companies. At the societal level, there is greater discussion about growing wealth inequality and the wage gap between CEOs and the rest of the workforce. Thus, in industry as well as in academia, there is growing concern about larger-than-life CEOs and greater interest in alternative models of leadership that might be more effective.

14 D. FELDMAN


There are multiple questions to be asked about servant leadership in practice, and below are some with which to start that conversation. From a practitioner perspective, what are the key behaviors which trigger positive responses from employees? How can one balance the needs of one’s followers with the needs of one’s customers and shareholders? What managerial systems and processes have to be put into place to implement and sustain servant leadership? How can a servant leadership style be driven from the top of the organization to the bottom – or how can individuals at lower levels of the organization try to bring servant leadership practices to bear higher up the chain of command? This journal will provide leaders and managers with opportunities to share with each other – and with academics – the lessons they have learned about being servant leaders, about changing to a servant leadership style, and about introducing a servant leadership culture into their organization.

Conclusion I hope you will enjoy reading this inaugural issue of Servant Leadership: Theory &

Practice and bring it to the attention of your colleagues. The journal welcomes contributions from both academics and practitioners and encourages discourse across multiple groups of readers. If we indeed take servant leadership seriously, we can enrich both the quality of academic research on leadership and the quality of working life in organizations today.

WHAT IF WE TOOK SERVANT LEADERSHIP SERIOUSLY? 15

SLTP. 1(1), 12-15

Brief Biographical Note

Daniel C. Feldman is the Synovus Chair of Servant Leadership and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the Terry College of Business, University of Georgia. He received his Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior from Yale University. Dr. Feldman is the author of seven books and over 150 articles on managing careers in organizations and his research has been featured in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Bloomberg/BusinessWeek. He has served as Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Management and as Chair of the Careers Division of the Academy of Management.




Servant Leadership: A Cross Cultural Study Between India and the United States

Brian C. Carroll, Southeastern University

Kathleen Patterson, Regent University

Abstract This study examines cross-cultural differences in the phenomenon of servant leadership by comparing survey data collected from 234 respondents from the United States to data collected from 232 respondents from India. All respondents worked within the information technology (IT) industry. This study specifically examined Patterson’s (2003) model of servant leadership, which consists of seven characteristics, namely, agápao love, altruism, humility, trust, vision, empowerment, and service. Six hypotheses examine the causal relationships posited by Patterson’s model and seven research questions address cross-cultural differences among the seven characteristics. Factor analysis and regression were utilized for hypothesis testing. Results suggest that the model is appropriate for both cultures and that there are no differences in perceptions of servant leadership cross-culturally except for the characteristic of vision, which represents a leader's focus on the future organizational roles of followers. Discussion of the results and study limitations are included, as well as recommendations of future research opportunities.

Keywords: Servant Leadership, Cross-Cultural, India

SERVANT LEADERSHIP: A CROSS CULTURAL STUDY 17

SLTP. 1(1), 16-45

The study of leadership is as diverse as the definitions and descriptions that have been written about it for the last 60 years (Northouse, 2013). Bennis and Nanus (2007) found 350 definitions of leadership arising from thousands of studies conducted this century; in addition, Winston and Patterson (2006) isolated over a thousand leadership constructs and delineated those into 90 clusters to define leadership. This lack of conceptual definition also rings true to those seeking to understand a definition of servant leadership which has become a viable form of leadership, for both practitioners and scholars, over the last 30 years, with increasing interest in the concept and further legitimization within the field of leadership studies (Dickenson, 1996).

Working from the conceptual framework, this study sought to provide a historical and theoretical background from the United States and India, providing context for servant leadership theory by examining Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership constructs and their causal relationships. Evidence has indicated that leadership practices and effectiveness vary according to the culture where they are exercised (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; House et al., 2004). This study also examined the role of culture and its influence on leaders’ behaviors and choice of leadership style that may or may not be predisposed based on culture as described by the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Program (GLOBE) study.

Servant Leadership Servant leadership offers a unique perspective to the leadership literature as it is the

one theory that is centered on the leader as a servant; this goes beyond the focus on the organization with the focus on the needs of followers. In other words, servant leadership is about the leader being servant first (Greenleaf, 1977). Adding to this perspective, Liden, Wayne, Zhao, and Henderson (2008) stated, “With confidence shaken in business leadership, interest has been increasing in the development of leaders (globally) who set aside self-interest for the betterment of their followers and organizations” (p. 161), which is congruent with Patterson’s (2003) theory of servant leadership containing seven unique constructs: agápao love, humility, altruism, vision, trust, empowerment, and service. The establishment of these seven constructs created a base for more precise research on servant leadership.

Patterson’s (2003) model of servant leadership was a natural extension of Burns’ (1978) transformational leadership theory, but the two theories differ in how and where the leader places his or her focus. Transformational leaders focus on the organization’s needs, whereas servant leaders focus on the needs of their followers (Northouse, 2013; Yukl, 2006). While theory development, research, and case studies on servant leadership models in the West are numerous (J. Anderson, 2005; Autry, 2001; Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Blanchard, 1998; Blanchard & Hodges, 2003; Blum, 2002; Boyum, 2012; Dennis, 2004; Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005; Dennis & Winston, 2003; Fields & Winston, n.d.; Finch, 2007; Fridell, Newcom Belcher, & Messner, 2009; Galvin, 2001; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005; Jacobs, 2011; Joseph & Winston, 2005; Laub, 1999; Ledbetter, 2004; Levering & Moskowitz, 2001; Liden et al., 2008; McCann & Holt, 2010; McCuddy & Cavin, 2009; McLaughlin, 2001; Patterson, 2003; Pollard, 1997; Rardin, 2001; Sendjaya,

18 B. C. CARROLL AND K. PATTERSON


Sarros, & Santora, 2008; Serrano, 2005; Spears, 1996; Spears & Lawrence, 2002; Taninecz, 2002; Whittington, Frank, May, Murray, & Goodwin, 2006; Winston, 2003; Winston & Ryan, 2008), very little research has been done that contextualizes servant leadership in diverse cultures (Irving, 2010).

As globalization continues to expand at an exponential rate, organizational leaders will have to increasingly understand and cope with culturally diverse environments, where universal truths about leadership and culture are relevant and applicable (Dickson, Den Hartog, & Mitchelson, 2003; Rabotin, 2008). Trompenaars and Voerman (2010) posited that servant leadership is a universal leadership model, because at its core is something that is common to all cultures—humanity. While the needs of the organization are always present, servant leaders invest in the needs of their followers, encouraging, empowering and supporting them, and producing servant leaders at all levels of the organization, which ultimately leads to organizational success (Northouse, 2013). Effective, successful leaders and organizations will have to be able to reconcile these new cross-cultural dilemmas increasing their cross-cultural competence (Trompenaars & Voerman, 2010).

Culture & Leadership Over the last 20 years, one of the world’s fastest growing economies is India

(Powell, 2008). With more than a billion citizens, it has become a world player economically, politically, and socially (Nagaraj, 2000; Venkatesan, 2013). India is a vast land with immense resources, chiefly their highly educated workforce (Powell, 2008). Much of this new growth and India’s resurgence as a world trade partner has developed just in the last 20 years. However, most of that growth has been at the expense of jobs in the United States and Western Europe. It has even been said that we are “exporting our future” (Kobayashi-Hillary, 2004, p. 4) to India. Capelli, Singh, Singh, and Useem (2010) believed that India’s growth has also been fueled by their capacity to lead effectively. Many Indian companies align their business strategy with taking care of the needs of their employees; for instance, the Indian-owned HCL Technology’s motto is “Employee first, customer second” (Capelli et al. 2010, p. 53).

While servant leadership theory has been researched and contextualized in the West (as referenced earlier), there are no known research studies testing a model of servant leadership within the cultural context of India (Irving, 2010). The objective of this study is to do the first cross-cultural empirical comparative analysis of Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory between India and the United States by means of investigating the seven constructs of Patterson’s servant leadership model within each culture. According to Patterson, these constructs are virtues and the active vehicles by which a servant leader interacts with followers along a continuum from agápao love to service:

1. Agápao love is an ancient Greek term that means to treat others in an ethical and respectful way; to love in a social or moral sense.

2. Humility is the ability of the leader to learn from others and to not think that as the leader he or she is somehow greater than his or her followers.


SLTP. 1(1), 16-45

3. Altruism is the concern for the well-being of followers even to the point of self-sacrifice if needed to accommodate the desires and needs of followers.

4. Vision in a servant leader is directed toward the future state of followers—what the follower’s role is within the organizational context based on his or her strengths.

5. Trust is a measure of confidence or faith that one will live up to one’s promises, to follow through with actions or deeds based on one’s word.

6. Empowerment is the ability to serve followers to achieve their full potential through highlighting their strengths and placing them in opportunities to be successful.

7. Service is about truly focusing on followers; this is the heart of servant leadership.

In Patterson’s model of servant leadership behaviors, the leader proactively engages in the preceding behaviors in an effort to serve the follower’s best interest, which ultimately is serving the organization’s best interest as well. Amy and Honeycutt (2011) supported the idea that serving the interest of your followers’ needs first (before the interest of the organization) will ultimately result in a more effective organization. According to their research, leaders who practice servant leadership create an organizational culture that opens up the lines of communication and information exchange, leading to increased trust and loyalty between members of the organization. The researchers also found that this lends to a more collaborative work environment, improved decision making, an increase in productivity, an improvement in overall morale and a decrease in employee turnover.

The Globe Study While countless organizations apply the principles of servant leadership (Spears,

1996), the study of this theory is predominantly concentrated in the West, particularly in North American organizations (Finch, 2007; Galvin, 2001; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005; Levering & Moskowitz, 2000, 2001; McLaughlin, 2001; McCuddy & Cavin, 2009; Pollard, 1997; Rubin, Powers, Tulacz, Winston, & Krizan, 2002; Serrano, 2005; Spears, 1996; Spears & Lawrence, 2002; Taninecz, 2002). Both Spears (1996) and Nyabadza (2003) traced the practice of servant leadership throughout history and in diverse cultures and found that these practices led to organizations that cared about and therefore valued their employees more, and in turn these organizations were found to be more viable (Fletcher, 1999; Lowe, 1998). As the research and study of servant leadership has grown, so has the focus of cross-cultural studies, seeking out leadership truths that are universal while also understanding the differences in leadership amongst cultures (Dickson et al., 2003). Dickson et al. (2003) noted that while leadership research itself is a “tricky endeavor . . . adding a cross-cultural component to the mix in leadership research makes the whole process even more complex” (p. 731; Shahin & Wright, 2004).



Hofstede (2001) defined culture as a catch phrase that encompasses all of a collective society’s normative behaviors and traditions; he also purported that culture is learned and not inherent.

Culture is to a human collectivity what personality is to an individual. Culture could be defined as the interactive aggregate of common characteristics that influence a human group’s response to its environment. Culture determines the uniqueness of a human group in the same way personality determines the uniqueness of an individual (Hofstede, 2001, pp. 550-551).

The idea that culture is derived from one’s social environment and not one’s genes, lends to the understanding of the complexities of leadership. Culture can act as a form of determinism in that it can predispose a collective society and therefore individuals to act in very specific ways (Carroll, 2010).

Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) groundbreaking work on culture and its consequences laid the foundation for how we understand the effect that national values has on individuals and society. Hofstede (1980) conducted a longitudinal study which yielded data showing four distinct universal dimensions of culture: (a) power distance—human inequality, the perceived amount of fear or anxiety a subordinate may have if he or she disagrees with their superior; (b) uncertainty avoidance—the extent to which a society feels threatened by uncertain and ambiguous situations; (c) collectivism versus individualism—this describes the relationship between the individual and the collectivity that prevails in a given society; and (d) masculinity versus femininity—ego versus socially driven goals in society. This framework became the cornerstone for consistent comparative cross-cultural research.

Building on the work of Hofstede and extending it, House et al.’s (2004) Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Program (GLOBE) study research tested 27 different hypotheses, yielding nine universal cultural dimensions: (a) power distance—degree to which members of society expect power to be distributed; (b) uncertainty avoidance—extent to which a society, organization, or group relies on rules and procedures to control unforeseen future events; (c) humane orientation—degree to which a society encourages and rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, generous, caring and kind to others; (d) collectivism I—degree to which an individual is integrated into groups within the society; (e) collectivism II—degree to which individuals have strong bonds to their small immediate circle; (f) assertiveness—degree to which individuals are assertive, dominant and demanding in their interactions with others; (g) gender egalitarianism—degree to which a society minimizes gender inequality; (h) future orientation—extent to which a society encourages & rewards future-oriented behaviors such as delaying gratification, planning and investing in the future; and (i) performance orientation—degree to which a society encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence. In doing so, House et al.(2004) discovered that leader effectiveness is contextual or culturally contingent. In other words, the extent to which a leader can be effective is rooted in the


SLTP. 1(1), 16-45

organizational and societal norms, values, and traditions of the people being led (Northouse, 2013).

After examining 62 societies through the nine cultural dimensions, House et al. (2004) grouped 60 of the 62 countries into country clusters as seen in Figure 1. Country clusters are those societies that are most similar to one another and therefore are grouped together; the further apart a cluster is from one another the further culturally they are from one another. For example, the Anglo cluster is least like the Middle Eastern cluster and vice versa, but the Anglo and the Germanic are very similar to one another.

Figure 1. The 10 Societal Clusters Based on the GLOBE Study.

According to the GLOBE, 60 countries are grouped into 10 clusters, those societies that are most similar to one another and therefore are grouped together; the further apart a cluster is from one another the further culturally they are from one another (adapted from Inglehart, 1997; Ronen & Shenkar, 1985; Schwartz, 1999). From Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies (p. 190), by R. House, P. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. Dorman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), 2004, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Copyright 2004 by Sage.

With the spread of globalization, the search for more universally acceptable forms of leadership will intensify (McCullogh, 2011; Morrison, 2000). However, six different accepted CLTs (Cultural Leadership Theory; House, 2004) means there are some forms of leadership that are considered to be more desirable than others. Since there is evidence from the literature that has suggested that there are similarities between charismatic/value-based leadership and servant leadership, this study briefly examines



charismatic/value-based leadership and how it aligns with Patterson’s (2003) model of servant leadership cross-culturally.

The main objective of this study is to do the first cross-cultural empirical comparative analysis of Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory between India and the United States by means of investigating the seven constructs of Patterson’s servant leadership model. Equally important is our understanding of the role that culture plays in the style of leadership that it values and therefore is receptive to or deems effective (McCullogh, 2011). According to Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2005), causality is defined as the relationship between two variables (the cause) and (the effect), where the second variable is understood as a consequence of the first. If servant leadership is as universally accepted as Greenleaf (1977) posited, then the characteristics of CLT known as charismatic/value-based leadership and Patterson’s model should be congruent. This congruency could also be viewed as a causal path or evolution from transformational/charismatic/value-based leadership into a servant leadership style model.

One reason for the success of servant leadership theory in Western and/or Anglo cultural clusters may be that it is based in a Judeo-Christian style of leadership that emphasizes the follower’s needs and demands, not just the needs of the leader (Finch, 2007; McCuddy & Cavin, 2009). Anglo cultural clusters tend to desire leaders who are charismatic/value-based, participative, humane, and team-oriented and who are not self-protective and/or self-serving, overly prone to saving face, and status conscious (Northouse, 2013). Hannay (2009) also posited that servant leadership will be welcomed by cultures that have low power distance, low to moderate individualism, and low to moderate masculinity and rank low on uncertainty avoidance and moderate to high on future orientation.

Countries in the southern Asian cultural clusters, like India, are accepting of a leader who exhibits charismatic/value-based leadership; however, they also tend to place a high value on a self-protective style of leader who is concerned with status and saving face (House et al., 2004; Northouse, 2013). As a result of this disparity, Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory might, in fact, be dependent upon cultural contexts and therefore contingent (House et al., 2004). Further research in varied contexts could determine its application in multicultural settings, such as those in India. However, Greenleaf (1977) also stated that the basic tenets of servant leadership might be more universal than we suppose:

The spiritual or moral nature of people is also independent of religion or of any particular religious approach, culture, geography, nationality, or race. Yet all of the enduring major religious traditions of the world are unified when it comes to certain basic underlying principles or values (p. 99).

The GLOBE study found that charismatic/value-based leadership was universally accepted as a highly effective form of leadership (House et al., 2004). Charismatic/value-based leadership has often been compared to transformational leadership and is considered an extension of Bass’ (1985) theory (House et al., 2004). Additionally, servant


SLTP. 1(1), 16-45

leadership has been compared to transformational leadership and is considered by many researchers to be an extension of transformational leadership (Irvin, 2007; Northouse, 2013; Patterson, 2003; Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004; Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2003; Yukl, 2006). It is logical to infer that servant leadership is not only an extension of transformational leadership but also charismatic/value-based leadership and therefore would be accepted not only in the United States (Anglo cluster) but in India (southern Asian cluster) as well. In fact, Winston and Ryan (2008) stated that the servant leadership model should be viewed more as a global leadership model than a Western one.

Hypotheses & Research Questions Due to the cross-cultural nature of this study, two sets of research hypotheses have

been proposed—one for each country (United States and India). Based on the literature review on servant leadership as well as the GLOBE data on Anglo and southern Asia clusters and CLTs, the following hypotheses are constructed for the U.S. and Indian sample in support of the causal relationships posited by Patterson’s (2003) model of servant leadership:

Hypotheses related to both the United States and India follow: H1: A leader’s agápao love is positively related to his or her humility. H2: A leader’s agápao love is positively related to his or her altruism. H3: A leader’s humility and altruism are positively related to the leader’s

vision for the follower. H4: A leader’s humility and altruism are positively related to the leader’s

trust in his or her follower. H5: A leader’s vision and trust are positively related to his or her

empowerment of the followers. H6: A leader’s empowerment of the followers is positively related to the

leader’s service to the followers. Additionally, this research study empirically answers the following research questions:

RQ1: Is there a difference in agápao love by culture (United States; India)? RQ2: Is there a difference in humility by culture (United States; India)? RQ3: Is there a difference in altruism by culture (United States; India)? RQ4: Is there a difference in trust by culture (United States; India)? RQ5: Is there a difference in vision by culture (United States; India)? RQ6: Is there a difference in empowerment by culture (United States; India)? RQ7: Is there a difference in service by culture (United States; India)?

Cross-cultural validation of Patterson’s (2003) theory helps to generalize the theory by considering the effects that both culture and values have on people, and in addition how culture relates to the workplace (Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004). This research fills a gaping hole in cross-cultural research on servant leadership, specifically by looking at India and the United States (Irving, 2010; K. Patterson, personal communication, May 26, 2011).



METHOD In this study both Indian and American workers in the information technology (IT)

industry were surveyed for their perception of servant leadership as measured by the Dennis and Bocarnea (2007) modified Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument (SLAI), which is discussed in the proceeding section. This research employed a survey design by means of a questionnaire. Permission to use the SLAI by Dennis and Bocarnea (2007) was obtained, and there was no need to translate the SLAI from English as both samples read and write fluently in English (A. Barnabas, personal communication March 15, 2013; K. Rolandrajan, personal communication, February 8, 2013).

An electronic distribution method was selected to distribute the survey directly to each individual in the sample groups using SurveyMonkey—an online survey website. This particular approach was selected due to the convenience, timeliness, standardization, and expected increased participation level. In addition to the SLAI, respondents were asked to answer basic demographic questions such as age, race, gender, education level, religious affiliation, and compensation.

Participants were asked to use a 0-6 scale to indicate their agreement or disagreement with each of the 42 items of the SLAI. They were provided a response to each statement by selecting one of the seven numbers—the higher the number the stronger the agreement with the statement. The selection is a continuum along which 0 equals zero agreement and the highest number 6 equals the maximum amount possible. Their response to each statement indicates the way in which they believe their leader would behave, act, or think.

Research Instrument The SLAI was originally developed by Dennis (2004) and later refined by Dennis

and Bocarnea (2005, 2007). Dennis and Bocarnea (2005) show three separate data collections were used for the development of this instrument. Because there were seven unique constructs that need to be tested in Patterson’s (2003) model, the first survey contained a 71-item scale and required a minimum of 355 participants (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005). The second and third data samples required a minimum of 210 participants because the instrument had been reduced to a 42-item scale. Dennis and Bocarnea (2005) empirically established the construct-related and criterion-related validity of the instrument.

The items of the SLAI mirror characteristics or behaviors of servant leaders that would be observed by followers. The SLAI asks respondents to review a statement and then indicate their agreement or disagreement with each of those statements on a Likert scale from 0 to 6, where 0 equals zero amount or zero agreement and the highest number or 6 equals the maximum amount of agreement possible (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2007). Each statement in the SLAI is a reflection of how respondents believe the leader they are rating would act or behave. Table 5 provides an overview of each of the constructs in Patterson’s (2003) model as well as the corresponding α and items of the 2005 SLAI.


SLTP. 1(1), 16-45

Table 1 provides an overview of the 466 respondents, SLAI scales, their related α coefficient score, and the accompanying items that loaded together in the factor analysis in this study broken into three categories: combined, Indian, and United States. Hair et al. (2005) stated that the use of correlation matrixes are an efficient way to display the intercorrelations among constructs. Tables 2, 3, and 4 provide a summary of these intercorrelatations among the combined SLAI sample, Indian sample, and the U.S. sample, respectively.

Table 1. 2007 SLAI with Coefficient α Scores by Sample (Combined, Indian, U.S.). Construct Combined α Indian α United States α Love .80 .73 .86 Humility .70 .63 .81 Altruism .70 .63 .76 Vision .77 .73 .81 Trust .78 .64 .76 Empowerment .77 .72 .81 Service .74 .67 .80

Table 2: 2007 SLAI with Inter-item Correlation Matrix Combined Sample. Item Love Altruism Humility Vision Trust Empmt Service Love – Altruism .89 – Humility .90 .87 – Vision .84 .83 .82 – Trust .91 .79 .85 .80 – Empowerment .92 .82 .85 .84 .92 – Service .90 .87 .89 .89 .85 .87 –

Table 3. 2007 SLAI with Coefficient α for Indian Sample. Item Love Altruism Humility Trust Vision Empmt Service Love – Altruism .86 – Humility .88 .88 – Trust .89 .78 .84 – Vision .88 .80 .82 .87 – Empowerment .91 .79 .82 .90 .90 – Service .90 .82 .88 .87 .88 .88 –

Table 4. 2007 SLAI with Coefficient α: U.S. Sample. Item Love Altruism Humility Trust Vision Empmt Service Love – Altruism .91 – Humility .92 .87 – Trust 1.00 .91 .92 – Vision .83 .84 .82 .83 – Empowerment .93 .84 .87 .93 .82 – Service .89 .90 .89 .89 .90 .86 –



Sample & Population The experimentally accessible population for this study was a composition of two

separate data sets collected from respondents in the IT industry in both the United States and India. The IT industry in India is growing exponentially, as IT companies begin to form megaclusters around major metropolitan areas like Mumbai, Bangalore, Chennai, and Hyderabad (Abraham, 2010). This clustering of many large and growing IT and software firms around a major metropolitan area means that Indians with the specialized skills and education to perform these roles from all over the country are relocating to these cities in search of jobs and new opportunities (Abraham, 2010). As expected, both target samples contained respondents who are highly skilled within the IT field and have at least some formal college education (Abraham, 2010; Gartner, 2013). Additionally, participants in both data sets read, write, and speak English fluently; therefore the SLAI did not have to be translated (A. Barnabas, personal communication, March 15, 2013; K. Rolandrajan, personal communication, February 8, 2013).

DeVellis (2012) recommended that the size of the sample for a research study utilizing confirmatory factor analysis should be based on a ratio of 5 to 10 respondents per item on the scale. Confirmatory factor analysis is the method used by researchers to confirm the theorized or predicted patterns within relationships or on prior analytic data (DeVellis, 2012). In the case of the current study, utilizing the 42-item modified SLAI, a minimum sample of 210 respondents was necessary for each sample from each country to establish validity. Baruch (1999) found that on average the response rate among research subjects is only 36%. Using SurveyMonkey, this study received 466 completed surveys—232 respondents from India and 234 from the United States.

Data Collection & Analysis Evans and Mathur (2005) found that online and electronic survey methods have

considerable advantages over traditional survey methods, including speed, affordability and reduction of data entry time and transcription errors. SurveyMonkey automatically filtered respondents identified for this study based on their profession (i.e., IT industry) and their geographic location (i.e., India or the United States). The survey also had a brief explanation and several demographic questions. To facilitate more open and honest responses, the respondents were reassured of their anonymity and confidentiality regarding any information they provided. The web-based format allowed for electronically mediated collection of the data, thus providing subjects of the sample frame increased convenience and anonymity. Additionally, respondents were further induced to complete the SLAI by offering the chance to win a gift card, redeem points for cash, or donate 50 cents to a charity of their choosing. The instrument was made available for a 10-day period, at which point amount of surveys needed was received and the URL was automatically closed.

The data in this study was analyzed using SPSS Version 21.0, testing the causality of the proposed relationships between the seven constructs of Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership model by utilizing multiple regression analysis. The hypotheses in this study revolve around the central theme of cause and effect between the seven constructs of Patterson’s model, which has been firmly established in the literature (Dennis, 2004;


SLTP. 1(1), 16-45

Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005; Dimitrova, 2008, Hirschy, 2011). Posteriori research has indicated that the data from the SLAI would produce a correlation matrix for the items that are hypothesized to have positive correlations (H1-H6 ).

Factor analysis is used to explain the variance between single dependent variables and multiple independent variables within one equation (Brown, 2009; Hair et al., 2005). Brown noted that in addition to performing a factor analysis on a given set of data, the researcher may wish to further test the pattern of the causation using another statistical method known as rotation. Rotation methods are differentiated between orthogonal and oblique (oblomin). “Orthogonal rotation methods assume that the factors in the analysis are uncorrelated . . . In contrast oblique rotation methods assume the factors are correlated” (Brown, 2009, p. 21). Since the items were positively correlated, the data employed an oblimin (oblique) rotation method for the factor analysis. Based on the work of Dennis (2004), Dennis and Bocarnea (2005), and Dimitrova (2008), a simple structure of the correlations of the model was revealed for each country.

The current study’s research questions sought to answer a simple question: Is there a difference in the perception of Patterson’s (2003) model of servant leadership among differing cultures (United States and India); in order to answer this central question, seven research questions were posed. Each of the questions asked, “Is there a difference between the mean sample scores of the two culture samples using a single dependent variable?” In the case of this study, this meant looking to see if the statistical difference between each country’s mean score in the SLAI per each of the seven constructs of Patterson’s model of servant leadership is significant. Hair et al. (2005) stated that a t-test should be used when determining “the statistical significance of the difference between two sample means for a single dependent variable” (p. 388).

Tables 5, 6, and 7 present the mean scores, standard deviations, and standard error means of the study. These are important statistics to track because they provide a glimpse of the respondents’ ratings on each of the constructs as an average score, the variation or dispersion between participants’ scores on each construct, and the inference that can be made as a result of the dispersion (Green & Salkind, 2008).

Table 5. Number of Respondents, Means, Standard Deviations, and Mean Standard Error of the Combined Sample. Construct N M SD SE Altruism 466 3.80 1.65 .07 Love 466 4.19 1.54 .07 Humility 466 4.02 1.57 .07 Vision 466 4.04 1.62 .07 Trust 466 4.32 1.56 .07 Empowerment 466 4.25 1.52 .07 Service 466 4.10 1.54 .07



Table 6. Number of Respondents, Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and Standard Error Mean on the Indian Sample. Construct N M SD SE Altruism 232 3.96 1.52 .10 Love 232 4.22 1.41 .09 Humility 232 4.04 1.45 .09 Vision 232 4.23 1.44 .09 Trust 232 4.28 1.51 .09 Empowerment 232 4.28 1.41 .09 Service 232 4.17 1.45 .09

Table 7. Number of Respondents, Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, and Standard Error Mean on the U.S. Sample. Construct N M SD SE Altruism 234 3.69 1.75 .11 Love 234 4.15 1.66 .10 Humility 234 4.01 1.66 .10 Vision 234 3.85 1.75 .11 Trust 234 4.35 1.59 .10 Empowerment 234 4.21 1.62 .10 Service 234 4.02 1.62 .10

Hypotheses Testing of U.S. Sample The simple and multiple regression models were significant for all six hypotheses for the U.S. sample and therefore supported. As seen in Tables 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, the models were statistically significant:

H1a: A leader’s agápao love is positively related to his or her humility.

R2 =.85, F(1,232) = 1269.47, p = .000 < 0.05, β (love) = .92

Table 8. Summary of Regression Analysis for Leader’s Agápao Love Predicting His or Her Humility to the Follower. Variable B SE β t p (Constant) 2.28 .65 3.50 .00 Love .88 .03 .92 35.63 .00

H2a: A leader’s agápao love is positively related to his or her altruism.

R2 = .82, F(1,232) = 1065.62, p = .00 < 0.05, β (love) = .91

Table 9. Summary of Regression Analysis for Leader’s Agápao Love Predicting His or Her Altruism to the Follower. Variable B SE β t p (Constant) -.33 .73 -.45 .65 Love .90 .03 .91 32.64 .00


SLTP. 1(1), 16-45

H3a: A leader’s humility and altruism is positively related to his or her vision

for the followers.

R2 = .75, F(2, 231) = 335.02, p = .00 < 0.05, β (humility) = .36; p < .05;

β (altruism) = .53, p < .05

Table 10. Summary of Regression Analysis for Leader’s Humility and Altruism is Positively Related to His or Her Vision for the Followers. Variable B SE β t p (Constant) 1.66 .92 1.80 .07 Humility .39 .07 .36 5.29 .00 Altruism .55 .07 .53 7.79 .00

H4a: A leader’s humility and altruism is positively related to his or her trust

for the followers.

R2 = .89, F(2, 231) = 943.87, p = .00< 0.05; β (humility) = .54; p < .05;

β (altruism) = .44, p < .05

Table 11. Summary of Regression Analysis for Leader’s Humility and Altruism is Positively Related to His or Her Trust for the Followers. Variable B SE β t p (Constant) 1.57 .56 2.68 .00 Humility .57 .05 .54 12.16 .000 Altruism .44 .05 .44 9.82 .000

H5a: A leader’s vision and trust are positively related to his or her

empowerment of the followers.

R2 = .88, F (2, 231) =805.42, p = .00 < 0.05, β (vision) = .14, p < .05; β (trust) =

.81, p < .05

Table 12. Summary of Regression Analysis for a Leader’s Vision and Trust are Positively Related to His or Her Empowerment of the Followers. Variable B SE β t p (Constant) 2.93 .59 4.93 .00 Vision .13 .04 .14 3.48 .00 Trust .77 .04 .81 19.61 .00

H6a: A leader’s empowerment of the followers is positively related to the

leader’s service to the followers.

R2 = .74, F (1, 232) = 659.72, p = .000 < 0.05, β = .86



Table 13. Summary of Regression Analysis for a Leader’s Empowerment of the Followers is Positively Related to the Leader’s Service to the Followers. Variable B SE β t p (Constant) 2.63 .86 2.93 .003 Empowerment .85 .03 .86 25.69 .000

Figure 2. Results from H1a-6a (U.S. sample) in Patterson’s (2003) servant leader model.

H1a: F(1,232) = 1269.47, p ≤ .05, R2 = .85; β (love) = .92 H2a: F(1,232) = 1065.62, p ≤ .05, R2 = .82; β (love) = .91 H3a: F(2,231) = 335.02, p ≤ .05, R2 = .75; β (humility) = .36, β (altruism) = .53 H4a: F(2,231) = 943.87, p ≤ .05, R2 = .89; β (humility) = .54, β (altruism) = .44 H5a: F(2,231) = 805.42, p ≤ .05, R2 = .88; β (vision) = .14, β (trust) = .81 H6a: F(1,232) = 659.72, p ≤ .05, R2 = .74; β = .86

Hypotheses Testing of Indian Sample The simple and multiple regression models were significant for all six hypotheses for the Indian sample and therefore the hypotheses were supported. As seen in Tables 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, the models were statistically significant.

H1b: A leader’s agápao love is positively related to his or her humility

R2 = .77, F(1,230) = 755.40, p = .000 < 0.05, β (love) = .88

Table 14. Summary of Regression Analysis for Indian Leader’s Agápao Love Predicting His or Her Humility to the Follower. Variable B SE β t p (Constant) 3.15 .80 3.95 .000 Love .83 .03 .88 27.49 .000


SLTP. 1(1), 16-45

H2b: A leader’s agápao love is positively related to his or her altruism.

R2 = .74, F(1,230) = 663.80, p = .000 < 0.05, β (love) = .86

Table 15. Summary of Regression Analysis for Indian Leader’s Agápao Love Predicting His or Her Altruism to the Follower. Variable B SE β t p (Constant) 1.67 .88 -1.90 .06 Love .86 .03 .86 25.76 .00

H3b: A leader’s humility and altruism is positively related to his or her vision

for the followers.

R2 = .70 F(2, 229) = 269.73, p = .000 < 0.05, β (humility) = .50; p < .05;

β (altruism) = .37, p < .05

Table 16. Summary of Regression Analysis for Indian Leader’s Humility and Altruism is Positively Related to His or Her Vision for the Followers. Variable B SE β t p (Constant) 3.77 .98 3.86 .00 Humility .53 .08 .50 6.50 .00 Altruism .38 .08 .37 4.82 .00

H4b: A leader’s humility and altruism is positively related to his or her trust

for the followers.

R2 = .72, F(2, 229) = 292.31, p = .000 < 0.05; β (humility) = .68; p < .05;

β (altruism) = .18, p < .05

Table 17. Summary of Regression Analysis for an Indian Leader’s Humility and Altruism is Positively Related to His or Her Trust for the Followers. Variable B SE β t p (Constant) 4.23 .92 4.58 .00 Humility .71 .08 .68 9.22 .00 Altruism .18 .07 .18 2.44 .02

H5b: A leader’s vision and trust are positively related to his or her

empowerment of the followers.

R2 = .72, F(2, 229) =707.23, p = .00 < 0.05, β (vision) = .49, p < .05; β (trust) =

.47, p <.05



Table 18. Summary of Regression Analysis for an Indian Leader’s Vision and Trust are Positively Related to His or Her Empowerment of the Followers. Variable B SE β t p (Constant) 1.48 .67 2.21 .03 Vision .48 .05 .49 9.86 .00 Trust .48 .05 .47 9.37 .00

H6b: A leader’s empowerment of the followers is positively related to the

leader’s service to the followers.

R2 = .77, F(1, 230) = 749.82, p = .00 < 0.05, β = .88

Table 19. Summary of Regression Analysis for an Indian Leader’s Empowerment of the Followers is Positively Related to the Leader’s Service to the Followers. Variable B SE β t p (Constant) 2.77 .85 3.23 .00 Empowerment .87 .03 .88 27.38 .00

Figure 3. Results from H1b-6b (Indian sample) in Patterson’s (2003) servant leader model.

H1b: F(1,230) = 755.50, p ≤ .05, R2 = .77; β (love) = .88 H2b: F(1,230) = 663.80, p ≤ .05, R2 = .74; β (love) = .86 H3b: F(2,229) = 269.73, p ≤ .05, R2 = .70; β (humility) = .50, β (altruism) = .37 H4b: F(2,229) = 292.31, p ≤ .05, R2 = .72; β (humility) = .68, β (altruism) = .18 H5b: F(2,229) = 707.23, p ≤ .05, R2 = .72; β (vision) = .49, β (trust) = .47 H6b: F(1,230) = 749.82, p ≤ .05, R2 = .77; β = .88


SLTP. 1(1), 16-45

Research Questions Results This research answers the following cross-cultural research questions in this study.

In doing so, cross-cultural validation of Patterson’s (2003) theory helps generalize the theory by considering the effects that national culture and values have on people and how culture relates to the workplace (Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004). The researcher executed seven t-tests as presented in Table 20.

RQ1: Is there a difference in agápao love by culture (United States; India)?

RQ2: Is there a difference in humility by culture (United States; India)?

RQ3: Is there a difference in altruism by culture (United States; India)?

RQ4: Is there a difference in trust by culture (United States; India)?

RQ5: Is there a difference in vision by culture (United States; India)?

RQ6: Is there a difference in empowerment by culture (United States; India)?

RQ7: Is there a difference in service by culture (United States; India)?

Table 20. t-Test for Equality of Means Between the Indian and the U.S. Sample. Construct t df p (2-tailed) ΔM ΔSE Love .61 464 .54 .47 .77 Altruism 1.65 464 .10 1.26 .77 Humility .20 464 .84 .15 .73 Vision 2.91 464 .00 2.29 .79 Trust -.60 464 .55 .43 .72 Empowerment .58 464 .56 .43 .74 Service 1.26 464 .21 .92 .74

Hair et al. (2005) stated that when utilizing a t-test to examine the statistical significance between two sample means, interval data must first be collected. To answer RQ1-7, the researcher used the interval data collected from the SLAI on both the U.S. and Indian samples in order to determine if there was a perceptual difference in servant leadership based on the differences in these two cultures. Seven t-tests were run to check for the differences or similarities in Patterson’s (2003) servant leader constructs. A p-value of < .05 was set for ascertaining the statistical significance of the data. The t-statistic is the ratio of the difference between the sample means to their standard error (SE; Hair et al., 2005). The SE is the estimated difference between the means to be expected because of sampling error. The p (2-tailed) statistic is the indicator of probability that the difference in relationship is significant or not. Any score that is p < .05 is therefore a predictor of significance.

Love

The t-statistic for Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership construct of love (SLAI, Dennis & Bocarnea, 2007) was .62. The t-test indicated that no significant differences existed between the means of Indian sample and those of the U.S. sample on love. The difference for the love variable was not significant at the .61 level with p > .05. There



was a 54% probability that the difference between the groups on this variable occurred by random chance. India also had a higher mean score for the construct of love with a mean differential of .77. The 95% confidence interval indicated that the difference between the groups on love was at least -1.04. Therefore, the results of this t-test answered negatively to the research question in regard to the construct of love.

Altruism The t-statistic for Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership construct of altruism (SLAI,

Dennis & Bocarnea, 2007) was 1.65. The t-test indicated that no significant differences existed between the means of the Indian sample and those of the U.S. sample on altruism. The difference for the construct of the altruism variable was not significant at the 1.65 level with p > .05. India also had a higher mean score for the construct of altruism with a mean differential of 1.26. There was a 10% probability that the difference between the groups on this variable occurred by random chance. The 95% confidence interval indicated that the difference between the groups on altruism was at least -.24. Therefore, the results of this t-test answered negatively to the research question in regard to the construct of altruism.

Humility The t-statistic for Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership construct of humility (SLAI,

Dennis & Bocarnea, 2007) was 0.20. The t-test indicated that no significant differences existed between the means of the Indian sample and those of the U.S. sample on humility. The difference for the humility variable was not significant at the .20 level with p > .05. India also had a higher mean score for the construct of humility with a mean differential of 0.15. There was an 84% probability that the difference between the groups on this variable occurred by random chance. The 95% confidence interval indicated that the difference between the groups on humility was at least -1.29. Therefore, the results of this t-test answered negatively to the research question in regard to the construct of humility.

Vision The t-statistic for Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership construct of vision (SLAI,

Dennis & Bocarnea, 2007) was 2.91. The t-test indicated that a significant difference existed between the means of the Indian sample and those of the U.S. sample on vision. The difference for the vision variable was significant at the 2.91 level with p < .05. India also had a higher mean score for the construct of vision with a mean differential of 2.29. There was essentially a 0% probability that the difference between the groups on this variable occurred by random chance. The 95% confidence interval indicated that the difference between the groups on vision was at least .75. Therefore, the results of this t-test answered positively to the research question in regard to the construct of vision.

Trust The t-statistic for Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership variable of trust (SLAI,

Dennis & Bocarnea, 2007) was -.60. The t-test indicated that no significant differences existed between the means of the Indian sample and those of the US sample on trust. The difference for the trust variable was not significant at the -.60 level with p > .05. The U.S. sample also had a higher mean score for the construct of trust with a mean differential of


SLTP. 1(1), 16-45

0.43. There was essentially a 55% probability that the difference between the groups on this variable occurred by random chance. The 95% confidence interval indicated that the difference between the groups on trust was at least -1.86. Therefore, the results of this t-test answered negatively to the research question in regard to the construct of trust.

Empowerment

The t-statistic for Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership construct of empowerment (SLAI, Dennis & Bocarnea, 2007) was .58. The t-test indicated that no significant differences existed between the means of the Indian sample and those of the U.S. sample on empowerment. The difference for the empowerment variable was not significant at the .58 level with p > .05. India also had a higher mean score for the construct of empowerment with a mean differential of 0.43. There was essentially a 56% probability that the difference between the groups on this variable occurred by random chance. The 95% confidence interval indicated that the difference between the groups on empowerment was at least -1.03. Therefore, the results of this t-test answered negatively to the research question in regard to the construct of empowerment.

Service The t-statistic for Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership construct of service (SLAI,

Dennis & Bocarnea, 2007) was 1.26 The t-test indicated that no significant differences existed between the means of the Indian sample and those of the U.S. sample on service. The difference for the service variable was not significant at the 1.26 level with p > .05. India also had a higher mean score for the construct of service with a mean differential of 0.92. There was essentially a 21% probability that the difference between the groups on this variable occurred by random chance. The 95% confidence interval indicated that the difference between the groups on service was at least -.52. Therefore, the results of this t-test answered negatively to the research question in regard to the construct of service.

THEORETICAL & PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS One of the central themes in this study was the cultural influence on leadership

styles and the practice of servant leadership in diverse cultures. This study answered the research question: Is there a difference in perception of Patterson’s (2003) model of servant leadership based on culture? Dennis and Bocarnea’ s (2007) SLAI served as a reliable instrument for providing the data necessary to evaluate the means of the seven constructs of Patterson’s (2003) model. The goal of the analyses was to determine if there was any statistical significance between the cultural samples—the United States and India. The findings of this study revealed that there was no statistically significant difference in the perception of Patterson’s model of servant leadership among the two cultural samples for all but one of the seven constructs—vision. The perceived difference between the two cultural samples on the construct of vision is interesting, particularly since both cultural samples found the construct of vision to be positively related to the other constructs in Patterson’s (2003) model of servant leadership. The difference between the cultural groups on the perception of vision may be due to one of several



reasons, including each particular country’s cultural cluster as well as their particular bias or receptivity toward a CLT as outlined in House et al.’s (2004) GLOBE study.

The GLOBE study found that both the southern Asian and Anglo cultural clusters were open and receptive to charismatic/value-based leaders, and countries within the southern Asian cluster were more likely to prefer self-protective leadership than were their Anglo counterparts. Self-protective leaders tend to be self-centered and status conscious, instigate conflict, and be very procedural (House et al., 2004). Additionally, the United States and India differ along several key areas of the GLOBE study’s nine cultural constructs: performance orientation, humane orientation, and in-group collectivism.

It is unlikely that a difference between the United States and India on House et al.’s (2004) GLOBE study’s cultural constructs of performance orientation or humane orientation would explain the difference between the two cultures in Patterson’s (2003) construct of vision. The Anglo cluster ranks high on the performance orientation scale, while the southern Asian cluster has an average rating on the scale. Conversely, southern Asia ranks high on the humane orientation scale, and the Anglo cluster has an average score. According to the GLOBE study, performance orientation cultural value scores are positively related to the charismatic/value-based leadership dimension. Performance orientation cultural value scores are also positively related to the construct of the humane orientation dimension.

Additionally, the GLOBE study showed there is a significant relationship between performance-oriented societies and the telecommunications industries, which is inclusive of the IT industry. This current study was comprised of two different cultural samples—the United States and India—and these samples were totally comprised of targeted respondents from the IT industry. Therefore, because of the similarities in the two samples, neither performance orientation nor humane orientation would explain the variance between the two cultures in this study on the construct of vision in Patterson’s (2003) model of servant leadership.

The final cultural dimension that the two societal clusters differ in is the in-group collectivism dimension. The Anglo cluster ranks low on the in-group collectivism scale, while the southern Asian cluster rates high. According to the GLOBE study, an inverse relationship exists between in-group collectivism and future orientation. While both the Anglo and southern Asian clusters may have an average rating on the future orientation scale, they differ among whose future the scale is referring to. According to House et al. (2004), the differential on future orientation in relation to in-group collectivism is also compounded by the telecommunications industry. Unlike telecoms in the Anglo cluster, the telecom industry in southern Asia has been dominated by governmental controls as such few telecommunications corporations have entered the telecom industry. The corporations that have entered this segment within the southern Asia cultures have become monopolies and have “adopted the monopolistic practices of the public sector with few incentives for efficiency” (Blasko, 1998, as cited in House et al., 2004, p. 307). Because these telecoms are essentially monopolies, there is very little fear of outside threats; therefore, they view their future differently than their Anglo counterparts. This


SLTP. 1(1), 16-45

difference in future orientation may in fact be a moderating influence on the difference in the perception of vision between the two cultural samples.

This research study presented new findings and data on servant leadership cross-culturally and is the first to study Patterson’s (2003) model of servant leadership in India. This study introduces new and additional research to the field of leadership studies as it further supports the servant leadership model theorized by Patterson. This research study also confirms the causal relationships among the seven constructs of Patterson’s servant leadership model. Additionally, the study found no significant difference between two cultural samples—the United States and India—among six of the seven constructs of Patterson’s model of servant leadership. However, this study did find that both cultural samples validated the relationship that exist among all seven constructs of Patterson’s model and confirmed the causal path. Furthermore, this study validates the theory of servant leadership as offered by Patterson within an Indian context.

The fact that this study has shown that there is a positive relationship between Patterson’s (2003) model of servant leadership and Indians working within the IT industry should serve as an example to entrepreneurs, other organizations, and organizational leaders to follow. The lack of difference between the U.S. and Indian samples on the SLAI is also relevant for organizations and organizational leaders to fully understand. The implication for organizational leaders is that while there may exist major cultural differences between two countries like the United States and India, servant leadership transcends these differences and may act as a bridge that leadership can use where behaviors are congruent within both cultures.

Additionally, this research study sought to connect the culturally endorsed theory of leadership known as charismatic/value-based leadership to servant leadership, therefore supporting the claim that servant leadership is also a universally acceptable form of leadership. Both of these leadership theories have been called extensions of transformational leadership and therefore share a common ethos (Irvin, 2007; Northouse, 2013; Patterson, 2003; Smith et al., 2004; Stone et al., 2003; Yukl, 2006). Winston and Ryan (2008) also believed that servant leadership should be viewed more as a globally acceptable leadership model for organizations to embrace. The implication of connecting servant leadership, charismatic/value-based leadership, and transformational leadership could lead to servant leadership being recognized as a universal form of leadership as well as inducing other researchers to execute new research testing the relationship between the two.

Transformational leadership has been linked to better organizational performance, as followers are motivated and inspired to work beyond the expectations of their job and in doing so increase organizational performance (Bass, 1985; Howell & Avolio, 1993). Yukl (2006) posited that smaller firms, especially entrepreneurial ventures with fewer employees, tend to depend on their leader for direction, innovation, drive, and inspiration for the organization’s success. Schein (1992) found that organizational leaders of small entrepreneurial start-ups with few employees are able to shape organizational culture with much less effort than larger and more mature ones. Because organizational leaders of entrepreneurial or innovative organizations are better suited to shape culture, their



impact for transformational change cannot be understated (Kang, Park, & Tarabishy, 2010). The implication of this connection between servant leadership and transformational leadership, for entrepreneurs and organizational leaders, is that servant leadership is a form of transformational leadership that focuses on creating a cultural environment of performance through focusing on the needs of followers through service, empowerment, trust, vision, humility, altruism, and love.

This study has practical implications for entrepreneurs, start-ups, and organizational leaders who want to compete in India or other global markets. The following quote from Stephen Elop the CEO of Nokia, one of the world’s largest telecoms, should serve as a wake-up call to any organization or organizational leader hoping to succeed in an ever-shrinking global economy:

India should be viewed less as a difficult market where strange things are happening, and more as a market that is simply ahead of many other markets in its evolution . . . If we don’t figure out how to win in India, we could end up losing in a lot of other geographies around the world. Conversely, if we can win in India, we can win everywhere. (Venkatesan, 2013, Kindle location 100-103)

Entrepreneurs and organizational leaders who can become culturally literate in their leadership style and systems will be the real winners in the 21st-century economy. A global-minded organization or organizational leader will be essential for the ever-growing diversity among our organizations and the organizations we work with. The predicted growth for the world’s emerging economies over the next 10 years is expected to be 40% larger than it is today with the development of infrastructure and human capital driving the majority of that growth (Harris, Schwedel, & Kim, 2011). It is also expected that over the next decade, firms like Microsoft India will grow at 20% to 25% compounded annual growth rate. India is also one of the world’s largest talent pools for outsourcing knowledge-based jobs like IT, software design, and engineering (Venkatesan, 2013). Trompenaars and Voerman (2010) posited that in order for organizations and organizational leaders to be successful, they will have to be able to reconcile these new cross-cultural dilemmas increasing their cross-cultural competence. With firms looking for ways to compete in the fast pace of growing industries and emerging global markets, the philosophy of transformational leadership models like servant leadership offer a compelling argument for their implementation.

Limitations to the Research This was the first research study to test Patterson’s (2003) model of servant

leadership in India. The cross-cultural nature of this study only served to compound the complexity of performing this type of research. One limitation to the study was gaining access to the target sample needed in India. With more than a billion residents, India is one of the most culturally diverse nations on the planet. According to Nagaraj (2000), there are more than 850 languages and dialects spoken on a daily basis in India; it would have been nearly impossible to translate the SLAI and then distribute it accordingly based on the native languages and dialects. Because of the language barrier, it was determined


SLTP. 1(1), 16-45

that the best course of action was to limit the target sample to respondents who could read and write fluently in English. This could have possibly narrowed the sample population to a specific group of respondents who were better educated than a random sample of the population. This could also be the reason that nearly 100% of the combined sample had at least some college or technical training beyond high school.

While the respondents for the Indian sample were guaranteed their anonymity, they did provide some demographic information regarding their place of birth as well as their current location. Abraham (2010) and Gartner (2013) both suggested that while the IT industry has ballooned in India over the last couple of decades, this growth has been concentrated in major metropolitan hubs. This growth has caused many IT professionals or those looking to move into this industry to relocate to these areas. The 232 respondents in the Indian sample hailed from 68 different regions within India. However, according to the current physical location reported, the majority of the respondents in the sample were grouped into just a dozen or so major regions with a few in outlying provinces. Another limiting factor for the Indian sample could have been the lack of diversity amongst the religious faith traditions. While the researchers did predict a positive relationship between Hindu beliefs and teachings and the exhibition of Patterson’s (2003) model of servant leadership, this may limit the generalizability of the theory to those who do not come from a faith tradition.

Recommendations for Future Research The researchers suggest several directions for future research that would build upon

and extend the current study of servant leadership. First, while the present research study on Patterson’s (2003) model of servant leadership focused on just two of the 62 countries featured in House et al.’s (2004) GLOBE study, future research should be conducted on servant leadership cross-culturally among other countries tested in the GLOBE study. Further testing of servant leadership cross-culturally will provide additional validation of servant leadership as a universally acceptable form of leadership.

The second recommendation for future research is that more research should be conducted on the relationship between servant leadership and the CLT charismatic/value-based leadership. Future research should include both a servant leadership instrument like the SLAI and a charismatic/value-based assessment like the one used in the GLOBE study. By having target samples respond to both instruments at the same time, the relationship, if any, between charismatic/value-based leadership and servant leadership could be more accurately assessed through the use of factor analysis.

There is a lack of research on the relationship between the intersection of faith, culture, and servant leadership. According to Dierendonck and Patterson (2010) and Sendjaya (2010, as cited in Dierendonck & Patterson, 2010), there have been numerous servant leadership studies on organizations that are linked to religious teachings. However, this link has not been fully explored. As Greenleaf (1980) posited that the ethos of servant leadership is rooted in Judeo-Christian beliefs, there seems to be a connection between servant leadership philosophy and an ethical value-based philosophy that is congruent with the major religions of the world. The exploration of these relationships may help researchers better understand culturally endorsed leadership theories through



the influence of religious faith traditions and in doing so lead to servant leadership as a universally acceptable form of leadership. Future researchers who perform a study utilizing the preceding recommendations would create a more holistic universal understanding of servant leadership in a global context.

Finally, future research should be conducted to measure the relationship between servant leadership, organizational performance, and entrepreneurial orientation. Because servant leadership has been linked to transformational leadership (Irvin, 2007; Northouse, 2013; Patterson, 2003; Smith et al., 2004; Stone et al., 2003; Yukl, 2006) and transformational leadership has been shown to increase organizational performance (Bass, 1985; Howell & Avolio, 1993), research on servant leadership could also show similar improved organizational performance. It is also reasonable to infer that entrepreneurs and leaders of start-ups are exhibiting servant leader behaviors as described in Patterson’s (2003) model of servant leadership. Kang et al. (2010) found a positive relationship between a leader’s transformational leadership style and shaping the organizational perception of entrepreneurship based on the entrepreneurial orientation scale. These transformational leadership behaviors included creating a collaborative environment, which is the byproduct of trust, empowerment, and service, all of which are servant leader behaviors. Research contextualizing servant leadership as a relevant tool for creating a collaborative entrepreneurial environment would further extend the base of knowledge on leadership studies.

Conclusion This study conducted the first cross-cultural empirical comparative analysis of

Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory between India and the United States by investigating the seven constructs of Patterson’s servant leadership model within two differing cultures. The data collected by the SLAI supported the causal path of the seven constructs theorized by Patterson’s model of servant leadership. This study also supported the acceptance and exhibition of Patterson’s servant leadership model in both India and the United States. This study empirically answered the research question: Why or what similarities and/or differences exist between the two cultures in question? Finding no significant difference between the cultures on all of the constructs of Patterson’s model but vision, the researcher theorized that the difference between the two cultures on the construct of vision are based in the differing philosophies by the two cultures within the telecom industry on the cultural dimension of future orientation. The cross-cultural validation of Patterson’s theory should help to generalize the theory among other industries and countries, adding to the relevant literature and research on cross-cultural leadership. This study also laid a foundation for further research to be conducted to test the relationship between the CLT known as charismatic/value-based leadership and servant leadership, which may lead to servant leadership becoming a universally acceptable form of leadership.


SLTP. 1(1), 16-45

REFERENCES Abraham, V. (2010). Regional skill supplies and location of firms: The case of information

technology industry in India. Centre for Development Studies (JNU). Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/e/pab133.html

Amy, R., & Honeycutt, A. (2011). Servant leadership: A phenomenological study of practices, experiences, organizational effectiveness, and barriers. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 9(1), 49-54. Retrieved from http://0-search.proquest.com.library.regent.edu/ docview/848788676?accountid=13479

Anderson, J. (2008, May). The writings of Robert K. Greenleaf: An interpretive analysis and the future of servant leadership. Paper presented at the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.

Anderson, K. (2005). A correlational analysis of servant leadership and job satisfaction in religious educational organization (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3162292)

Autry, J. (2001). The servant leader: How to build a creative team, develop great morale, and improve bottom-line performance. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.

Barbuto, J., & Wheeler, D. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31, 3.

Baruch, Y. (1999, April). Response rate in academic studies—A comparative analysis. Human Relations, 52(4), 421. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (2007). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Biswas, S. (2011, August). Five ways to leverage humility as team leader. The Economic Times. Retrieved from http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/

Blanchard, K. (1998). Servant-leadership revisited. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership (pp. 21-28). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Blanchard, K., & Hodges, P. (2003). The servant leader: Transforming your heart, head, hands, and habits. Nashville, TN: J. Countryman.

Blanchard, K., & Hodges, P. (2005). Lead like Jesus: Lessons from the greatest leadership role model of all time. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Blum, M. (2002). The development of a servant leadership model for application to a competitive team sport setting (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3058177)

Boyum, V. (2012). A model of servant leadership in higher education (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3503142)

Brown, J. (2009). Choosing the right type of rotation in PCA and EFA. Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 13, 3.

Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.



Capelli, P., Singh, H., Singh, J., & Useem, M. (2010). The India way. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Carroll, B. (2010). Cultural determinism: Real or perceived. Paper presented at the meeting of Sustainability in Business: Vision, Practice and Education. Minneapolis, MN.

Dennis, R. (2004). Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3133544)

Dennis, R., & Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25(8), 600-615.

Dennis, R., & Bocarnea, M. (2007). The servant leadership assessment instrument. Regent University, School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship.

Dennis, R., & Winston, B. (2003). Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 26(7/8).

DeVellis, R. (2012). Scale development: theory and application (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dickenson, C. (1996). Leadership styles of senior executive service managers. In K. W. Parry (Ed.), Leadership research and practice: Emerging themes and new challenges (pp. 139-152). Melbourne, Australia: Pitman Publishing/Woodslane.

Dickson, M. W., Den Hartog, D. N., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2003). Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions. Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 729.

Dierendonck, D., & Patterson, K. (2010). Servant leadership: Developments in theory and research. New York, NY: Palgrave McMillan.

Dillman, S. W. (2003). Leading in the land of Oz: Cross-cultural study of servant leadership in Australia. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(06), 2273A.

Dimitrova, M. (2008). An empirical test of the servant leadership theory in a Bulgarian context (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3325531)

Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2005). The value of online surveys. Internet Research, 15(2), 195-219.

Fields, D., & Winston, B. (n.d.). Development and evaluation of a new parsimonious measure of servant leadership. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University, School of Business and Leadership.

Finch, K. P. (2007). The image of God, servant-leadership and forgiveness. The International Journal of Servant Leadership, 203-205.

Fridell, M., Newcom Belcher, R., & Messner, P. (2009). Discriminate analysis gender public school principal servant leadership differences. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 30, 8.

Galvin, T. (2001). A culture of the heart. Training, 38(3), 80-81.


SLTP. 1(1), 16-45

Gartner, Inc. (2013). Top Indian IT firms to triple direct hiring in US by 2016: Gartner. Retrieved from http://0search.proquest.com.library.regent.edu/ docview /1283397831? accountid=13479

Green, S., & Salkind, N. (2008). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data, 5e. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1980). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2005). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hannay, M. (2009). The cross-cultural leader: The application of servant leadership theory in the international context. Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/08108.pdf

Harris, K., Schwedel, A., & Kim, A. (2011). The great eight: Trillion dollar growth trends 2020. New York, NY: Bain & Co.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values (Abridged ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1998). A case for comparing apples with oranges—International differences in values. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 39(1), 16-31.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorman, P., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Howell, J., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902.

Irvin, S. (2007). The role of culturally endorsed implicit leadership theories in intercultural mentoring relationships (Doctoral dissertation, Regent University). Retrieved from http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/ publications/dissertations/irvin2007.cfm

Irving, J. (2010). Cross-cultural perspectives on servant leadership. In D. Dierendonck & K. Patterson (Eds.), Servant leadership: Developments in theory and research (pp. 85-86). New York, NY: Palgrave McMillan.

Jacobs, K. (2011). Assessing the relationship between servant leadership and effective teaching in a private university (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3486356)

Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and organizational trust. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 26(1), 6-22.



Kang, J., Park, S., & Tarabishy, A. (2010). Leadership and culture matters: Empirical investigation for the mediating mechanism of entrepreneurial orientation. Retrieved from http://0-search.proquest.com.library.regent.edu/ docview/750960312?accountid=13479

Kobayashi-Hillary, M. (2004). Outsourcing to India: The offshore advantage. Heidelburg, Germany: Springer Science + Business Media.

Laub, J. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the servant organizational leadership (SOLA) instrument (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9921922)

Ledbetter, D. S. (2004). Law enforcement leaders and servant leadership: A reliability study of the organizational leadership assessment (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3110778)

Levering, R., & Moskowitz, M. (2000). The 100 best companies to work for in America. Portland, OR: Plume.

Levering, R., & Moskowitz, M. (2001). The 100 best companies to work for in America. Fortune, 143(3), 60-61.

Liden, R., Wayne, S., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161-177.

McCuddy, M., & Cavin, M. (2009). The demographic context of servant leadership. Journal of the Academy of Business Economics, 9, 2.

McCullogh, M. (2011). A broader perspective for global leadership: Economic, political, and anthropological. Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 16(1).

McLaughlin, K. (2001, March). A strong foundation. Training, 38(3), 84.

Morrison, A. (2000, Summer/Fall). Developing a global leadership model. Human Resource Management, 39(2), 3.

Nagaraj, R. (2000). Indian economy since 1980: Virtuous growth or polarisation? Economic and Political Weekly, 35(32), 2831-2833 & 2835-2839.

Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Patterson, K. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(02), 570.

Pollard, C. (1997, September/October). The leader who serves. Strategy and Leadership, 49-51.

Powell, B. (2008). Making poor nations rich: Entrepreneurship and the process of economic development. Stanford, CA: Stanford Economics and Finance.

Rabotin, M. (2008). Deconstructing the successful global leader. T + D, 62(7), 54-59.

Rardin, R. (2001). The servant’s guide to leadership: Beyond first principles. Pittsburgh, PA: Selah.

Rubin, D. K., Powers, M. B., Tulacz, G., Winston, S., & Krizan, W. G. (2002, December). Leaders come in all shapes and sizes but the great ones focus on people construction demands new skill sets from rising stars. ENR, 249(23), 34-36.


SLTP. 1(1), 16-45

Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J., & Santora, J. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behavior in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402-424.

Serrano, M. (2005). Servant leadership: A viable model for the Panamanian context? (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3228983)

Shahin, A., & Wright, P. (2004). Leadership in the context of culture—An Egyptian perspective. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25,(6), 499-511.

Smith, B., Montagno, R., & Kuzmenko, T. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-91.

Spears, L. C. (1996). Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant leadership. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 17(7), 33.

Spears, L. C. (2010). Servant leaders: They share 10 traits. Personal Excellence, 15(2), 14.

Spears, L. C., & Lawrence, M. (Eds.). (2002). Focus on leadership: Servant leadership for the 21st century. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. A. (2003, August). Transformational versus servant leadership: A difference in leaders focus. Paper presented at the Servant Leadership Roundtable, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA. Retrieved from http://www.regent. edu/acad/global/publications/ sl_proceedings/2003/stone_transformation_versus.pdf

Taninecz, G. (2002, Summer). Healing the corporate soul. Chief Executive, 8-11.

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.

Venkatesan, R. (2013). Conquering the chaos: Win in India, win everywhere [Kindle ed.]. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

Whittington, J. L., Frank, B. A., May, R. C., Murray, B., & Goodwin, V. (2006). Servant leadership in organizations: Scale development and validation. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.

Wilson, L. S. (1992, June). The “Harambee” movement and efficient public good provision in Kenya. Journal of Public Economics, 48(1), 19.

Winston, B. (2003, August). Extending Patterson’s servant leadership model: Explaining how leaders and followers interact in a circular model. Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved from http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/ sl_proceedings/2003/winston_extending_patterson.pdf

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.

Winston, B. & Patterson, K. A. (2006). An Integrated Definition of Leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies. 1(2), 6-66.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.




Are Servant Leaders Born or Made? Victor V. Claar, Henderson State University

Lonnie L. Jackson, Henderson State University

Vicki R. TenHaken, Hope College

Abstract This essay examines whether servant leadership is an innate personality trait, a learned behavior, or a combination of both. Authentic servant leadership is based on the premise of serving others and putting others’ interests before personal interests (Greenleaf, 1977). If this premise is true, then many will be unable to practice servant leadership due to a lack of the prerequisite attributes of a servant leader. This study begins by discussing servant leadership as it relates to personality attributes. It next considers the possibility that servant leadership practices and attitudes may be formed and developed in those to whom servant leadership does not come naturally. If so, then servant leadership may potentially be utilized by those who are not natural servant leaders in one of two ways. First, it is possible that one may grow into an authentic servant leader through ongoing practice of the habits of servant leaders. If so, this is a powerful idea. Second, it seems possible that a skillful manager may potentially draw from the quiver of authentic servant leadership on a situational basis. The study concludes by evaluating each of these two possibilities.

Keywords: Servant Leadership, Authentic Leadership, Personality Attributes, Innate Personality Traits, Learned Behavior

Many modern leadership theories have grown out of the traditional trait, behavioral/human relations, and contingency leadership theories. Among the current leadership theories such as adaptive, transformational, transactional, charismatic, and others, one that is (re)gaining much attention since first being introduced in the 1970s is that of servant leadership.

ARE SERVANT LEADERS BORN OR MADE? 47

SLTP. 1(1), 46-52

In his seminal book, Servant Leadership, Robert Greenleaf (1977), in commenting on the lessons he took from Hermann Hesse’s Journey to the East, says: “to me, this story clearly says that the great leader is seen as servant first, and that simple fact is the key to his greatness” (p. 7). Greenleaf later goes on to posit that the true servant leader must be servant first.

“It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions. For such it will be a later choice to serve-after leadership is established….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….the natural servant, the person who is servant first, is more likely to persevere and refine a particular hypothesis on what serves another’s highest priority needs than is the person who is leader first and who later serves out of promptings of conscience or in conformity with normative expectations” (pp. 13-14).

Greenleaf assumes that most people can learn to discriminate among those who presume to serve them and identify true servants (e.g., those who are servant first) as those they will choose to follow.

The purpose of this study is to review servant leadership and examine how servant leadership styles are developed and implemented. Servant leadership is a popular style of leadership today, but how can one become a servant leader? Are servant leaders born that way, as Greenleaf seems to imply, or can this type of leadership be developed over time?

When servant leadership is considered in its basic form as presented by Greenleaf, several questions need to be considered, including: Is the act of serving others something that can be developed through practice or is it inherently a part of one’s personality? Can putting others ahead of self truly be genuine? Can those who are not inclined toward servant leadership nevertheless mimic that style effectively? Can actively practicing servant leadership strategies—even if not natural at first—lead to the progressive transformation of someone into Greenleaf’s ideal? Greenleaf believed one had to have the desire to serve before becoming a leader to be a true servant leader, but if a leader recognizes the limitations—or even sheer folly—of his or her current approach to leadership, can he or she learn to become a servant leader, and thus, a more effective leader?

There are many examples that can be considered in parallel with servant leadership. Some of these include parenting, athletics, and even the spiritual disciplines. For example, the best parents are the ones who become that way through the practice on a regular basis of the activities that “good” parents do. In Christian faith communities the believers who appear to reflect Christ most authentically are generally the ones who—through spiritual discipline (i.e., practice)—become increasingly comfortable performing

48 V. V. CLAAR, L.L. JACKSON, & V.R. TENHAKEN


Christ-like acts of service even if those acts do not feel right or comfortable at first. In the same way, can a leader adopt the servant leadership behaviors and, through practice, become a genuine servant leader? Greenleaf (1977) uses examples of Christ and faith when describing servant leadership, indicating, perhaps, that this might be possible.

According to Sun (2013), a leader typically develops a connection with servant leadership through self-identifying with the values and beliefs of serving. This orientation comes from the very essence of an individual’s identity and qualities. When servant leaders are presented with decisions and must consider whether or not to participate in decision making in their own best interests, certain servant leadership factors will be present to combat self-serving decisions. Sun identifies these qualities as “calling, humility, empathy, and agape love…that servant leaders are consciously and hence cognitively, aware of” (p. 547). These factors are intrinsic to the servant leader as they feel a calling to serve others with humility, empathy, and agape or unconditional love. With this in mind, to call upon servant leadership in particular situations, it would seem the leader would need these intrinsic characteristics at the core.

Modern contingency theory of leadership implies that leaders can identify with several different leadership styles and call on a particular style as events occur, but someone who identifies with the servant leader style will still have a heart for service to others as a core attribute regardless of the leadership style used (Sun, 2013). Northouse (2013) asserts that servant leadership can sometimes seem counterintuitive because the two concepts appear to be in conflict: servant and leader. Northouse explains that this seemingly inverse relationship creates a distinctive viewpoint. Servant leaders are concerned about their followers and put them first, assisting with personal development and inspiring them to take on responsibilities and personal growth.

Russell and Stone (2002) suggest that “if countless individuals transform into servant leaders, infinitely more people would benefit. Servant leadership offers the potential to positively revolutionize interpersonal work relations and organizational life. It is a concept that longs for widespread implementation” (p. 154). Servant leadership appears to offer a leader style that is appealing to followers and organizations, so what needs to be understood in order to practice servant leadership? Washington, Sutton, and Feild (2006) suggest one of the Big Five personality factors, agreeableness, is an essential element of the personality of servant leaders, as well as the leader’s integrity and empathy toward others. These factors seem to correlate with Greenleaf’s view of the servant leader and the focus on service above self.

Though we revisit it later, it is worth noting at this point that servant leaders are not only the servants of their employees or customers. The “serving” that servant leaders perform also serves the organization. This view of servant leadership coincides with Jim Collins’ concept of “Level 5” leaders who have great personal humility and focus on achieving organizational purposes without concern for personal recognition.

Reinke (2004) suggests that leadership goes beyond personality characteristics or qualities to create connections and build relationships between leaders and followers. Certainly, servant leadership appears to fit this model of connectedness rather than a transactional relationship. Reinke also points out as these relationships are developed


SLTP. 1(1), 46-52

among followers and leaders in the servant leader model, this lends itself to optimally functioning teams within an organization. Other outcomes include improving trust, empowerment, and performance of the organization. As leaders attempt to build trust among followers, an open, transparent relationship between leader and followers will be vital to continued success.

Joseph and Winston (2005) suggest that improving trust among leaders and followers will increase the potential for success of an organization. As servant leadership is considered and the ways this leadership style can be put into practice, trust appears to be one critical factor. Joseph and Winston discovered a positive, direct relationship between servant leadership, trust, and the perceptions of followers. “Managers and leaders can improve organizational performance through practice of servant leadership behaviors that increase trust in the manager and in the organization” (Joseph & Winston, 2005, p. 16).

In assessing servant leadership as a potential leadership style, as well as the specific habits of servant leaders, it is important for leaders to understand and evaluate the characteristics of this leadership style. Liden, Wayne, Zhao, and Henderson (2008, p. 162) identify nine dimensions of servant leadership:

1. Emotional healing 2. Creating value for the community 3. Conceptual skills 4. Empowering 5. Helping subordinates grow and succeed 6. Putting subordinates first 7. Behaving ethically 8. Relationships 9. Servanthood

These nine dimensions can serve as an outline of factors to consider practicing in order to improve servant leadership abilities. Liden, et al. (2008) posit that “servant leadership may enhance both job performance and commitment to the organization and …leaders may inspire followers to take an active role in serving the community in which the organization is embedded…creating a culture of serving others, both within and outside the organization” (p. 174). This seems to present an opportunity for leaders to enhance performance and collaboration through the practice of servant leadership.

Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) suggest a measurement model for servant leadership by focusing on eight factors of servant leadership similar to the nine dimensions presented by Liden, et al. (2008). The factors used by Dierendonck and Nuijten include: empowerment, accountability, standing back, humility, authenticity, courage, forgiveness, and stewardship. The authors posit that their model can measure both “servant” and “leader.” This can be crucial for leaders as they attempt to implement “best practices” of servant leadership.



In order for leaders of organizations to utilize servant leadership and improve on those particular characteristics related to service, there will be a need to understand this style of leadership. Organizations struggle to identify leaders and sustain leadership. Peterson, Galvin, and Lange (2012) posit that “practitioners would also benefit from a better understanding of what leads to servant leadership. That understanding would help in leader selection processes, as organizations attempt to determine who is more likely to display behaviors consistent with servant leadership, and would help organizations plan for how such leadership might be encouraged among incumbent executives” (p. 566-67).

The Problem of Trust If the trust of one’s followers is a key factor in effective servant leadership as several

authors indicate, this would seem to imply that one cannot move in and out of being a servant leader. Trust is built up over time and, once lost, is very difficult to regain. Robert Bruce Shaw (1997) says one key component of trust in a leader is the belief that he or she truly cares about constituents as people, not just what they can do for the leader or the organization. As the old adage goes, “people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” This conviction reinforces Greenleaf’s assumption that followers can discriminate among leaders who truly want to serve and those who merely acquire the impression of serving to achieve other goals. If a leader rises to power using a more traditional leadership style and then decides to become a servant leader, it will in all likelihood take some time for followers to learn to trust that his or her transformation is real and lasting and not simply a manipulation to improve productivity or the leader’s organizational performance.

Recent empirical evidence illustrates the significance of trust as it relates to servant leadership, suggesting that trust may be either a natural outgrowth of servant leadership, or an essential element that requires nurturing on the part of the leader. Chatbury, Beaty, and Kriek (2011) discover significant trust among low-level employees and their managers in the presence of servant leadership. Sendjaya and Pekerti (2010) examine whether servant leadership is an antecedent of trust, finding that servant leadership is a significant predictor of trust. What is especially fascinating is that Sendjaya and Pekerti go on to itemize a list of specific behaviors that a leader can utilize to strengthen trust: behaviors that seem to increase trust include articulation of a shared vision, role-modeling, appearing concerned for others and respectful of them, and acting in a manner consistent with verbally articulated ideals.

Given the rising concern regarding corporate leaders making selfish decisions for personal benefit while risking harm to the organization, it would behoove organizations to encourage the practice of servant leadership. So what are organizations to do if they desire to instill a culture of servant leadership? First, it would seem that those organizations desiring to be led by servant leaders should screen for these traits in the selection process. If being a servant first is an important component in true servant leadership, the best way to build an organization of servant leaders would be to hire people to be leaders who already have a desire to serve others.

To continuously reinforce the importance of servant leadership as the preferred leadership style within the organization and to institutionalize it within the organization’s


SLTP. 1(1), 46-52

culture, organizations must then also evaluate managers on aspects of servant leadership in performance reviews, rewarding and promoting those who are the best examples of the servant leader. If non-servant leaders are performing in managerial positions within the organization, it must be recognized that – even with a deep personal desire to change one’s leadership style – it will take time for such an individual to transform from a traditional leadership style to one that is truly accepted by followers as a servant leader. This will likely be a long and difficult process, depending on the extent of the leader’s “non-servant” behavior in the past. This being said, organizations (and individual managers) can and should invest in development programs that help those with a true aspiration to become a servant leader to do so. Servant leadership development training would be particularly valuable for new managers or high potential professionals within the organization who have not yet developed a leadership style.

Through the continuous practice of serving behaviors in a leader’s decision making and organizational interactions, even those who are not the natural “servant first” ideal of Greenleaf’s may, given time, gain the trust of their constituents – provided these behaviors are seen as sincere and permanent.

Concluding Reflections We would like to think that the practice of authentic servant leadership need not be

limited to only those naturally gifted along the nine dimensions of servant leadership articulated by Liden, et al. (2008). Were this the case, then an organization in search of such leaders would face considerable competition to land qualified applicants from what is likely a relatively small pool. And, as we discuss above, the hiring process would necessarily be an endeavor with high explicit and implicit costs. Hiring such a person would require two steps. In the first, an organization would need to identify the servant leader they desire. But even once hired, it could take many years for that person to earn the trust of the individuals throughout.

An alternative possibility is that a given manager or leader might occasionally try to mimic the traits of a servant leader when a particular circumstance seems suitable, and use other strategies in other situations. Here we see little hope. This notion cannot be reconciled with the significant role of trust in the relationship between the leader and those he or she leads in the servant leadership model. A manager who constantly shifts gears between “servant” leader and other leader styles erodes and compromises the usefulness of the servant leader style.

In contrast, we see great hope in the idea of the servant leader who is formed by past experiences, the mentors he or she seeks and follows, and the daily practice of the habits of a true servant leader. Even if someone is not yet a genuine servant leader, anyone who possesses a sincere desire to have the heart of a servant leader – to lead as other servant leaders – has the potential to lead through service.

Of course, this is not the only path to servant leadership. Inasmuch as one of Greenleaf’s key insights is that servant leaders are those who come to the realization that the best way they can serve is to lead, it seems entirely likely that both avenues to



authentic servant leadership are open to those inclined to follow them: while one may learn to serve by leading, another may indeed also learn to lead through serving.

REFERENCES Chatbury, A., Beaty, D., & Kriek, S., (2011). Servant leadership, trust and implications for the

“Base-of-the-Pyramid” segment in South Africa. South African Journal of Business Management, 42, 57-61

Dierendonck, D. V., & Nuijten, I., (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business Psychology, 26, 249-267

Greenleaf, R. K., (1977). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. Mahwah, NJ. Paulist Press

Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E., (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and organizational trust. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 26(1/2), 6-22

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D., (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161-177

Northouse, P. G., (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice, (6e). Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage

Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B. M., & Lange, D., (2012). CEO servant leadership: Exploring executive characteristics and firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 565-596

Reinke, S. J., (2004). Service before self: Towards a theory of servant-leadership. Global Virtue Ethics Review, 5(3), 30-57

Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G., (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: developing a practical model. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23(3/4), 145-157

Sendjaya, S., & Pekerti, A., (2010). Servant leadership as an antecedent of trust in organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31, 643-663

Shaw, R.B., (1997). Trust in the Balance: Building Successful Organizations on Results, Integrity, and Concern. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Sun, P. Y. T., (2013). The servant identity: Influences on the cognition and behavior of servant leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 544-557

Washington, R. R., Sutton, C. D., & Feild, H. S., (2006). Individual differences in servant leadership: the roles of values and personality. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 27(8), 700-716




The Development and Initial Testing of the Purpose in Leadership Inventory: A

Tool for Assessing Leader Goal-Orientation, Follower-Focus, and

Purpose-in-Leadership Justin A. Irving, Bethel University

Abstract Various and sometimes divergent threads in the leadership literature emphasize the importance of leaders focusing on followers and goals, and having a sense of purpose and meaning in leadership. In order to facilitate further study around these themes, the researcher has developed and initially tested (N = 354) the Purpose in Leadership Inventory (PLI). A 24-item inventory provided the strongest overall set of factors, explained 70.01% of the variance in the factor analysis, and had Cronbach alphas of (a) .97, (b) .92, and (c) .90 for the three scales. An overview of the instrument’s development and analysis is provided.

Keywords: Servant Leadership, Leadership, Purpose in Leadership, Follower Focus, Goal Orientation, Transformational Leadership, Organizational Spirituality, Research Instrument, Inventory, Meaning, Management, Leadership Effectiveness, PLI

Developing new instruments to measure leadership variables is one of the keys to ongoing advancement of the field. As the field of leadership studies has grown throughout the last century, noticeable shifts are occurring. Leader-centered models have been modified by more recent approaches such as transformational and servant leadership. Transformational leadership models focus on the organization such that the

54 J. IRVING


leader’s behavior is designed to build follower commitment toward organizational objectives. Conversely, servant leadership models “focus on the followers and the achievement of organizational objectives is a subordinate outcome” (Stone, Russell, and Patterson, 2004, p. 349). These new leadership approaches are “an important step toward balancing the needs of both leaders and followers as they work toward fulfilling organizational goals” (Matteson & Irving, 2006, p. 36). Drawing from both of these recent theories of leadership, effective leaders of the 21st century generally need to focus on both followers and organizational goals. Therefore, one of the main purposes of this study is to provide an inventory for measuring perceptions of leaders around both of these critical areas of leadership focus.

In addition to the two important areas the inventory developed in this study adds a third variable—purpose-in-leadership. Purpose-in-leadership as a variable is based on the work of individuals such as Paul Wong (1998; 2006; Wong & Fry, 1998) who focused on meaning-centered approaches to leadership and management. These approaches take seriously the leaders’ and followers’ sense of meaning and purpose. Such an approach may serve as a basis for shaping an organization’s culture, a culture that can arguably focus on followers while simultaneously orienting its community around its goals. Therefore, the three constructs measured in the Purpose in Leadership Inventory (PLI) are discrete variables but not mutually exclusive. It is the researcher’s desire that the PLI be used to advance the study of leadership around these important variables. In this article, the researcher provides a review of the literature surrounding each of these variables, an overview of the research methods used to evaluate the PLI, an overview of the analysis and findings, and a discussion of how the new inventory may be used to further the study of leadership around these three variables.

LITERATURE REVIEW Goal-Orientation

Healthy organizations generally include leaders and organizational stakeholders who care about outcomes and meeting goals. This is evident in the business sector where managing bottom-line financial outcomes and goals is critical for ongoing success as a business. But goals matter for other sectors as well. An emphasis on measuring performance in government, public, and nonprofit organizations is growing (Poister, 2003; Marr, 2009). Accrediting associations for educational institutions increasingly emphasize the importance of measuring student learning outcomes (Hernon & Dugan, 2004; Nusche, 2008). As organizations across multiple sectors continue to prioritize goals and performance, so leaders who orient around goals become a priority for these organizations.

One leadership theory dominating the field in the 1970s and 1980s was path-goal theory. Path-goal theory, initially discussed by Evans and House (Evans, 1970; House, 1971; House & Dessler, 1974; House & Mitchell, 1974) emphasizes the importance of leaders coming alongside followers and subordinates as they work toward goals. Path-goal leaders help by defining goals, clarifying the path, removing obstacles, and providing support. Based on subordinate and task characteristics, path-goal leaders draw

THE PURPOSE IN LEADERSHIP INVENTORY 55

SLTP. 1(1), 53-67

from directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented behaviors in their work of motivating followers toward goal achievement and productivity. The variable of goal-orientation in the PLI is consistent with the goal-orientation of leadership in path-goal leadership.

Goal-orientation is not by definition contrary to the next theme, follower-focus. Although some in leadership may emphasize one more than the other, goal-orientation and follower-focus are not mutually exclusive. They can and do exist in harmony within the leadership practice of many leaders. From a servant leadership perspective, which emphasizes serving the needs of the followers as a primary leadership responsibility, it is arguable that a commitment to providing accountability is consistent with a commitment to valuing and developing followers (Irving, 2011). While different leaders will emphasize one of these more than another, healthy and effective leaders understand that there is an important relationship between both focusing on followers and seeing goals accomplished.

Follower-Focus Building on goal-orientation, the 1970s through today have seen increased emphasis

on the role of followers and the importance of leaders focusing on them. A major thread of this emphasis is found in the work of servant leadership theorists and researchers. Greenleaf (1977), known by many as pioneering the emphasis on follower-focus in contemporary leadership studies, wrote about the servant leader in the following manner:

The servant-leader is servant first. . . . It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first. . . . 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. The best test, and difficult to administer, is this: 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, not be further deprived? (p. 27)

Based on Greenleaf’s comments, we may observe that those leaders approaching their task from a leader-first orientation often have a tendency to use service for the purpose of achieving goals and may do so to the exclusion of authentically considering followers. In contrast, the servant-first orientation is focused on making “sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served” (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 27). It is by nature a follower-oriented approach to leadership (Irving & Longbothom, 2007; Laub, 1999; Matteson & Irving, 2006; Patterson, 2003; Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2004; Winston, 2003). In line with this path of study, Patterson (2003) shows how the role of the servant leader in this theory contrasts to other leadership approaches by its prioritization and highlighting of the needs of followers. Similarly, Hale and Fields (2007) emphasize follower development and argue for the importance of placing the good of followers over the self-interests of the leader.

56 J. IRVING


Several works have compared the focus of transformational leadership and servant leadership. Smith, Montagno, and Kuzmenko (2004) emphasize their contextual differences. Transformational leadership is more oriented toward dynamic organizational environments while servant leadership is more oriented toward stable organizational environments. Others emphasize transformational leadership as more focused toward the organization and organizational goals while servant leadership is more focused on followers (Matteson & Irving, 2005; Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2004; van Dierendonck, 2011). On this point, van Dierendonck writes: “This is exactly where servant leadership and transformational leadership differ. The primary allegiance of transformational leaders is the organization (Graham, 1991). The personal growth of followers is seen within the context of what is good for the organization, because of a desire to perform better” (p. 1235). In contrast to this emphasis of transformational leaders, servant leaders see the value and growth of followers as primary, not secondary.

Matteson & Irving (2006) argue that while transformational leadership provided a significant step toward balancing the needs of leaders and followers, theoretical models such as servant leadership and self-sacrificial leadership have followed with an intentional approach that is more and primarily follower-oriented. The follower-focused variable in the PLI is consistent with and flows out of the emphases in the literature stream noted above.

Purpose-in-Leadership Purpose-in-leadership as a variable is based on the work of individuals such as Paul

Wong. Wong (2006; Wong & Fry, 1998) and others (Autrey, 1994; Conyne, 1998; Leider, 1997; Terez, 2000; Weisbord, 2004) engage the importance of meaning-centered approaches to leadership and management. These approaches highlight the significance of meaning and purpose for individuals and organizations. Wong (2006) notes that people inherently desire to belong to meaningful and purposeful agendas and organizations. Making a similar point, Albrecht (1994) writes, “Those who would aspire to leadership roles in this new environment must not underestimate the depth of this human need for meaning. It is a most fundamental human craving, an appetite that will not go away” (p. 22). This craving shapes leaders and followers alike and is increasingly important to study in this time.

Podolny, Khurana, and Besharov (2010) argue that an emphasis on purpose and meaning is found in earlier management theorists such as Max Weber, and that in the writing of these theorists “leadership was deemed important because of its capacity to infuse purpose and meaning into the lives of individuals” (p. 69). In contrast to this view of leadership, Podolny et. al. express concern as “leadership research went awry when the concept of leadership became decoupled from the notion of meaning” and became inextricably tied to a concern with performance instead (p. 98). Defining meaningful action as “action that is directed toward a broader ideal” (p. 87), Podolny et. al. argue for “a positive relationship between the meaningfulness of work and economic performance” (p. 97). The purpose-in-leadership variable of the PLI provides a pathway for testing such assertions concerning the role of meaning and purpose in leadership.


SLTP. 1(1), 53-67

As Coombs (2002) notes, “People are thinking about the words ‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’ more than ever before” (p.46), and it is arguable that purpose and meaning may be viewed as a key pathway to intrinsic motivation for leaders and followers. In contrast to approaches that aim to manage particular follower behavior toward desired outcomes, meaning-centered approaches aim to motivate organizational members intrinsically. This holds the power to shape organizational culture. In his study on the connection between meaning and organizational culture, Wong (2002; 2006) argues that meaning-centered approaches to leadership and management help to avoid toxic corporate cultures such as those that are overly authoritarian, conflictive, laissez faire, corrupt, and rigid. He further argues that a shift to positive corporate cultures such as progressive-adaptive, purpose-driven, community-oriented, and people-centered contribute to intrinsically motivated high-performance. This results from the capacity of these cultures to meet people’s deepest needs for meaning, community, spirituality, and agency.

One foundational theory to meaning and purpose-based approaches is Viktor Frankl’s logotherapy (Pattakos, 2004). Viktor Frankl who lived from 1905-1997 was a survivor of imprisonment in a concentration camp during WWII. In his book Man’s Search for Meaning (1984), Frankl identified meaning as a central factor enabling people to endure torture and injustice. The “will to meaning” is the focal structure of Frankl’s system of logotherapy according to which “man’s search for meaning is the primary motivation in his life and not a ‘secondary rationalization’ of instinctual drives” (p. 121). Frankl (1992) also analyzed what he called purpose-in-life (PIL). Regarding purpose-in-life, Sosik (2000) writes, “PIL represents a positive attitude toward possessing a future-oriented self-transcendent goal in life. PIL can be described in terms of its depth (strength) and type (content) of meaning associated with the goal” (p. 4). The purpose-in-leadership variable in the present study applies the logic of Frankl’s purpose-in-life to the realm of organizational leadership, and builds on Wong’s (2006) argument for the priority of meaning-centered approaches to working with followers.

Providing additional definition and description of this construct, Sosik (2000) defines personal meaning, “as that which makes one’s life most important, coherent and worthwhile” (p. 61). Korotkov (1998) defines meaningfulness as, “the degree to which people’s lives make emotional sense and that the demands confronted by them are perceived as being worthy of energy and commitment” (p. 55). Irving and Klenke (2004) further argue that, “a leader’s sense of personal meaning provides him or her with the conceptual spine to endure in difficult circumstances.” Irving and Howard (2013, 2014) add to this discussion in their study on the priority of resiliency in leadership, or the capacity of leaders to motivate themselves in the face of challenges.

The importance of purpose-in-leadership is clear. Leaders and followers of all types need this “conceptual spine” for endurance and resiliency. Meaning-centered approaches have the capacity to aid individuals and leaders, helping them see “that the demands confronted by them are perceived as being worthy of energy and commitment” (Korotkov, p. 55). As Eisenberg and Goodall (2001) note, “Employees [and leaders of these employees] want to feel that the work they do is worthwhile, rather than just a way to draw a paycheck,” and to see their investment in work and their organization as “a

58 J. IRVING


transformation of its meaning—from drudgery to a source of personal significance and fulfillment” (p. 18). The purpose-in-leadership scale in the PLI provides a tool for studying this important dimension of meaning and purpose in leadership.

METHOD Sample Composition

A convenience sample of followers (N = 354) responded to the instrument and evaluated their leaders around the three leadership themes as well as provided relevant demographics and a measure of the effectiveness of their leaders. The average age of followers in the study was 45.56, and 55.2% were male and 44.8% were female. The education level of followers was .6% less than high school, .3% high school or GED, 5.5% some college, 2.3% associates, 25.1% bachelors, 46.1% masters, and 20.2% doctorate. Because the researcher works primarily with graduate students at the masters and doctoral levels, the convenience sample for this study was skewed toward both a middle aged and educated population.

The leaders evaluated by followers had an average age of 51.33, and were 77% male and 23% female. The leaders evaluated worked in the following organizational sectors: 12.1% business, 2.3% government, 28.6% education, 9.8% nonprofit, 43.6% religious, 3.2% other. Due to convenience sampling methods, the researcher’s context within religious-oriented higher education skewed the organizational sectors of the study. The education level of the leaders was .3% less than high school, 2.3% high school or GED, 2.0% some college, .9% associates, 22.9% bachelors, 35.7% masters, and 35.9% doctorate. Followers reported an average of 6.03 years of answering to the leaders evaluated in the study.

Data Collection Procedures Participants were contacted by email and invited to an electronic version of the

inventory housed through Qualtrics (www.qualtrics.com). Participants included contacts of the researcher, and primarily represented current or former students of the researcher. The following instructions were provided for participants at the Qualtrics landing page:

[The questions are] focused on the development of a leadership inventory to help us better understand the practice of effective leadership. In order to explore a range of leadership characteristics, you will be asked to provide some demographic information, and then will be asked to quickly respond to a set of questions about ONE current or past leader. Simply answer each question to the best of your knowledge, being sure to keep this one individual in mind as you work through the questions. You are encouraged to go with your first quick response to each question—no need to over-analyze or spend too much time on any one question. Your participation is greatly appreciated and is confidential.


SLTP. 1(1), 53-67

Scale Development & Analysis An item pool of 46 items was developed for the instrument around the themes of

follower-focus, goal-orientation, and purpose-in-leadership. The items were developed based on relevant emphases in the associated literature. The researcher gathered scholarly perspectives on the format and wording of the research instrument. The invited scholars were individuals who possessed a PhD degree with academic work in organizational leadership or management studies. Based on the scholarly feedback, adjustments were made including the deletion of unclear, unfocused, or overly repetitive items, and adjustments were made in the wording of items and the format of the inventory. This feedback was used to arrive at the 46 items included in the study.

Once the participants responded to the inventory the researcher analyzed the data to determine the strongest set of items. Then the item pool was reduced based on this analysis. After this, a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was taken along with Bartlett’s test of sphericity. The researcher was looking for a KMO value of .8 or higher and a Bartlett’s significance value of less than .05. A principal component analysis extraction method and an Oblimin rotation method were used. Eigenvalues were analyzed, and factors were included when the eigenvalues were greater than 1.0. Of the factors included, the researcher was looking for these factors to cumulatively account for at least 60% of the total variance. Once the factors were identified, alpha coefficients were calculated for the scales; the researcher was looking for a minimum alpha coefficient of .70 for each of the scales. Additionally, participants were asked to evaluate the leadership effectiveness of their leaders, and this measure of leadership effectiveness was hypothesized to positively correlate with each of the PLI factors. Pearson r correlations were conducted to evaluate the relationship between these items and the three factors. A significance level of .05 or less was set to accept the relationships as statistically significant.

Findings Based upon initial analyses, the item pool of 46 items was reduced to 33 items after

item coefficients less than .3 were suppressed and items that loaded on multiple factors were removed. The initial 33-item factor analysis yielded 18 items for follower-focus, 8 items for goal-orientation, and 7 items for purpose-in-leadership. For this solution, these three factors each had eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and explained 69.66% of the cumulative variance. Additionally, this solution had a KMO value of .967, a Bartlett’s test of sphericity significance value of .000, and the alpha coefficients for the three scales were .98 (follower-focus), .92 (goal-orientation), and .90 (purpose-in-leadership). All of the findings noted for the 33-item solution meet the standards set for accepting the factors and scales noted in the previous section.

Because the 18-items on follower-focus were over twice as many as goal-orientation and purpose-in-leadership, items in the factor with coefficients less than .8 were suppressed in order to reduce the number of items in the follower-focus factor. After doing this, a 24-item solution yielded 9 items for follower-focus, 8 items for goal-orientation, and 7 items for purpose-in-leadership (See Pattern Matrix, Table 1).

60 J. IRVING


Table 1. Pattern Matrix for 24-Item Solution (values below .3 suppressed).

Pattern Matrix Components

Follower-Focus Goal Orientation Purpose-in-Leadership Follower-Focus – 1 .90 Follower-Focus – 2 .87 Follower-Focus – 3 .87 Follower-Focus – 4 .87 Follower-Focus – 5 .86 Follower-Focus – 6 .83 Follower-Focus – 7 .82 Follower-Focus – 8 .81 Follower-Focus – 9 .81 Goal-Orientation – 1 .83 Goal-Orientation – 2 .76 Goal-Orientation – 3 .75 Goal-Orientation – 4 .74 Goal-Orientation – 5 .73 Goal-Orientation – 6 .72 Goal-Orientation – 7 .67 Goal-Orientation – 8 .62 Purpose-in-Leadership – 1 .91 Purpose-in-Leadership – 2 .88 Purpose-in-Leadership – 3 .75 Purpose-in-Leadership – 4 .61 Purpose-in-Leadership – 5 .60 Purpose-in-Leadership – 6 .55 Purpose-in-Leadership – 7 .55

For this solution, the three factors each had eigenvalues greater than 1.5 (1.0 was set as a minimum) and explained 70.01% (60% was set as the minimum) of the cumulative variance (see Table 2).

Table 2. 24-Item Solution.

Additionally, this solution had a KMO value (see Table 3) of .95 (.80 was set as a minimum) and a Bartlett’s test of sphericity significance value of .00 (.05 was set as a maximum).

Initial Eigenvalues

Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Follower-Focus 12.45 51.95 51.95 Goal-Orientation 2.77 11.53 63.49 Purpose-in-Leadership 1.57 6.53 70.01


SLTP. 1(1), 53-67

Table 3. KMO and Bartlett’s Test.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .95

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 6559.14

df 276 Sig. .00

The alpha coefficients (a minimum was set at .70) for the three scales were .97 (follower-focus), .92 (goal-orientation), and .90 (purpose-in-leadership). The reduction of follower-focus from 18 items to 9 items only resulted in a reduction of the alpha coefficient from .98 to .97, both strong indications of scale reliability. The alpha coefficients for goal-orientation and purpose-in-leadership also are strong indications of scale reliability and well above the stated minimum of .70 (see Table 4).

Table 4. Alpha Coefficients Scale Reliability Analysis.

Scale Alpha Coefficient Follower-Focus .97 Goal-Orientation .92 Purpose-in-Leadership .90

All of the findings noted for the 24-item solution meet and exceed the standards set for accepting the factors and scales. Because the 24-item solution largely parallels the results of the 33-item solution in critical areas, and because it offers a more efficient set of items, the 24-item solution was adopted.

Once the 24-item model of three factors was adopted, the scales were measured against a six item leadership effectiveness scale. The three factors were hypothesized to positively correlate with the leadership effectiveness scale and this analysis was used to help establish convergent validity for the PLI. The six items of the leadership effectiveness scale were developed by Ehrhart and Klein (2001). The leadership effectiveness scale focuses on follower perceptions of their leader around the extent to which the respondents believed they (a) worked at a high level of performance under their leader, (b) enjoyed working for their leader, (c) got along well with their leader, (d) found the leadership style of the leader compatible with their own, (e) admired their leader, and (f) felt this leader was similar to their ideal leader. The alpha coefficient for the leadership effectiveness scale used in this study was .91. This leadership effectiveness scale was utilized because of its efficiency as a 6-item scale and because of its track record of inclusion in previous work such as Hale and Fields’ study (2007).

The leadership effectiveness scale correlated with the three factors in the PLI at a high level of significance (p = .000). The Pearson r correlations for the relationship between leadership effectiveness and three PLI scales are .84 for follower-focus, .68 for goal-orientation, and .69 for purpose-in-leadership (see Table 5). Because these were measures of follower perceptions of their leader, it is also relevant to note that it is logical

62 J. IRVING


and anticipated that followers would evaluate follower-focus more positively in relation to leadership effectiveness. Based on the analysis provided above, the 24 items identified in this study are the items included in The Purpose in Leadership Inventory within the Appendix.

Table 5. PLI Correlations with Leadership Effectiveness (LE).

Follower-Focus Goal-Orientation Purpose-in-Leadership

Correlation with LE r = .84 r = .68 r = .69 Significance p = .00 p = .00 p = .00

DISCUSSION Based on the findings, the PLI performed well in its initial testing. The factor

analysis revealed a solution explaining 70.01% of the variance with items loading strongly on three discrete factors. The reliability of the factors was strong as evidenced by the following alpha coefficients: .97 for follower-focus, .92 for goal-orientation, and .90 for purpose-in-leadership. The instrument has face validity with the items loading around logical factor sets consistent with the item content. Additionally, the construct validity of the factors was confirmed in an examination of convergent validity. Each of the PLI factors demonstrated convergent validity with the leadership effectiveness scale used by Ehrhart and Klein (2001) and Hale and Fields (2007). One weakness of the study is that an additional measure was not included in the study in order to examine a test of discriminant validity.

The PLI holds promise for advancing the study of leadership around the leader variables of follower-focus, goal-orientation, and purpose-in-leadership. The inventory provides a tool that measures follower perceptions of their leaders based on their leadership attitudes and associated behaviors. This approach is based on Matteson and Irving’s (2006) discussion of the ontological, attitudinal, and behavioral dimensions of leadership, and focuses on studying leadership behavior through an evaluation of the attitudinal dimension of leader focus. As a 24-item inventory with three scales, the instrument is an efficient approach to measuring follower perceptions of their leaders around these important factors associated with transformational leaders, servant leadership, and organizational spirituality. In this study, leadership effectiveness was found to be significantly correlated with all three of the leadership variables in the Purpose-in-Leadership Inventory.

While each of the scales are a helpful addition to the field, the purpose-in-leadership scale perhaps holds the most promise for adding a unique contribution to future leadership studies. Irving and Klenke (2004) suggest the vital role that meaning and purpose play in leadership effectiveness. With the addition of the purpose-in-leadership scale, a tool now exists for establishing this connection between meaning and leadership effectiveness. In fact, one of the findings of this study demonstrates the connection of purpose-in-leadership and leadership effectiveness (r = .69; p = .00). Hopefully this study


SLTP. 1(1), 53-67

opens the door to a future study of the role of meaning and purpose in leadership, as well as the role of follower-focus and goal-orientation.

Study Limitations & Future Research Directions While the factor correlations presented in Table 6 provide convergent validity, the

instrument would also benefit from establishing discriminant validity. As noted above, including a scale that allows for an analysis of discriminant validity would help to strengthen the validity of the inventory. Also, additional factor analysis with the inventory is in order. For example, pursuing confirmatory factor analysis with structural equation modeling software like LISREL would be helpful. Further, it would be helpful to administer the instrument with diverse populations and among diverse organizational sectors in order to examine how it functions among various demographic populations. In the research sample demographics noted earlier in this article there is an absence of information on race and ethnicity for the present study. In future studies, it will be important to examine how the PLI performs with distinct racial, ethnic, and linguistically diverse populations. Additionally, the study sample was skewed around the areas of organizational sector, age, and educational level. In future studies it will be important to study more representative samples around these demographic factors. Finally, it would be helpful to use the PLI to see how the three scales relate to additional variables such as leadership effectiveness (included in this study), team effectiveness, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and other organizational, managerial, and leadership variables.

Summary & Conclusion In this article, the researcher provided an overview of the development and initial

analysis of the Purpose in Leadership Inventory (PLI). An overview of the literature related to follower-focus, goal-orientation, and purpose-in-leadership was provided. Methods and findings of the factor analysis, reliability coefficients, and convergent validity analyses were presented. Finally, a discussion and set of recommendations were brought based on the significance of the inventory and how it may be further studied as an instrument and used in future leadership and organizational studies. It is the researcher’s hope that the PLI may serve many other leadership researchers and practitioners as together we seek to advance the field of leadership study and practice. A copy of The Purpose in Leadership Inventory (PLI) is provided in the Appendix.

64 J. IRVING


REFERENCES Albrecht, K. (1994). The northbound train: Finding the purpose, setting the direction, shaping the

destiny of your organization. New York: AMACOM.

Autrey, J. (1994). Life and work: A manager’s search for meaning. New York: Morrow.

Conyne, R. K. (1998). Personal experience and meaning in group work leadership: The views of experts. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 23, 245-256.

Coombs, A. (2002). The living workplace. New York: Warwick House.

Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K. J. (2001) Predicting followers’ preferences for charismatic leadership: The influence of follower values and personality. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 155–79.

Eisenberg, E. M., & Goodall, G. L. (2001). Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and constraint (3rd ed.). New York: Bedford / St. Martin’s.

Evans, M. G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 277-298.

Frankl, V. E. (1984). Man’s search for meaning. New York: Washington Square Press.

Frankl, V. E. (1992). Man’s search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Graham, J. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 105-119.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power & greatness (25th anniversary ed). New York: Paulist Press.

Hale, J. R., & Fields, D. L. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A study of followers in Ghana and the USA. Leadership, 3, 397-417.

Hernon, P., & Dugan, R. E. (2004). Outcomes assessment in higher education: Views and perspectives. Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.

House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321-328.

House, R. J., & Dessler, G. (1974). The path-goal theory of leadership: Some post hoc and a priori tests. In J. Hunt and L. Larson (Eds.), Contingency approaches in leaders (pp. 29-55). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

House, R. J., & Mitchell, R. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81-97.

Howard, C. S., & Irving, J. A. (2013). The impact of obstacles and developmental experiences on resilience in leadership formation. Proceedings of the American Society for Business and Behavioral Sciences, 20(1), 679-687.

Howard, C. S., & Irving, J. A. (2014). The impact of obstacles defined by developmental antecedents on resilience in leadership formation. Management Research Review, 37(5), 466-478.

Irving, J. A. (2011). A model for effective servant leadership practice: A biblically-consistent and research-based approach to leadership. Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership, 3(2), 118-128.


SLTP. 1(1), 53-67

Irving, J. A., & Klenke, K. (2004). Telos, chronos, and hermēneia: The role of metanarrative in leadership effectiveness through the production of meaning. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(3), 1-31. Retrieved April 12, 2013 from http://www.ualberta. ca/~iiqm/backissues/3_3/pdf/irvingklenke.pdf

Korotkov, D. (1998). The sense of coherence: Making sense out of chaos. In P. T. P. Wong & P. S. Fry (Eds.) The human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychological and clinical applications (pp. 51-70). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Laub, J. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the Servant Organizational Leadership (SOLA) Instrument. Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume 60, Number 2, 308.

Leider, R. J. (1997). The power of purpose: Creating meaning in your life and work. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Marr, B. (2009). Managing and delivering performance: How government, public sector and not-for-profit organizations can measure and manage what really matters. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann/Elsevier.

Matteson, J. A., & Irving, J. A. (2005). Servant versus self-sacrificial leadership: Commonalities and distinctions of two follower-oriented leadership theories. Proceedings of the 2005 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved April 12, 2013, from http://www. regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2005/matteson_servant.pdf

Matteson, J. A., & Irving, J. A. (2006). Servant versus self-sacrificial leadership: A behavioral comparison of two follower-oriented leadership theories. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(1), 36-51.

Nusche, D. (2008). Assessment of learning outcomes in higher education: A comparative review of selected practices. OECD Education Working Papers, 15.

Pattakos, A. (2004). Prisoners of our thoughts: Viktor Frankl’s principles at work. Berrett & Koehler.

Patterson, K. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(02), 570. (UMI No. 3082719)

Podolny, J. M., Khurana, R., & Besharov, M. L. (2010). Revisiting the meaning of leadership. In N. Nohria, & R. Khurana (Eds.), Handbook of leadership theory and practice: A Harvard Business School centennial colloquium. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Poister, T. H. (2003). Measuring performance in public and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-91.

Sosik, J. J. (2000). Meaning from within: Possible selves and personal meaning of charismatic and non-charismatic leaders. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(2), 3-17.

Stone, G. A., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant leadership: A difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(4), 349-361.

Terez, T. (2000). 22 keys to creating a meaningful workplace. Avon, Mass: Adams Media.

66 J. IRVING


Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228 -1261.

Van Dierendonck, D., & Patterson, K. (2010). Servant leadership: An introduction. In, D. van Dierendonck & Patterson, K. (Eds.), Servant leadership: Developments in theory and research. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Weisbord, M. R. (2004). Productive workplaces revisited: Dignity, meaning, and community for the 21st Century (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Winston, B. E. (2003). Extending Patterson’s servant leadership model: Explaining how leaders and followers interact in a circular model. Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved April 12, 2013 from http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/ publications/sl_proceedings/winston_extending_patterson.pdf

Wong, P. T. P. (1998). Implicit theories of meaningful life and the development of the personal meaning profile. In P. T. P. Wong and P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest for meaning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wong, P. T. P. (2002). Creating a positive, meaningful work climate: A new challenge for management and leadership. In B. Pattanayak and V. Gupta (Eds.), Creating performing organizations: International perspectives for Indian management. New Delhi, India: Sage.

Wong, P. T. P. (2006). Is your organization an obstacle or a relay team? A meaning-centered approach to creating a collaborative culture. In S. Schuman (Ed.), Creating a culture of collaboration (pp. 229-256). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

Wong, P. T. P., & Fry, P. S. Eds. (1998). The human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychological and clinical applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.


SLTP. 1(1), 53-67

Appendix: The Purpose in Leadership Inventory The Purpose in Leadership Inventory is designed as a tool to measure follower perspectives of leader attitudes and focus. Please consider one current or past leader as you take this inventory, and respond to each of the 24 items based on the extent to which you disagree or agree with the statement. The scale contains strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree, and strongly agree. Thank you for taking a few minutes to share your feedback.

PART I 1. My leader values people. 2. My leader is committed to loving and caring for followers. 3. My leader values the individuality of followers. 4. My leader is focused on the needs of followers. 5. My leader values followers. 6. My leader understands how to encourage followers. 7. My leader understands how to relate well with people. 8. My leader values the uniqueness of individuals in our organization. 9. My leader is committed to seeing potential in people.

PART II 10. My leader focuses on task accomplishment. 11. My leader understands how to be efficient. 12. My leader knows how to get things done. 13. My leader values excellence. 14. My leader understands how to formulate strategies. 15. My leader does not allow distractions to interfere with the achievement of

important organizational goals. 16. My leader understands the importance of reviewing results in order to improve

future performance. 17. My leader is able to stay focused of organizational goals.

PART III 18. My leader believes in the purpose of our organization. 19. My leader believes that what our organization does matters. 20. My leader sees the importance of our organization’s mission in light of a larger

sense of purpose. 21. My leader understands how his/her personal life purpose connects to the

organization’s purpose. 22. My leader believes we are committed to a vision that is bigger than any one

person. 23. My leader understands the place of our organization in the broader community

outside of the organization. 24. My leader understands his/her personal life purpose.

Author’s Note Purpose in Leadership Inventory (PLI) – © Justin A. Irving, Ph.D., All Rights Reserved. Those interested in using the Purpose in Leadership Inventory (PLI) for research or for leadership assessment within their organization may contact the author in the following manner: [email protected] or [email protected].




Eagle Scouts and Servant Leadership Frederick Rohm, Southeastern University

Abstract This qualitative case study explores whether Eagle Scouts are servant leaders. Eagle Scout is the highest rank in the Boy Scouts of America. Only five percent of all boys who join Scouting attain Eagle, a mere one tenth of one percent of all boys this age in the United States. Despite this, Eagle Scouts are found in much higher percentages among astronauts, in the military academies, and in Congress. Sendjaya, Sarros, and Santora’s (2008) model is used to measure six characteristics of servant leadership. Narrative and phenomenological research are conducted through personal interviews by the author and from Townley (2007). Recommendations are given for further investigation into Eagle Scouts and servant leadership.

Keywords: Boy, BSA, Eagle, Leader, Model, Scout, Servant

The purpose of this paper is to expound upon Townley’s (2007) work and attempt to discover whether or not Eagle Scouts espouse servant leadership. Townley embarked on a personal journey to discover, or perhaps rediscover the essence of being an Eagle Scout and its common set values and virtues (p. 4). Townley spent a year crossing the United States interviewing hundreds of Eagle Scouts. His resulting book chronicles these adventures and provides interviews with countless Eagle Scouts and their thoughts on leadership and service.

After an overview of servant leadership and comparison of the leadership philosophy of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), individual Eagle Scouts are examined. Seven representative examples are taken from Townley (2007) to show Eagle Scouts’ thoughts and actions on leadership. Townley’s work centers on the tenants of Scouting and does not address servant leadership directly. To further focus on servant leadership, these are combined with four interviews with Eagle Scouts personally known by the author.

EAGLE SCOUTS AND SERVANT LEADERSHIP 69

SLTP. 1(1), 68-90

The Road to Eagle Scout Eagle Scout is the highest rank and award in the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). The

road to Eagle is long and takes perseverance. A Boy Scout works through six ranks before Eagle: Scout, Tenderfoot, Second Class, First Class, Star, and Life. The first four ranks typically take a year to 18 months to accomplish. Boys age 11-12 learn the basics of Scouting; to include citizenship, camping, cooking, first aid, knowing local fauna and flora, outdoor living skills, physical fitness, swimming, and the Scouting Oath and Law. Boys must participate in Troop camping trips or other activities on ten occasions, and they must complete a community service project.

To advance to the next rank, boys must pass a counseling conference with their Scoutmaster, the head adult leader in the Troop, and then go before a board of review consisting of Assistant Scoutmasters and Committee Members, all of whom are parent-volunteers. The Scoutmaster Conference and board of review ensure the boys are ready for the next rank. It is a time for the boys to reflect on how they have behaved and performed as Scouts, provides a formal occasion to encourage them, and asks them for ideas to improve the Troop.

The next two ranks, Star and Life require the boys to take on leadership positions for at least four and six months each. They must demonstrate leadership by taking charge, setting the example for other boys, and embodying the Scouting Oath and Law. Both ranks require a minimum of six hours of community service. Boys must pass increasingly comprehensive Scoutmaster Conferences and Boards of Review. Going from First Class to Star and Life can take another 12-24 months. One of the more interesting aspects of Star and Life and onto Eagle is that boys start earning merit badges to further hone their Scouting skills and explore other areas of interest at these stages. There are currently more than 130 different merit badges available (“Introduction to Merit Badges,” n.d.), including 13 that are required to make it to Eagle. Table 1 lists the required merit badges. Twenty-one merit badges (13 required and nine elective) are required for Eagle rank.

Table 1. List of BSA Eagle-required merit badges. Merit Badge Required Merit Badge Required 1. Camping 8. Family Life 2. Citizenship in the Community 9. First Aid 3. Citizenship in the Nation 10. Personal Fitness 4. Citizenship in the World 11. Personal Management 5. Cooking 12. Emergency Preparedness 6. Communications or Life Saving 7. Environmental Science 13. Swimming

or Sustainability or Cycling or Hiking

Adapted from “Merit Badges Required for Eagle Scout Rank,” n.d.

Merit badges are challenging. Adults and older Scouts teach the skills; then the Scouts must demonstrate proficiency. Some merit badges can take up to three months to

70 F. ROHM


complete. To make Eagle, the Scout must again serve in a leadership position within the Troop for at least six months. The capstone achievement is the Eagle Project. This is an extensive community service project that the Scout must plan and supervise. He must coordinate all resources and direct the actual construction or service. Projects can take six months to plan and a month to execute. The Scout gets all the volunteer help he needs, raises funds, and coordinates the purchase of supplies and services. Eagle Projects include building playgrounds, improving parks, making nature trails, and community economic development type projects with the poor and disadvantaged. It is up to the Scout’s imagination, creativity, organizational skills, and perseverance to accomplish the project. Upon completion of the Eagle Project, the Scout goes before an intensive Board of Review by other adult Eagle Scouts.

About five percent of all Boy Scouts attain the rank of Eagle (Eagle Scouts, 2009). Since the BSA’s inception in 1910, 110 million boys have joined with just over two-million achieving the rank of Eagle (Townley, 2007, p. 12 and History of the BSA, 2009, p. 5). Of Scout age boys, only one tenth of one percent are Eagle Scouts. Despite this, one finds a disproportionate number of Eagle Scouts in positions of leadership throughout the nation. Table 2 lists the percentages of Eagle Scouts in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the military academies, and the United States Congress. Table 3 lists some notable Eagle Scouts in government and private-sector service. Following this overview of Eagle Scouts is a literature review of servant leadership and leadership in the BSA.

Table 2. Eagle Scouts in NASA, military academies, and Congress. Institution Percentage of Eagle Scouts NASA astronauts 12.8% (40 out of 312 men)a US Military Academy (West Point) 16.3% in 2012b US Air Force Academy 11.9% in 2012b US Naval Academy 11.0% in 2012b 113th US Congress 6.2% (27 out of 433 men)c a Adapted from Legacy of Honor: The Values and Influence of America's Eagle Scouts, by A. Townley, 2007. b Adapted from “Facts about Scouting,” 2013. c Adapted from “Facts about Scouting,” 2013, “United States House,” n.d., and “United States Senate,” n.d.

Table 3. Notable Eagle Scouts in government and private-sector service

Name Eagle Scout Background Gerald Ford 1927 38th US President Sam Walton 1934 Founder and former CEO of Wal-Mart, four heirs rank 4th to

7th wealthiest people in the US, collectively estimated at $80 billion

Neil Armstrong 1943 Apollo 11 Commander, landed on moon on 20 July, 1969 in lunar-lander module

Robert Gates 1958 Appropriated named Eagle 26-year career CIA officer, CIA Director 1991-3, Texas A&M President 2002-6, and Secretary of Defense 2006-11

Adapted from Legacy of Honor: The Values and Influence of America's Eagle Scouts, by A. Townley, 2007, “Facts about Scouting,” 2010, and “The 400 Richest Americans 2009,” 2009.


SLTP. 1(1), 68-90

LITERATURE REVIEW

Servant Leadership The concept of servant leadership entered academic and management circles through the pioneering work of Robert Greenleaf (1970, 1977). Greenleaf says that a servant leader is first and foremost a servant and helps his or her followers become “…healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, and more likely themselves to become servant leaders” (Greenleaf, 2002, p. 27). Long-time associate, Larry Spears (1995, 2005) condenses Greenleaf’s ideas into ten characteristics listed in Table 4.

Table 4. Greenleaf and Spears’ servant leadership characteristics. Listening Conceptualization Empathy Foresight Healing Stewardship Awareness Commitment to people’s growth Persuasion Building community Adapted from “The Understanding and Practice of Servant-Leadership,” by L. Spears, 2005.

Since Greenleaf’s writings, authors and scholars have developed 20 different models of servant leadership with 16 associated survey instruments (Rohm, 2013). The servant leadership models’ characteristics often overlap, building on the work of those gone before. The various models have similarities to both transformational and authentic leadership theories seen in characteristics like authenticity, empowerment, and transformation. From these numerous studies, one is chosen for this study.

Sendjaya and Sarros’ (2002) and Sendjaya, et al.’s. (2008) servant leadership model is comprehensive and built on a review of previous literature on servant leadership. Their model contains six dimensions: (a) voluntary subordination, (b) authentic self, (c) covenantal relationship, (d) responsible morality, (e) transcendental spirituality, and (f) transforming influence (p. 406). Through its reference to transforming influences and authentic self, Sendjaya et al.’s. model also encompasses aspects of major leadership theories. Sendjaya, et al. call their model holistic “…extend[ing] the transformational, authentic, and spiritual leadership models [and] …incorporat[ing] follower-oriented, service, spiritual, and moral dimensions of leadership sorely needed in the current organizational context” (p. 405).

Boy Scouts of America Leadership Philosophy The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) turned 100 years old in 2010. The organization has been training young men and women in a values-based leadership development program since before WWI. Boys age 7-20 and girls age 14-20 (through the Venture program) participate in a variety of adventure and outdoor-based programs. The vision of the BSA is to “…prepare every eligible youth in America to become a responsible, participating citizen and leader who is guided by the Scout Oath and Law” (“Vision and Mission,” n.d.). The BSA’s mission is likewise to, “…prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout

72 F. ROHM


Oath and Law” (“Vision and Mission,” n.d.). The guiding principles of the BSA are the motto, slogan, oath, and law. See Table 5. The motto, slogan, oath, and law articulate the leadership skills, traits, and values desired in all members of the BSA. It is a leadership philosophy and model in and of itself that parallels the characteristics of servant leadership. Tables 6 and 7 align the BSA leadership principles with Sendjaya, et al.’s (2008) servant leadership model. Table 5. BSA motto, slogan, oath, and law. Motto Be Prepared

Slogan Do a good turn daily

Oath On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country And to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

Law - A Scout is: Trustworthy Obedient Loyal Cheerful Helpful Thrifty Friendly Brave Courteous Clean Kind Reverent

Adapted from The Boy Scout Handbook (11th Ed.), 1998.

Table 6. Alignment of servant leadership characteristics with BSA oath, law, motto, and slogan. Sendjaya, et al.a BSAb Voluntary Subordination Willingness to serve Acts of service

Help other people at all times (oath) Helpful (law) Do a good turn daily (slogan)

Authentic Self Humility Integrity Accountability Security Vulnerability

Kind (law) Obedient (law) Thrifty (law)

Covenantal Relationship Acceptance Availability Equality Collaboration

Friendly (law) Courteous (law) Loyal (law)

a Adapted from “Defining and Measuring Servant Leadership Behaviour [sic] in Organizations,” by S. Sendjaya, J. C. Sarros, and J. C. Santora, 2008, Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), p. 409. b Adapted from The Boy Scout Handbook, 11th ed., 1998, p. 9.


SLTP. 1(1), 68-90

Table 7. Alignment of servant leadership characteristics with BSA oath, law, motto, and slogan. Sendjaya, et al.a BSAb Responsible Morality Moral reasoning Moral action

Clean - in thought, word and deed (law) Obey the Scout Law (oath) Morally straight (oath)

Transcendental Spirituality Religiousness Interconnectedness Sense of mission Wholeness

Duty to God and my country (oath) Reverent (law) On my honor, I will do my best (oath)

Transforming Influence Vision Modeling Mentoring Trust Empowerment

Be Prepared (motto) Brave (law) Cheerful (law) Trustworthy (law)

a Adapted from “Defining and Measuring Servant Leadership Behaviour [sic] in Organizations,” by S. Sendjaya, J. C. Sarros, and J. C. Santora, 2008, Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), p. 409. b Adapted from The Boy Scout Handbook, 11th ed., 1998, p. 9.

Empirical Survey on Eagle Scouts & Servant Leadership The author has found only one quantitative academic study that addresses Scouting and servant leadership. Goodly’s (2008) dissertation explored the correlation between Eagle Scouts and servant leadership in the Greater Alabama Council (p. 43). Goodly used 50 of the 62 questions from Page and Wong’s (2000) servant leadership survey instrument and demographics information to answer four research questions (p. 39-40). Goodly posed four research questions: (a) “Is there a statistically significant correlation with Scouts who have achieved the rank of Eagle Scout and the influence of servant leadership?” (p. 56), (b) “Is there a significant correlation between servant leadership characteristics for Eagle Scouts in various demographic ethnic groups in the Greater Alabama Council?” (p.59), (c) “Is there a statistically significant correlation in the attitudes of Eagle Scouts to become future servant leaders based on perceived family income?” (p. 60), and (d) “Is there a significant positive statistical correlation between Eagle Scouts and servant leadership characteristics based on educational achievement?” (p. 62).

Goodly (2008) did not indicate any positive correlation between Eagle Scouts and servant leadership. Results of the four research questions are below. He found no correlation between years since achieving Eagle Scout and the servant leadership characteristics in Page and Wong’s (2000) model (p. 58). Goodly could not make any conclusion on Eagle Scouts and ethnic groups because: “…so few Eagle Scouts in the non-Caucasian categories. Participants of White/Caucasian ethnicity totaled 95.5 percent of the survey respondents. Black/African American made up the next largest group with totaling 2.1 percent of the survey respondents” (p. 59). There was a significant negative correlation between the authentic, visionary, and courageous leadership factors with perceived family income of Eagle Scouts… the higher the perceived family income, the

74 F. ROHM


lower the scores on all three (p. 61). There was a significant negative correlation between educational level and the power and pride factor. The higher the educational level, the lower the negative servant leadership factor of power and pride (p. 71).

Qualitative Case Studies on Servant Leadership With the lone empirical study inconclusive, one can turn to qualitative case studies to answer the question whether Eagle Scouts display servant leadership characteristics. For the qualitative studies, a theory-based sampling method is used. As defined by Patton (2002), “The researcher samples incidents, slices of life, time periods, or people on the basis of their important manifestation or representation of important theoretical concepts” (p. 238). This section consists of a servant leadership theory-based sample of seven out of over 50 interviews with Eagle Scouts from Townley (2007). The seven represent different demographics and generations of Eagle Scouts who earned their rank from the 1940s through the 1960s.

Jim Lovell, Troop 60, Milwaukee, WI, Eagle Scout 1943. Lovell told Townley (2007) about the Apollo 13 fire and almost destruction, “That old Scout motto, ‘Be Prepared,’ was very apropos in my situation” (p. 84). Lovell said, “…in a crisis, the character of a man, or men, will make the difference” (p. 87). According to Lovell, Scouts, like astronauts, love exploration and accomplishment (p. 85).

Ross Perot, Troop 18, Texarkana, TX, Eagle Scout 1943.

Perot founded and was CEO of Electronic Data Systems from 1962 until selling to General Motors in 1984. After this he founded and was CEO of Perot Systems from 1988 until selling to Dell in 2009. Beyond being a highly successful entrepreneur and businessman, Perot is probably best known for being the most successful US Presidential 3rd party candidate ever, taking 19% of the popular vote in 1992 (Townley, 2007, p. 93-4). Perot had great determination, applying to the US Naval Academy three times before being accepted and eventually creating the honor code system still in use there today (p. 92-3). Perot’s two guiding principles are, “…treat others as you want to be treated and never leave a man behind” (p. 91). Perot, like many other Eagle Scouts, is passing the legacy onto his family. His son, Ross Perot Jr. and two grandsons, Ross Perot III and Hunter Perot are also Eagle Scouts (p. 95).

J. W. Marriot Jr., Troop 241, Chevy Chase, MD, Eagle Scout 1947. In his interview with Townley (2007), Marriot encapsulates the essence of servant leadership.

You need to live the Golden Rule and recognize the great importance in your life and your business of – and reach out to people and be there to help them, to teach them, to counsel and guide them. Basically, let them know you’re there to clear the highway so they can get their job done and that you’ll be supportive of them, listen to their concerns, help them, solve problems, and get their advice on certain things. You need to be a servant-leader (p. 103).


SLTP. 1(1), 68-90

Marriot treats his company as a family. “The biggest obligation I have is to make sure our people have stability in their jobs, a full work week, and job security… Beyond that, I’m committed to providing them an opportunity to grow” (p. 104). Marriot like Perot has encouraged his three sons, son-in-law, and five grandsons to earn Eagle (Marriot, 2008). Marriot is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This organization sponsors more BSA Troops and Scouts than any other organization. “A Cub Scout pack, Boy Scout troop, and Varsity team should be chartered by every ward and branch that has two or more boys of the particular age served by the program” (“Scouting in The Church,” 2010).

Stephen Breyer. Troop 14, San Francisco, CA. Eagle Scout 1952. Stephen Breyer was appointed as an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court in 1994. As such, he is one of eleven highest judges in the United States. Relationships and working together are important to Breyer. He states, “…we have to work together and participate together to make our democracy work” (Townley, 2007, p. 59). Breyer places emphasis on trust. He says, “We need to be worthy of each other’s trust because the way we work is to persuade” (p. 59).

Michael Bloomberg, Troop 11, Medford, MA, Eagle Scout 1955. Bloomberg was mayor of New York City from 2002-13. He is currently the United Nations Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change. Prior to this, Bloomberg was and still is an extremely successful entrepreneur and businessman. He founded Bloomberg L.P., financial news and data company. He owns 88% of the company and is the 8th wealthiest person in the United States, worth $18 billion (“The 400 Richest,” 2009). Bloomberg stresses helping others, “We’re in the world together …you can’t find one person or job that isn’t dependent on others” (p. 114). Bloomberg says, “If you wait and only do things once you know how, you’re never going to make a lot of progress” (p. 115). Vision is important to Bloomberg. “Being an Eagle Scout means that you took control of your own life” (p. 116). “…I think the confidence Boy Scouting builds in young men is what it’s all about” (p. 117). Bloomberg says, “I think they’re [Scouting oath and law] all the American values…” (p. 116).

Hank Paulson. Troop 21, Barrington, IL. Eagle Scout 1959. Paulson was CEO of Goldman Sachs from 1999-2006 and US Secretary of the Treasury, 2006-9. Paulson was an all-star football player at Dartmouth and is an avid environmentalist (Townley, 2007, p. 180). He has been a member of the Nature Conservatory for over 20 years and served as the Chairman of the Board from 2004-6 (“Faces of conservation,” n.d. and Townley, 2007, p. 182). Paulson says one of the most valuable aspects of Eagle is that it tests perseverance (p. 186). On leadership, he told Townley,

Leadership is about … having the right people in the right seats, a strong sense of direction from the top, a culture which encourages teamwork and doing the right thing, having people really believe that the role you play in the world is a noble one and that you’re a force for good (p. 184).

76 F. ROHM


Gary Locke. Troop 254, Seattle, WA. Eagle Scout 1964. Gary Locke was the US Ambassador to China (2011-14), US Secretary of Commerce (2011), and Governor of Washington State from1997-2005. Locke says “a leader is not a dictator” and that teaching is a better way to lead (Townley, 2007, p. 37). It is important to include people in decision making. Locke also stresses accountability. People expect more of Eagle Scouts. They have shown perseverance, leadership, and “…ability to get things done…” (p. 41). “Scouting says you should leave a campsite better than you found it, and for me in public service, that’s how I’ve tried to approach things” (p. 39).

Research Question Goodly’s (2008) empirical study does not indicate that Eagle Scouts espouse servant leadership. Townley’s (2007) interviews, on the other hand, do seem to show that Eagle Scouts display servant leadership characteristics. The World Organization of the Scouting Movement principles align with servant leadership theory (Rohm & Bramwell, 2013). In a similar fashion one can align servant leadership with the BSA principles using Sendjaya et al.’s. (2008) model.

Based on the literature review of servant leadership and Scouting principles, both empirical and qualitative studies show an emerging linkage between Scouting and servant leadership, in particular that of Eagle Scouts. This yields the research question for this study: Do Eagle Scouts display servant leadership characteristics as outlined in Senjaya et al.’s. (2008) model?

METHOD Qualitative research allows one to explore how individuals and groups ascribe meaning to social phenomenon (Creswell, 2009, p. 4). Creswell offers five different approaches to qualitative research: (a) ethnography, (b) grounded theory, (c) case studies, (d) phenomenological research, and (e) narrative research (p. 13). Townley (2007) used the narrative approach to study Eagle Scouts. This involved studying “…the lives of individuals [and asking them] to provide stories about their lives” (Creswell, 2009, p. 13). This project expands on Townley’s work by using the phenomenological approach, which “…identifies the essence of human experiences about a phenomenon as described by participants” the goal being to “…develop patterns and relationships of meaning” (p. 13).

Research Design Within the phenomenological approach, this study is a critical case sample as outlined in Patton (2002). The critical incident technique (CIT) was first promoted by Flanagan (1954). “A critical case makes the assumption, if it happens here, it will happen anywhere, or …if it doesn’t happen there, it won’t happen anywhere” (Patton, 2002, p. 236). Another “…common attribute of CIT is that it elicits aspects of best and worst practices” (Byrne, 2001). The research consists of interviews with four Eagle Scouts personally known by the author.


SLTP. 1(1), 68-90

Sampling & Data Collection The interviews consisted of seven demographic questions: (a) name, (b) date of birth, (c) when and in what Troop they became an Eagle Scout, (d) career to date, managerial experience, number of people managed, (e) current occupation, managerial experience, number of people managed, (f) how got involved in Scouting, and (g) volunteer service in Scouting since becoming an adult. Following were six servant leadership questions related to each of Sendjaya et al.’s. (2008) dimensions. These had a brief explanation of the servant leadership characteristic discussed to introduce the concept to the interviewee. Each of the six questions had two parts, searching for best and worst practices using the critical incident technique (CIT). Answers are open-ended. Data was collected during 1-2 hour face-to-face or phone interviews in July and August, 2010.

This sampling method follows several characteristics of qualitative research: (a) researcher as a key instrument, (b) multiple sources of data, (c) inductive data analysis, and (d) interpretive as outlined in Creswell (2009, p. 175). As a key instrument, the author developed the questionnaire and participated in the interviews. Multiple sources of data include: (a) results from the one empirical study, (b) documented interviews by Townley, and (c) personal interviews conducted for this paper. The author was careful to conduct inductive data analysis, allowing the data from the interviews to determine whether Eagle Scouts are servant leaders and not to just fit the information into the servant leadership model. The author was aware of his biases and potential influence on the study, especially being involved in Scouting as an adult leader and a student and scholar of servant leadership.

The personal interview sample size was four; a convenience sample of Eagle Scouts personally known by the author. One of the interviewees, Joel Pannebaker, is the author’s cousin. The other three were involved in the same Troop as the author, Troop 826 in Lithia, Florida. Ron Lane was the Scoutmaster, adult leader of the Troop. Devin Jensen was the Troop Committee Chairman, assisting with all logistics of the Troop. Kurt Wendt was a parent of a Scout in the Troop. In fact, all three and the author had sons in the Troop.

Like the seven examples from Townley (2007), the four interviewees represent different backgrounds and generations of Eagle Scouts. These extend beyond Townley’s interviews into the 1970s and 1980s. As with the Townley examples, each interview highlights servant leadership characteristics, using Senjaya et al.’s (2008) servant leadership model that the Eagle Scouts displayed and talked about.

Interviewees & jobs at the time of the interviews, July-August, 2010. Joel Pannebaker, Colonel, Pennsylvania Air National Guard. Ron Lane, Production Manager, Pepsi Bottling Company. Devin Jensen, Manager, Gaffin Industrial Services. Kurt Wendt, Lieutenant Colonel, US Air Force, US Central Command.

78 F. ROHM


RESULTS Joel Pannebaker, Troop 140, Fairview, NJ. Eagle Scout 1973.

Joel got involved in Scouting through friends starting as a Bobcat in Cub Scouts. He became an Eagle Scout at 17 in a large 100-member Troop in rural New Jersey. Shortly thereafter he attended Rutgers University and joined the United States Air Force as a Second Lieutenant. He served ten years on active duty. In 1988 he moved to the Air National Guard. In more than 30 years in the Air Force, Colonel Joel Pannebaker has almost always been in charge of other people. Only for 16 months did he have a staff job with no subordinates, a job he said he disliked terribly. Joel is currently the Commander of the 112th Air Operations Squadron in State College, PA. He currently commands 141 Airmen. Interestingly enough, seven are also Eagle Scouts. Joel had never heard the term servant leader before although he has been a devoted Christian all his adult life and understands Jesus’ desire for us to be servants. “I don’t ask others to do what I won’t do and I have always pitched in and helped,” says Joel (Pannebaker, 2010). In 1982, on his first tactical deployment, then Captain Pannebaker remembers jumping in and helping set up tents. It was something, along with outdoor field craft, survival skills, and backpacking that he brought with him from Scouting. His commander saw him and said, “Captain, I don’t pay you to set up tents” (Pannebaker, 2010). Not believing this was right, Captain Pannebaker waited until his commander was not watching and went on helping put up tents.

Joel humbly describes his leadership abilities as God-given. He has led teams and people over the entire course of his career. He does not want the limelight or to take credit for his organization’s successes. This is hard because people always look to an organization’s leader to give the accolades. Joel always strives to give the credit for success to his people and his unit. To be fair, Joel said he has at times not felt authentic, once asking an intermediary to conduct some discipline and counseling that were his responsibility. This of course highlights his humility. Joel strives to get to know his employees on a personal level, not to undermine military discipline, but to show that he genuinely cares about people. He admits though that sometimes he needs reminding from his wife. Joel knows it is easy to be task oriented but endeavors to be relation oriented as well in his leadership style.

The Air Force core values are “integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all we do” (“Core Values,” n.d.). Joel recited them verbatim. He says, “I live those values, not because they’re Air Force but because it’s me, it’s how I am” (Pannebaker, 2010). This is a driving force that propels Joel into action. He does admit to submitting to peer pressure early in his career, fulfilling the letter of the law with respect to a requirement to obtain 200 simulated intercepts, but not the intent of the occupational proficiency. Joel has always taken his Christian faith seriously and been a man of moral courage. He has acted as Chaplain at a remote site in Alaska, when there was no official one. He has conducted chapel services and lead or been a member of Bible studies. Though he practices his faith in his actions, Joel feels he failed to interconnect his faith


SLTP. 1(1), 68-90

with words by fully explaining why he is the way he is, that he is a Christian. This is often difficult in a federal organization that frowns upon proselytizing.

Joel empowers his airmen by trying to always obtain input from and push decision making to the lowest level. Even though he may have a solution, he knows that the mentoring process and growth of subordinates is important. He also admits that the combined group effort often produces better ideas and solutions. Joel does not see himself necessarily as a visionary. He does believe in setting goals for himself and the organization, then doggedly pursuing them. Joel has given back to Scouting by volunteering as a leader in his two sons’ Cub Scout Pack in Pennsylvania from 1985-8. He laments that upon rejoining Scouting after a move in the early 1990’s, his boys did not continue beyond Webelos, the highest rank in Cub Scouting right before one would enter Boy Scouts.

Joel has fond memories of Scouting. The outdoor skills he gained as a youth certainly helped him early on in his Air Force career. His best accomplishment was learning to swim. Joel jumped into water over his head at his first summer camp and had to be pulled up from the bottom. He eventually progressed in his swimming abilities advancing through being a beginning swimmer to gaining the challenging Swimming and Life Saving merit badges. As a parting thought, Joel remarked, “I have known leaders who didn’t become Eagles and Eagles who weren’t really leaders” (Pannebaker, 2010). Scouting provided opportunities to learn, fail, and teach. “Scouting started a leadership process for me in a career field that gave me leadership responsibility” (Pannebaker, 2010).

Ron Lane, Troop 31, Springfield, MO. Eagle Scout 1977.

Ron stuck with Scouting despite moving with his family and being a member of two Cub Scout Packs and three Boy Scout Troops. Ron lives and breathes Scouting in his family, work, and leisure activities. A 36-year veteran of Pepsi Bottling Company, Ron has managed people for 25 years. He is currently a production manager at the Pepsi bottling plant in Tampa, Florida, with a total of 83 people. As a young adult, Ron felt called back into Scouting. He wanted to give back for all he had received. In fact Ron’s mantra is, “I know what Scouting has done for you, now what can you do for Scouting?” (Lane, 2010). Other than five years when his career did not allow it, Ron has always been involved in Scouting. This includes Cub Scouts, at the District level, and over ten years as Scoutmaster for two different Boy Scout Troops. Ron was the Scoutmaster for Troop 826 in Lithia, Florida, from 2008-12 where his son was a Scout. “There is nothing out there that my employees do that I won’t do with them” says Ron (Lane, 2010). Ron expects diligent work from his employees and has high standards. He knows the work is hard and is always willing to jump in and help. Periodically, people drop pallets of bottles. Ron can hear them crash to the floor from his office. Though he does not have to, Ron will stop what he is doing to help clean up. Ron walks his shop daily. His employees uphold high standards not out of fear but out of a respect for Ron. They know he always has their best interests in mind. Ron says that he does not fire people. They fire themselves. Though Ron spends time and effort to help people who are underperforming,

80 F. ROHM


he faults himself in not better serving others and for eventually giving up on people when they are headed in this direction.

During an annual review, Ron’s boss was clearly impressed with his performance. He pushed aside all the statistics and accolades and simply asked Ron one question. “I know you are a Christian, how do you show it?” (Lane, 2010). This had a profound effect on Ron. He now does not use profanity and refuses to yell at people at work. He knows that people are watching him all the time and that he must be authentic. This realization did not necessarily come from Scouting but from a boss and fellow Christian. Ron went through a brief period where he struggled with authenticity. When working for Pepsi headquarters, he adopted a superior attitude that permeated the organization when conducting inspections of plants. This lasted about a year, when once again his Christian faith intervened through a program at his church. Ron attended a week retreat, called Walk to Emmaus. It made Ron realize that he needed to be himself and not put on pretenses. Ron’s door is always open. He has loaned employees money when they were in need. He has brought gifts to employees and their children in time of sickness and need. Ron has referred people to Financial Peace University to help them with managing money. Ron does draw a line in relations with employees. He does not spend time outside of work with them. Ron says that this “can put you in a bind and cause you to make bad decisions for the company” (Lane, 2010).

When they come to him with a problem, Ron asks how they would fix it. Then he checks back later with them to see what they did. Ron covers people if they make the wrong call, protecting his employees. Ron’s main goal is to train the supervisors under him to take over his job. “You must give people leeway or they won’t grow. My job is to take them to the next level” (Lane, 2010). Ron admits that he is not always good at this. If something is going wrong he will often jump in and make a decision and is sometimes not patient. In his current role as Scoutmaster of Troop 826, Ron admits that he has been somewhat authoritarian in his leadership style. Unlike on the job, Ron has not been as good at training his Assistant Scoutmasters to take over his job. Ron’s motives are pure though. He wants to ensure that the Troop, only two years old, sticks to the principles of Scouting. He does not want to be what he calls “a merit badge factory” (Lane, 2010). He does not want to just push the boys through their requirements but wants them to genuinely learn leadership.

Ron relates a story of a boy who was at first troublesome but later made Eagle and became a great person. Ron had to bring the boy home from a campout because he was so disruptive. Ron stuck with him, though. He later hired the young man at Pepsi and saw him enter the Army. The man invited Ron to his wedding. At the wedding the man gave Ron a big hug and said, “I wouldn’t be where I am today without you” (Lane, 2010). The man’s mother also thanked Ron for helping her raise her boys. “You never know what affect you have on young Scouts. If you can affect just one, it’s all worth it” (Lane, 2010). Ron’s best experiences in Scouting were hiking and surviving in the Rocky Mountains at Philmont. He has attended as both a boy and adult. “Philmont Scout Ranch, the Boy Scouts of America's premier High Adventure™ base, challenges Scouts and Venturers with more than 214 square miles of rugged northern New Mexico wilderness”


SLTP. 1(1), 68-90

(“Philmont Scout Ranch,” n.d.). Philmont is an incredible experience, according to Ron. Everyone is in awe of the beautiful wilderness. Everyone must work together and rely on each other. It brings together all the aspects of Scouting. “People who are inclined to become leaders will excel. If a Troop is run right, it can develop people to become great leaders” (Lane, 2010). But Ron cautions that Scouting will not make leaders. He hired an Eagle Scout once for Pepsi and the guy turned out to be one of his worst employees. This makes him sad because the reputation of Scouting and Eagle Scouts in particular is paramount to him. The Eagle Scout Charge in one of its versions says,

Your position, as you well know, is one of honor and responsibility. You are a marked man. As an Eagle Scout, you have assumed a solemn obligation to do your duty to God, to Country, to your fellow Scouts, and to mankind in general. This is a great undertaking. As you live up to your obligations, you bring honor to yourself and to your brother Scouts. If you fail, you bring down the good name of all true and worthy Scouts (Eagle Scout Charge, n.d.).

Kurt Wendt, Troop 634, Waupaca, WI. Eagle Scout 1986. Kurt got involved in Cub Scouts with a bunch of his elementary school friends. They stuck together through Cub Scouting and went into Boy Scouts. Kurt is the only one who made it to Eagle, though. He made it to Eagle Scout a week after his 14th birthday. This is quite young. In 2009 the average age was 17.3 years (“Eagle Scouts,” 2009). When asked about his feeling of bestowing the rank on younger boys, Kurt said, “being an Eagle at 14 made me more responsible. It puts you in a place of respect and pushes you to be better” (Wendt, 2010). After high school, Kurt attended the United States Air Force Academy for four years and University of Maryland for two years for a Master’s degree in International Security and Economic Policy. Kurt has been in the Air Force for 20 years working in Intelligence. During the time of the interview, he was a Lieutenant Colonel working at United States Central Command in Tampa, Florida. He later moved to Germany. Kurt has been stationed overseas in Iceland and the United Kingdom as well as several deployments to Afghanistan and the Middle East. Kurt has worked with people from other cultures, to include being their boss. Kurt said he has managed people about half of his career.

Kurt says his concepts of service and leadership are rooted in his time at the Air Force Academy and cannot directly attribute them to Scouting. Kurt learned that “you can’t be a good leader unless you can be a good follower” (Wendt, 2010). He also believes in helping out wherever needed, even if it seems below his station and rank by others. In Cyprus, while Kurt was assigned with the United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force, a British Warrant Officer told him not to take out the trash and shred documents, that the younger airmen should do that. Kurt said he had some extra time on his hands and just thought it was important to pitch in. Later the younger airmen said they were impressed that an officer would do such a menial task and respected him all the more. Paraphrasing a quote from President Truman, Kurt said, “it’s amazing what you can accomplish when you don’t care who gets the credit” (Truman, n.d. and Wendt, 2010). Kurt tries to live by this but struggles, like many of us, with enjoying personal praise and recognition. We

82 F. ROHM


often want the award, the ceremony, the medal. Kurt was once upset over the level of award he received, it having been downgraded. Though it is satisfying to be rewarded, Kurt tries to think about who else is deserving. He is just the guy out front. He tries to always recognize those on his team and give them the credit.

Kurt encourages his airmen to work through their chain of command when they have difficulties, though he always maintains an open-door. He does lose patience with people who constantly come to him with little things or with problems without a recommended solution. Kurt says, “Don’t just tell me your problem, give me some solutions” (Wendt, 2010). He believes in mentoring people to become problem solvers. Perhaps a bit on the informal side for the military, Kurt calls his airmen by their first names. He tries to get to know their circumstances and background. He tries to be helpful. “People need to know you care” (Wendt, 2010). Kurt cautions not to allow people to get too comfortable as it could be detrimental to good order and discipline for a military unit. But he does want to foster a positive work environment where people are not afraid to question his decisions in a constructive way. He does not want people to fear him.

Kurt grew up in a Christian family. Scouting reinforced the morals and values he learned at home and in church. Honesty and integrity are vital for Kurt. Rather than backdate some forms he would “take a hit on an inspection” rather than pass, as a matter of integrity (Wendt, 2010). While at the Air Force Academy, around 1992, the Superintendent, Lieutenant General Bradley C. Hosmer instituted the three core values that now belong to the entire Air Force; “integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all we do” (“Core Values,” n.d.). Kurt has internalized these. Kurt says that anyone successful in the military has an inner drive to serve a higher cause and do his or her duty to God and country. Kurt has twice followed unsuccessful leaders. He credits this to their lack of vision and laissez-faire attitude towards leadership. Kurt always tries to share his vision with a new organization. While in charge of training, Kurt inherited some courses that were not inspiring. He asked his subordinates how to make them better. By leveraging people with combat experience and allowing for some freedom and ingenuity, Kurt’s team transformed the courses, instruction, and enthusiasm at the school. One of Kurt’s most memorable experiences in Scouting was being put in charge of a composite group of Scouts attending the National Jamboree in 1989. At 17 and an Eagle for several years, Kurt was a seasoned Scout. He was the Senior Patrol Leader (boy in charge of all the other Scouts) for the group attending the Jamboree from his council. Kurt did not know any of the Scouts prior to the event. With the help of some adult leaders, Kurt and the other Scouts melded into a cohesive team and had an awesome experience. This leadership challenge, like many in Scouting made all the difference in Kurt’s leadership development at a young age.

Devin Jensen, Troop 89, Brandon, FL. Eagle Scout 1987. Devin was not in Cub Scouts very long but got involved in Boy Scouts like many, through a friend. He made Eagle Scout a week before his 18th birthday, the deadline for becoming one. His father offered some incentives for Devin to earn Eagle, but in the end, Devin said this had little to do with getting the award. It was more about accomplishing


SLTP. 1(1), 68-90

something that seemed unachievable for a long time. Devin said, “My best experience [in Scouting] was seeing how proud my father was when I received my Eagle. I have only seen my father cry twice in my life and that day was one of them” (Jensen, 2010). Devin works for Gaffin Industrial Services Inc., a private industrial water blasting and vacuuming company. Devin has worked in sales and marketing since college. He has managed anywhere from one to as many as 40 people.

Devin believes in giving back to Scouting. In college he volunteered as an Assistant Scoutmaster (1988-1990). He has been an Assistant Cub Master and Cub Master for Pack 610, and Committee Chair for Troop 826 in Lithia, FL. Devin has some very poignant thoughts on leadership as it relates to Scouting. He remarks,

I truly believe that it is almost impossible to become a good leader without great leadership around you. That leadership must instill strong beliefs. To make Eagle Scout you must meet all the requirements in the book. To become a gifted leader you must be first willing to accept yourself for who you are and what you’re capable of doing. Some individuals have the knack to get others to follow them; this doesn’t make them a good leader. The gifted leader gets individuals to buy into their ideals and beliefs. In turn a strong or gifted leader must also be willing to develop the individuals around them into leaders themselves. I think Eagle Scouts become great leaders because of the experiences they must face even in the smallest of settings. The mere idea that you stay with Scouting to reach Eagle proves that you have the drive and determination to complete your goals (Jensen, 2010).

When asked about the importance of covenantal relationships, Devin responded, “Many projects that I have been involved with have only been successful due to being open-minded of other team members and their ideas on accomplishing the tasks at hand” (Jensen, 2010). Collaboration with people is the key to success, though this is not always easy to do. Devin says, “There have been times when I have had a plan and thought out the scenario in my mind and have been unwilling to be flexible. This is a control issue that has to be under constant control when you’re in a position of leadership or power” (Jensen, 2010).

Devin’s profession is governed by strict EPA laws. Many times it is up to him to make sure Gaffin handles its work responsibly. Dealing with hazardous chemicals, Devin says he never puts his technicians in harm’s way without them understanding the full possibilities of the situation. If something is beyond what Devin believes is outside their capabilities, he will pass on the project rather than make the money. The means are more important than the ends. Helping those that may not ask and buying into their plan of action without thinking of his own personal goals is how Devin serves people. Though at times, Devin has felt that his willingness to volunteer has caused him to not give 100% due to over commitment. As a member of the local Rotary Club, Devin often has volunteered at national and state functions without his local club’s knowledge. He wants to be “just another Rotarian in the crowd” (Jensen, 2010). Devin believes in volunteering

84 F. ROHM


because it’s the right thing to do. He is not interested in recognition. In his own words, Devin brings out the aspects of Scouting that are most important to him.

As far as personal thoughts on Scouting, it is my personal belief that if we don’t get more young men into Scouting the country will have more and more problems. I think it’s important to all boys especially those lacking in father-figures to find that comradery [sic] they get at scouting. Much of our world says that the beliefs in what we hold in Scouting are weak and many times laughed at. Though this country was built on people that believed exactly what Scouting promotes. The parents of Scouts see the possibilities and opportunities scouting offers. Should my son not make Eagle, I will be disappointed but this is not my journey, it’s his. He will need to find his way and decide what is important to him. I will always be there to encourage but only in the way of pointing out opportunities and the feeling you get of accomplishing a long term goal. The idea that each Troop be boy-lead promotes the strongest leaders to the front. It builds a desire to be a leader and to hopefully learn from mistakes and successes (Jensen, 2010)!

DISCUSSION Examining Goodly’s (2008) empirical study on Eagle Scouts and servant leadership, Townley’s (2007) discoveries, and the interviews conducted for this study, shows a group of men that embrace leadership in their homes, churches, communities, places of work, and through volunteer organizations. These men lead through a set of beliefs that began when they were youths in Boy Scouts. The beliefs came from family and church and were amplified by the BSA. Some continued to have these same core values reinforced in the military and government service. An analysis of the seven Eagle Scouts from Townley (2007) and the four interviewed for this study yields the following about their thoughts and demonstration of Sendjaya et al.’s (2008) servant leadership characteristics.

Voluntary Subordination

Eagle Scouts embrace Voluntary Subordination, by both (a) being a servant and (b) acts of service. Through his emphasis on the Golden Rule of treating other like you want to be treated, J. W. Marriot shows voluntary subordination through his emphasis on being a servant. Michael Bloomberg shows voluntary subordination through a willingness to serve. Hank Paulson says leadership is about being a force for good. Joel Pannebaker’s willingness to serve despite his rank and position is a superb example of voluntary subordination. Ron Lane is always willing to assist in his employees’ jobs. He does this from a sense of service. Kurt Wendt says the term servant leadership is new to him, though he is no stranger to the concept. “More than any other aspect, voluntary subordination, struck a chord with me” (Wendt, 2010). Devin Jensen shows service through the volunteering he does through Scouting and the Rotary Club.


SLTP. 1(1), 68-90

Authentic Self Eagle Scouts value being Authentic, which has characteristics of (a) accountability to others, (b) humility, (c) integrity, (d) providing a feeling of security in the work environment, and (e) protecting vulnerability. J. W. Marriot demonstrates authentic self through accountability with them to provide job security. Gary Locke stresses accountability by making a place better than how you found it and always knowing that as a leader people are watching you and expect more out of you. Joel Pannebaker is humble. He shies away from the limelight and strives to give credit for success to his people and his unit. At times though, he has not felt authentic, letting others conduct discipline and counseling that were his responsibility. Ron Lane knows as a leader that people are always watching him and that he must be authentic. He has come to realize that this is the best policy having not been happy when trying to be something he was not. Being authentic for Kurt Wendt is not worrying about who gets the credit. Though it is an internal struggle sometimes to not desire an award, giving credit to his airmen is paramount. Devin Jensen is authentic in his volunteering, doing it just because it is the right thing to do.

Covenantal Relationships

Eagle Scouts develop Covenantal Relationships through (a) acceptance of people for whom they are with their strengths and weaknesses, (b) being available, (c) treating all with equality, and (d) collaboration. J. W. Marriot treats his company as a family demonstrating covenantal relationship through acceptance and availability. Stephen Breyer shows the importance of covenantal relationships through collaboration and making democracy work. Hank Paulson says leadership is about teamwork. Gary Locke puts importance on covenantal relationships. Leading is teaching and including people in decision making. Covenantal relationships are important to Joel Pannebaker. He gets to know employees on a personal level in order to show that he genuinely cares about people. Yet he must balance this with not undermining military discipline and the easy tendency to be task as opposed to relationship oriented. Covenantal relationships are important to Kurt Wendt in order to foster a positive work environment. Devin Jensen values covenantal relationships through being open-minded and accepting others ideas, though at times, he can be unwilling to be flexible.

Responsible Morality

Eagle Scouts exhibit Responsible Morality through (a) moral reasoning based on internalized principles and (b) moral action in both ends and means. Ross Perot demonstrated responsible morality by creating the honor code system still in use today at the Naval Academy. Michael Bloomberg believes that the Scout oath and law embody American values. This shows moral reasoning based on internalized principles. Hank Paulson says leadership is about having a noble role in the world. Joel Pannebaker and Kurt Wendt both live the Air Force’s core values of integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all they do. They do this not because the Air Force says they must but because it is already ingrained in their morals. Joel did admit that despite his internalized moral principles, peer pressure caused him to contradict them early in his career. Ron

86 F. ROHM


Lane was not raised as a Christian nor did he attend church. Ron thanks the Scouting program for teaching him responsible morality and bringing him into a relation with Christ. For Devin Jensen, responsible morality is taking care of his employees’ health and welfare.

Transcendental Spirituality

Eagle Scouts have Transcendental Spirituality as demonstrated in their (a) religiousness, (b) interconnectedness, (c) sense of mission, and (d) wholeness. Jim Lovell’s duty to country and determination to do one’s best demonstrates transcendental spirituality through a sense of mission. Out of 120,000 chartered Scouting units (including Cub Scouts), 37,682 units containing 405,676 Scouts are affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This represents 14% of all Scouts. The second and third largest are the United Methodist Church and the Roman Catholic Church at 11,391 and 9,022 units with 369,733 and 286,779 total Scouts respectively (“Chartered Organizations,” 2010). This tie to religious institutions, to include those outside Christianity (Buddhism, Hindu, Islam, and Judaism) demonstrates the transcendental spirituality of Scouting. Hank Paulson says leadership is about a sense of mission to a higher cause. Joel Pannebaker is a devoted Christian and lives out his faith in his everyday actions. At times he has not specifically told people that his actions come from his faith in Jesus. Ron Lane’s transcendental spirituality has grown as a result of his introduction to Christianity through Scouting. Kurt Wendt chose the military to have a sense of mission and accomplishment, to be part of something larger than himself. Spirituality and religion are a mixed bag for Devin. He freely admits that he is not the best church-goer and has some issues with the church establishment. Devin does say he tries to promote Christ being reverent within his family and Scouting (Jensen, 2010).

Transforming Influence

Eagle Scouts believe in Transforming Influence through (a) vision, (b) modeling, (c) mentoring, (d) trust, and (e) empowerment. Through extreme bravery and being prepared, during the Apollo 13 fire, Jim Lovell demonstrated transforming influence through vision and modeling. Ross Perot and J. W. Marriot practice transforming influence through modeling and mentoring by passing the legacy onto their families. Stephen Breyer places emphasis on transforming influence through being worthy of trust. Michael Bloomberg emphasizes vision by gaining confidence and taking control of one’s life. Hank Paulson says leadership is about having a vision or strong sense of direction. Joel Pannebaker empowers his subordinates, but he does not see himself as a visionary. Ron Lane believes in empowering his employees, encouraging them to make decisions and training them to take over his job. Ron Lane believes wholeheartedly in the transforming influence of Scouting. He would do all he does for Scouting to change just one young man’s life.

Areas for further study Clearly there are many areas for further study. More qualitative studies should be conducted on Eagle Scouts. Goodley (2008) used Wong and Page’s (2003) Servant Leader Profile – Revised (SLP-R) survey instrument which contains a superb self-assessment. Other instruments that contain 360o evaluations from bosses, peers, and


SLTP. 1(1), 68-90

subordinates could give a more holistic picture of whether or not Eagle Scouts are servant leaders. More qualitative studies could also be conducted. This paper only included a convenience sample of four Eagle Scouts. Expanding the number of those interviewed could invite more perspectives on leadership and Scouting. Not all Eagle Scouts are model citizens. A cursory search on the Internet can find mention of Eagle Scouts in jail. It would be interesting to get their perspectives on how being an Eagle Scout has affected their lives and leadership.

Conclusion This study has aligned the BSA principles and the thoughts of Eagles Scouts with Sendjaya et al.’s. (2008) servant leadership model. These men exemplify the BSA motto, slogan, oath, and law. They embody the leadership skills, traits, and values desired in all members of the BSA. Upon closer examination, Scouting principles, especially as espoused by Eagle Scouts, match the characteristics of servant leadership, in particular those in Sendjaya, et al.’s model. The Scouting principles are, however, a philosophy and model of servant leadership already, without the need to connect with other models. Robert Gates, an Eagle Scout himself, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, US Secretary of Defense, and most recently the President of the BSA, says all youth in the US should espouse these values. In his speech at the 2010 Boy Scout National Jamboree, Gates (2010) said,

We live in an America today where the young are increasingly physically unfit and society as a whole languishes in ignoble moral ease. An America where in public and private life we see daily what the famous news columnist Walter Lippman once called 'the disaster of the character of men…the catastrophe of the soul.' But not in Scouting. At a time when many American young people are turning into couch potatoes, and too often much worse, Scouting continues to challenge boys and young men, preparing you for leadership.

More young men and women should join Scouting, and aspire to become Eagle Scouts or the equivalent Gold Stars in the Girls Scouts of America, Freedom Award holders in the Trail Life USA, and Stars and Stripes Award holders in the American Heritage Girls. In this way we could create a better society of servant leaders in America and perhaps the world.

88 F. ROHM


REFERENCES 2009 Report to the Nation: Boy Scouts of America (2009). Retrieved from http://www.scouting.

org/filestore/rtn/pdf/420-120.pdf

American Heritage Girls (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ahgonline.org/pages/page.asp? page_id=18722

Byrne, M. (2001). Critical incident technique as a qualitative research method. AORN journal, 74(4), 536-539.

Core Values of the United States Air Force (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.airforce.com/learn-about/our-values

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Eagle Scout Charge (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.eaglescout.org/finale/coh/charge.html# TheEagleScoutCharge

Eagle Scouts (2009, December). Retrieved from http://www.scouting.org/about/ factsheets/ eaglescouts.aspx

Faces of conservation: Interview with Wendy Paulson (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.nature. org/wherewework/northamerica/states/maryland/news/news2493.html

Facts about Scouting (2010). Retrieved from http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/210-179.pdf

Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique, Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327-358.

Gates, R. M. (2010, July 28). 2010 Boy scout jamboree speech. Retrieved from http://www. defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1494

Girl Scouts face religious rebellion (2004, March 22). Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn. com/id/4578464

Goodly, B. (2008). Leadership development within the Eagle Scouts: An investigation of the influence of servant leadership values (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3320826).

Greenleaf, R.K. (1970). The servant as leader. Indianapolis, IN: Center for Applied Studies.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness (25th anniversary ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

History of the BSA Highlights (2009). Retrieved from http://www.scouting.org/about/ factsheets/bsa_history.aspx

Introduction to Merit Badges (n.d.). Retrieve from http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Boy Scouts/AdvancementandAwards/MeritBadges.aspx

Jensen, D. (2010, August 2). Interview.

Lane, R. (2010, August 4). Interview.

Life Saving Merit Badge Series. (2008). Irving, TX: Boy Scouts of America.


SLTP. 1(1), 68-90

Marriot, B. (2008, Jan 23). Lessons Learned as a Boy Scout. Marriot on the move. Retrieved from http://www.blogs.marriott.com/marriott-on-the-move/2008/01/lessons-learned-as-a-boy-scout.html

Merit Badges Required for Eagle Scout Rank (n.d.). Retrieved from http://meritbadge.org/wiki/ index.php/Merit_badges_required_for_the_Eagle_Scout_rank

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 (p. 69−110). Washington, DC: American University Press.

Pannebaker, J. (2010, July 28). Interview.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Philmont Scout Ranch (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HighAdventure /Philmont.aspx

Rohm, F. W. (2013). Servant leadership development at Southeastern University (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3578596)

Rohm, F. W. and Bramwell, O. (2013). Scouting and servant leadership in cross-cultural perspective: An exploratory study. Journal of Virtues and Leadership 3(1), 26-42.

Scouting in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Community (2010, February). Retrieved from http://www.scouting.org/about/factsheets/operating_orgs/latter-day_saints.aspx

Sendjaya, S. and Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: its origin, development, and application in organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9, 57–64. Retrieved from http://jlo.sagepub.com

Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., and Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour [sic] in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402-424. Retrieved from http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0022-2380

Spears, L. C. (1995). Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Spears, L. (2005). The understanding and practice of servant-leadership. Regent University servant leadership research roundtable proceedings. Retrieved from: http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2005/spears_practice.pdfThe Boy Scout Handbook (11th ed.) (1998). Irving, TX: Boy Scouts of America.

The 400 Richest Americans 2009 (2009). Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/54/rich-list-09_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html

The Boy Scout Handbook (11th Ed.) (1998). Irving, TX: Boy Scouts of America.

Townley, A. (2007). Legacy of Honor: The Values and Influence of America's Eagle Scouts. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Truman, H. S. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/harrystru 109615.html

90 F. ROHM


United States Senate official website (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.senate.gov

United States House of Representatives official website (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.house. gov

Vision and Mission (n.d.). Retrieved from: http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/legal/ mission.aspx

Wendt, K. (2010, August 5). Interview.

Wong, P. T. P. & Page, D. (2003). Servant leadership: An opponent-process model and the Revised Servant Leadership Profile. Retrieved from http://www.regent.edu/acad/ global/publications/sl_proceedings/2003/wong_servant_leadership.pdf

Date post:	05-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dinhdieu
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Servant Leadership · Servant Leadership: Theory ... From this perspective we’ve asked the ......

Documents