Search results

The purpose of this study was to measure the relationship between followers’ perceptions of the servant leadership of their immediate supervisor and followers’ sense of empowerment in the context of small businesses. A quantitative survey was completed by 116 employees of small businesses, including measures of supervisors’ servant leadership behaviors and followers’ self- perceived empowerment. Followers’ perceptions of being empowered were found to correlate positively with their ratings of the servant leadership behaviors of immediate supervisors. The findings support the researchers’ assertions that followers’ perceptions of being empowered will increase as supervisors’ servant leadership behaviors increase.

The power of servant leadership lies in the leader’s ability to unleash the potential and thus the power in those around them. Greenleaf (1977) ascribed greatness to the leader’s attention to followers, “When it is genuine, the interest in and affection for one’s followers that a leader has is a mark of true greatness” (p. 34). In the foreword to the Anniversary edition of Greenleaf’s Servant Leadership, Covey (2002) related empowerment to servant leadership. He acclaimed the importance of empowerment to the sustainable success of organizations in the 21st century. Organizations structured to support and encourage the empowerment of their employees will thrive as market leaders (Covey, 2002). While other leadership styles have been found to empower followers, it is agreed across current literature, that the focus on developing and empowering the follower as their primary concern is specific to servant leaders (Greenleaf, 1977; Parolini, Patterson, & Winston, 2009; Parris & Peachey, 2012; Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2004; van Dierendonck, 2011).

The context chosen for the study was small business because of the crucial role it plays regarding job growth in the United States (Howard, 2006) and in “enriching the lives of men and women of the whole world” (Kayemuddin, 2012, p. 27). Servant leadership enables small business leaders to fully discover, develop, and employ follower potential through empowering behaviors.

This study sought to contribute to the empirical research of servant leadership by measuring the relationship between supervisors’ servant leadership behaviors and followers’ perceptions of empowerment within the context of small business.

The purpose of this study is to examine the role of trigger events and leadership crucibles in the lives of authentic leaders. The study was based on two theories: authentic leadership theory and born versus made theory.

Participants were included in the study if they scored between 64 and 80 on the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ). The qualified leaders were then asked to participate in a qualitative interview utilizing an interview guide born out of the relevant literature. The interview followed the guidelines of the Critical Incident Technique (CIT).

The data indicated that trigger events and leadership crucibles play a significant role in authentic leadership development.

Practitioners should emphasize the prominent themes of self-awareness, relational transparency, balanced processing and moral perspective and the connection with other themes that emerged from the current study when developing or training leaders. Furthermore, practitioners concerned with creating an authentic leadership culture may consider the findings of the current study to develop and employ hiring and promotion strategies that increase the probabilities of hiring and promoting leaders that exhibit authentic leadership behaviors.

The findings of the research indicate that trigger events and crucibles both affect authentic leadership development. The research findings confirm characteristics associated with authentic leadership theory were predominant in the participants. However, one theme that prevailed was that of spirituality, which may or may not be considered to be part of an authentic leader's moral perspective

This case study used the variables of both Patterson's and Winston's models of servant leadership and examined the attitudes of employees at Heritage Bible College toward their leader to determine if the leader was a servant leader and if the variables of the two models helped explain the process by which leaders and followers serve each other in the organization. Thirteen employees and the leader provided data triangulated by three methods of data collection: the researcher's observations over a two‐year period, the data from the Servant‐Shepherd Leadership Indicator, and responses to ten in‐depth interview questions. This case study supports the use of Patterson's and Winston's models of servant leadership, or at least confirms the specific variables examined by the interview question/topics: trust, empowerment, vision, altruism, intrinsic motivation, commitment, and service.

This study defined and developed a four-item scale to measure motivation to serve (MTS) then correlated it with Cerff’s Motivation to Lead’s two scales as well as Affective and Normative Commitment scores. A convenience sample of 89 participants came from a non-denominational church in Oklahoma City, OK. The MTS showed significant correlation with Normative Commitment but not with the two Motivation-to-Lead scales or Affective Commitment. The benefit of this study lies in the development of a new scale to measure Motivation to Serve and the understanding that the new scale is significantly correlated with Normative Commitment.

The purpose of this research is to focus on the development of three scales to measure the three dimensions of accountability presented by Wood and Winston (2005): responsibility; openness; and answerability.

The scale development process followed the method proposed by Spector in 1992 and DeVellis in 2003 in that each of the three constructs were defined and through a search of the literature the authors generated pools of 26, 21, and 19 items respectively. The items were submitted to a panel of six experts, who reviewed them for relevance to the construct and who made suggestions for the general improvement of the scales. The scales were then tested online by 148 participants.

Factor analyses revealed that the item pools measured one construct in each of the scales. Reliability analysis revealed Cronbach alpha coefficients of 0.98 (Responsibility), 0.99 (Openness) and 0.98 (Answerability). The scales were reduced to 10 items by removing items deemed redundant or confusing. Alpha scores for the ten‐item scales were 0.97 (Responsibility), 0.97 (Openness) and 0.98 (Answerability).

The study participants were primarily Caucasian males. Further study should be done to validate the instrument in other ethnic groups.

The three scales may be useful for leadership selection, development, and research in overall leadership effectiveness.

The purpose of this paper is to define the concept of “discernment”.

The paper defines and presents discernment in a manner that sheds light on the construct and sets the stage for future research.

Discernment, is a significantly more involving kind of approach to decision making for the leader. It does not rely on precedents, best practices, or benchmarking. It is to understand the self and organization in a holistic way, inviting constant self‐evaluation and adjustments in order to make good judgments that serve the greater whole.

Additional research is needed to empirically validate the concept through systematic investigations and devise a means to measure it.

The paper assists leaders in understanding the “what” and “why” of discernment and provides an opportunity for self‐evaluation by leaders as to how well each leader engages in discernment.

The paper is original and makes the foundational contribution for a beginning stream of research.

The purpose of this paper is to operationalize the concept of discernment and to present an instrument to measure it.

The approach takes the form of a mixed‐method exploratory design that relied on principal component analyses and internal consistency performed on the resultant data set from a pool of items developed from the literature, as well as from a panel of experts. The investigation employed in‐depth interviews conducted with eight purposively selected leaders about their decision‐making processes and augmented the findings with data from 240 leaders, generated via an online survey.

The result is a three‐factor self‐rating instrument that measures courage, intuition, and faith, with Cronbach alpha values of 0.85, 0.89, and 0.85, respectively. These three factors appear to operationalize the concept of discernment.

While the conceptual definition of the construct has merit, its completeness is subject to debate. If the conceptualization were incomplete, the results of the study would provide only a marginal understanding of the phenomenon. Moreover, an operational definition based on an incomplete conceptualization will fail to generate theory‐oriented propositions. Additional research is needed to establish population norms.

The study contributes to the ongoing task of appropriating spirituality in organizational life, demonstrates that discernment has value in contemporary leadership and organizational praxis, and provides an instrument for self‐evaluation by leaders as to how well each leader engages in discernment. The instrument offers a leadership development tool to help identify high or low discernment.

The study is original and makes the foundational contribution for a beginning stream of research.

This study conducted a factor analysis of Page and Wong’s servant leadership instrument and reduced the 99‐item scale to 20 items yielding three factors: vision (0.97 Cronbach alpha), empowerment (0.89 Cronbach alpha), and service (0.94 Cronbach alpha). While this study only confirmed three of the original 12 factors sought by Page and Wong the results indicate that Page and Wong’s instrument has merit and deserves further development and modification.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the nature of how servant leadership is established and transmitted among members of an organization. The second goal was to identify and evaluate the unique actions by a leader essential to establishing servant leadership. The authors’ efforts resulted in identification and validation of ten leader behaviors that seem to be essential to servant leadership.

The authors’ methodology consisted of two stages. In the first stage, The authors developed an item pool of 116 items drawn from previously developed operationalizations of servant leadership. The authors then engaged a panel of 23 researchers attending a conference focused exclusively on the study of servant leadership to evaluate the. Each participant was asked to independently rate each item using a four-point scale where 1=not useful in describing servant leaders and 4=contributes greatly to describing servant leaders. The authors retained only the most highly rated items. This resulted in retention of 22 leader behaviors for further analysis. In the second stage, the authors developed a questionnaire including these items as well as items measuring transformational leadership behaviors, transactional leader behaviors, servant leadership as measured by the instrument developed by Liden et al. (2008), and a measure of leadership effectiveness developed and used by Ehrhart and Klein (2001). The questionnaire was placed in internet-based survey software and the link provided to students and faculty at a private mid-Atlantic university and to university alumni and colleagues in a variety of organizations. Each respondent was asked to describe a leader he/she had worked for in the past five years and included specification of the job role for both the respondent and the leader.

The ten-item scale accounts for 75 percent of the variance with a scale reliability α=0.96. Convergent validity was determined through comparison to Liden et al. (2008) measure of servant leadership. Discriminant validity was established through confirmatory analysis of leader effectiveness, transformational leadership’s four dimensions, a measure of transactional leadership, and an alternative multi-dimensional measure of servant leadership.

This paper clarifies and provides a measure of the essential behaviors of servant leaders. This provides a useful measurement tool for leadership development.

Although transformational and servant leadership has been in existence since the 1970s and theoretical assumptions about the differences began in the 1990s, this paper seeks to relate the first empirical investigation distinguishing between the two leaders, which was conducted recently by the first author.

Through a review of the literature, the first author established 19 semantic differential scales and two self‐typing paragraphs to differentiate between the two leaders. The scales and paragraphs were formed into an online survey, reviewed by an expert panel, and distributed to 56 randomly selected contacts where 514 participants responded.

Through discriminant analysis, five statistically significant (p=0.000) discriminant items were found that differentiated between transformational and servant leadership.

The paper proposes that the five statistically significant items revealed by the first author's research be brought into future definitions, discussions, and research on transformational and/or servant leadership.

The five items proposed should also be integrated into leadership and organizational development practices, the literature, and future research.

The paper discusses the first empirical research study investigating the distinctions between transformational and servant leaders, two leadership styles that have existed and been discussed by scholars and theorists since the 1970s.