Servant‐Leadership: An Exploration of Essence and Fidelity ...
Transcript of Servant‐Leadership: An Exploration of Essence and Fidelity ...
Servant‐Leadership:AnExplorationofEssenceandFidelityby
DavidA.T.NagelB.A.,UniversityofNorthernBritishColumbia,2001
AThesisSubmittedinPartialFulfillmentoftheRequirementsfortheDegreeof
MASTEROFARTS
intheFacultyofEducation–Dept.ofEducationalPsychologyandLeadership
Studies
DavidA.T.Nagel,2012UniversityofVictoria
Allrightsreserved.Thisthesismaynotbereproducedinwholeorinpart,by
photocopyorothermeans,withoutthepermissionoftheauthor.
iiSupervisoryCommittee
Servant‐Leadership:AnExplorationofEssenceandFidelityby
DavidA.T.NagelB.A.,UniversityofNorthernBritishColumbia,2001
SupervisoryCommittee
Dr.CarolynCrippen,DepartmentofEducationalPsychologyandLeadershipStudies
Supervisor
Dr.SusanTasker,DepartmentofEducationalPsychologyandLeadershipStudies
DepartmentalMember
iiiAbstract
SupervisoryCommittee
Dr.CarolynCrippen,DepartmentofEducationalPsychologyandLeadershipStudies
Supervisor
Dr.SusanTasker,DepartmentofEducationalPsychologyandLeadershipStudies
DepartmentalMember
Abstract
In1970RobertK.Greenleafputforthaconceptualizationofleadership
aimedatre‐invigoratingasenseofbelongingandresponsibilityinthedisgruntled
youthofthosetimes.Inhisseminalwork,TheServantasLeader(1991),heoffersa
ratherrevolutionaryapproachtoleadershipthatfocusesnotonlyontheactionsof
theleader,butalsoontherelationshipexistingbetweenleaderandfollower.
Servant‐leadershipseekstorepositionleadershipasaprocessofrelationship
markedbymutualinfluence.
Thepurposeofthisqualitativestudy,bymeansofreflectiveanalysis,wasto
exploretheessenceofservant‐leadershipaccordingtoGreenleaf’soriginalwork
andtodescribehowthatessenceisreflectedwithinthesecondaryliteratureextant
toservant‐leadership.TheServantasLeader(1991)andOnBecomingaServant
Leader(1996)wereusedtodiscerntheessenceofGreenleaf’sconceptualization,
whilesecondaryservant‐leadershipliteratureintheformofbooks,bookchapters,
andjournalarticlesprovidedthecontextforunderstandinghowGreenleaf’swork
hasbeenrepresented.
ivTableofContents
Supervisory Committee ...................................................................................................... iiAbstract .............................................................................................................................. iiiTable of Contents............................................................................................................... ivAcknowledgments.............................................................................................................. viDedication ......................................................................................................................... viiChapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................... 1Problem Statement .......................................................................................................... 3Purpose Statement........................................................................................................... 5Research Objectives........................................................................................................ 5Research Questions......................................................................................................... 5Definition of Terms......................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 2: Literature Review.............................................................................................. 7What is Servant-Leadership According to Greenleaf? ................................................... 7What is Servant-Leadership According to the Secondary Literature?.......................... 16
Servant-leadership as a philosophy........................................................................... 16Servant-leadership compared with transformational leadership............................... 17Servant-leadership as a portrayal of the new science. .............................................. 18Servant-leadership as a process. ............................................................................... 21Servant-leadership as service.................................................................................... 23Servant-leadership as a way of being........................................................................ 25
Servant-Leadership as a Measurable Construct............................................................ 29Chapter 3: Research Method............................................................................................. 35
Reflective Analysis ....................................................................................................... 36Dependability and Credibility....................................................................................... 37Role of the Researcher .................................................................................................. 38Research Procedure Question 1 .................................................................................... 39
Data collection. ......................................................................................................... 39Data reduction and analysis. ..................................................................................... 40Dependability and credibility.................................................................................... 42
Research Procedure Question 2 .................................................................................... 42Data collection. ......................................................................................................... 43Data reduction and analysis. ..................................................................................... 43Dependability and credibility.................................................................................... 45
Chapter 4: Findings........................................................................................................... 47Question 1 ..................................................................................................................... 47
An attitude of responsibility...................................................................................... 47Listening. .................................................................................................................. 48Awareness. ................................................................................................................ 49Intuitive insight. ........................................................................................................ 49Foresight. .................................................................................................................. 50Creativity................................................................................................................... 50
vPersuasion. ................................................................................................................ 51Unlimited liability..................................................................................................... 51
Question 2 ..................................................................................................................... 52An attitude of responsibility...................................................................................... 53Listening. .................................................................................................................. 54Awareness. ................................................................................................................ 56Intuitive insight. ........................................................................................................ 57Foresight. .................................................................................................................. 58Creativity................................................................................................................... 59Persuasion. ................................................................................................................ 61Unlimited liability..................................................................................................... 61Summation. ............................................................................................................... 62
Chapter 5: Discussion ....................................................................................................... 64Question 1 ..................................................................................................................... 64
Limitations. ............................................................................................................... 65Question 2 ..................................................................................................................... 65
Limitations. ............................................................................................................... 72Overall Thoughts .......................................................................................................... 73Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 74Recommendations and Next Steps................................................................................ 76
Recommendation 1: Engage in dialogue. ................................................................. 76Recommendation 2: Follow Van Dierendonck’s lead. ............................................. 76Recommendation 3: Explore varied contexts. .......................................................... 76Recommendation 4: Explore historical roots............................................................ 77Recommendation 5: Explore the concept of followership........................................ 77
Final Reflections ........................................................................................................... 77References......................................................................................................................... 79
viAcknowledgments
FirstandforemostI’dliketoacknowledgemywifeAvrilanddaughterKaiyafor
theircountlesshoursofsupportandunderstanding.InthatveinI’dliketothank:
ZachCamozzi,RhiannaNagel,Pancho(Francisco)Varela,GrandmaNagel,Maria
Nagel,DavidNagelSr.,AlayaBoisvert,AndreeDurand,andotherswhoprovided
countlesshoursofvaluablechildcare.
Dr.CarolynCrippenhasbeenanundyingmentorwhohasbeennothinglessthan
supportiveandencouragingduringthisentireprocess.Inadditiontosupporting
thisworkshehasbeenunprecedentedinherguidanceregardingmyscholarship
andacademiccareer.
Dr.SusanTaskerhasprovidedavaluablecriticaleyefortheproject,andhas
helpedimmenselyinthelogicalstructureandflowoftheargument.
Assomemayknow,withoutthequintessentialassistanceofdepartmentalstaff,
noneofthiswouldhavebeenpossible.ManythankstoStacey,Zoria,Gloria,Vivian,
andtoourformerandcurrentdepartmentalchairs;Dr.JohnWalshandDr.John
Anderson.LastlyI’dliketothankFranHunt‐Jinnouchi(INAF)andNorahMcRae(Co‐
op)forhelpingtolaunchmyresearchtrajectoryatUVic.
Chapter1:Introduction
Background
Someyearsagothisauthorwitnessedthedramaticpersonaltransformation
ofayoungpersonwhohadparticipatedinanexperientiallearningprogram.The
person,whomtheauthorhasknownforthemajorityofhislife,emergedfromthe
programassomeonewitharemarkablebalancebetweenher/hisselfandothers.
UponrecentreflectionasIconcludetheMaster’sportionofmygraduatestudiesit
becameapparentthatmyinterestinleadership(seedefinitionp.6)stemmedfrom
havingwitnessedthepersonalgrowthofthisyoungperson.
Myexperientialconnectiontothetopicofleadershipbeganwhenworking
foranationalyouthleadershipdevelopmentorganizationcalledKatimavik.
Katimavikfostersthegrowthofyoungpeopleaged17to21throughanexperiential
learningprogrambaseduponservicelearning(seedefinitionp.6)pedagogy.Seven
yearslater,IcommencedgraduatestudiesattheUniversityofVictoria.By
happenstanceandkismetthefirstcourseofferedandavailabletomewasservant‐
leadership.Theconceptimmediatelyspoketomylifeexperiencetothatdate,and
hasbeenafocalpointofmystudieseversince.
ThetermservantleadershipemergedfromtheworkofRobertK.Greenleaf
inhisseminalworkentitledTheServantasLeader(1991).Greenleafwasconcerned
withthecivilandinstitutionalunrestofthe1960s,andwasdeeplyconcernedabout
thelackofresponsibilitythatheperceivedamongsttheyoung(Beazley&Beggs,
2002).Asaconsultant,Greenleafwasaskedoftenwhatcouldbedoneaboutthe
uneasylandscape.Hedecidedtofindoutwhatthestudentsofthatdaywere
2
reading,whichleadhimtodiscoveringTheJourneytotheEast,byHermanHesse.It
wasfromreadingthisbook,andreflectingontheroleofthemaincharacterLeo,
thathediscernedthetrueandgreatleaderwasservantfirst.Hethenwenton,with
theaidofhisprofessional,spiritual,andlifeexperiencetoputforththeconceptof
servant‐leadership.
Theservant‐leadershipconceptisdeeplyrootedinrelationshipsandhow
wechoosetoaffectourenvironmentvisàvisourconnectionsandactions.AsC.
Crippen(personalcommunication,March13th,2011)isoftknowntosay,“it’sall
aboutrelationships”;anotionofrelationshipsinlinewithwhatWheatley(2006)
describesasinterconnectivityandmutualpossibility.Inferredisanotionof
relationshipbeyondanegocentricfocusonindividualstoanunderstandingof
relationshipsthatincludesasynergyofideas,intentions,intuition,andwhat
Greenleaf(1991)referstoas“greatdreams”.
Inoneofthemostpotentdefinitionsofleadershiptodate,Rost(1991)
definesleadershipas“aninfluencerelationshipamongleadersandfollowerswho
intendrealchangesthatreflecttheirmutualpurposes”(p.102).Thisdefinitionof
leadershipcloselyconnectstotheservant‐leadershipconcept;inthatitisour
actionsandintentionsthatcreatetheworldinwhichwelive.Theservant‐leader,as
definedbyGreenleaf(1991),“isservantfirst…Itbeginswiththenaturalfeelingthat
onewantstoserve,toservefirst.Thenconsciouschoicebringsonetoaspireto
lead”(p.15).
3
ProblemStatement
Theconceptofservant‐leadershipisquitenew,emergingwithinpopular
discourseonlywithinthelast40years.DuringthepastthreeyearsIhave,bymeans
ofreading,attendingconferences,takingcourses,andresearchsensedalackof
commonunderstandingastowhatservant‐leadershipis.Interpretationvariesfrom
servant‐leadershipasasubsetoftransformationalleadership(Farling&Stone,
1999;Graham,1991;Patterson,2003),toservant‐leadershipasaphilosophyof
leadership(Frick,1995;Polleys,2002;Prosser,2010),toservant‐leadershipas
simplyafundamentalwayofbeing(Bordas,1995;Keith,2008;Spears,1998).This
seemsproblematic,foritleadsustowardafuzzyconceptualizationofservant‐
leadershipthathinderspracticeandapplication.Alsoofconcernisthatafuzzyand
ill‐definedconceptualizationofservant‐leadershipleadstoadistortionforpotential
empiricaltesting.
Inrecentyears,scholarshavecreatednolessthanelevenmeasureable
constructsofservant‐leadership(Barbuto&Wheeler,2002;Barbuto&Wheeler,
2006;Laub,2003;Liden,Wayne,Zhao,&Henderson,2008;Page&Wong,2000;
Patterson,2003;Russell&Stone,2002;Sendjaya,Sarros,&Santora,2008;Spears,
1995;VanDierendonck,2011).Further,researchandwritingonservant‐leadership
hasappearedinapotpourriofdisciplinesrangingfrombusinessandeducationto
nursingandtheology(Crippen,2005;Laub,2003;Neill&Saunders,2008;Russell,
2003).Suchabroadapplicationofaconceptinitsinfantstageshasledtovarying
viewsastowhatactuallyconstitutesservant‐leadership.
4
Forexample,Spears(1995)hasidentifiedlistening,empathy,healing,
awareness,persuasion,foresight,conceptualization,stewardship,thegrowthof
others,andbuildingcommunityastenessentialcharacteristicsofservant‐
leadership(pp.4‐7),whileFarling,Stone,andWinston(1999)offervision,
influence,credibility,trust,andservice(p.51).Patterson(2003)suggestsseven
virtuousconstructsbeingagapaolove,humility,altruism,vision,trust,
empowerment,andservice(p.2),whileLaub(2003)envisionsvaluingpeople,
developingpeople,buildingcommunity,displayingauthenticity,providing
leadership,andsharingleadership(p.3).Onecanseesomeminorsimilarities
withintheselists,butmoreevidentisthewidescopeofinterpretationastowhat
servant‐leadershipactuallyis.Perhapstelling,isthatonlySpears(1995)
acknowledgesadirectconnectiontotheoriginalworkofRobertK.Greenleaf.
Todate,therehasbeenonlyoneattempttocreateasynthesisofthemany
interpretationsofservant‐leadership(VanDierendonck,2011),thoughthereis
littlementionofGreenleaf’sconceptualization.Thus,itappearsthatareturnto
Greenleaf’s(1991;1996)originalworkwillprovidegreaterconceptualclarity,and
promoteacommonconceptualframework.Greaterconceptualclarity,basedon
Greenleaf’soriginalconceptualization,canthenprovideamoreaccuratestarting
pointfromwhichdialogueandresearchcancommence.Acontinuedlackof
commonconceptualunderstandingofservant‐leadershiprunstheriskofdiluting
theconceptsomuchthatitbecomesinsignificant.AreturntoGreenleaf’sworkisin
theinterestofthoseseekingtopromote,todevelop,toresearch,andtopractice
servant‐leadership.
5
PurposeStatement
Thepurposeofthisqualitativestudy,bymeansofreflectiveanalysis,wasto
exploretheessenceofservant‐leadershipaccordingtoGreenleaf’soriginalwork
(1991,1996a,1996b,1996c,1996d,1996e,1996f,1996g,1996h,1996j,1996k,
1996m,1996n,1996o),andtodescribehowthatessenceisreflectedwithinthe
secondaryliteratureextanttoservant‐leadership.TheServantasLeader(1991)and
OnBecomingaServantLeader(1996)wereusedtodiscerntheessenceof
Greenleaf’sconceptualization,whilesecondaryservant‐leadershipliteratureinthe
formofbooks,bookchapters,andjournalarticlesprovidedthecontextfor
understandinghowGreenleaf’sworkhasbeenrepresented.
ResearchObjectives
Thetwoobjectivesofthisresearchstudywere(a)toproposean
understandingoftheconceptualessenceofGreenleaf’s(1991,1996a,1996b,1996c,
1996d,1996e,1996f,1996g,1996h,1996j,1996k,1996m,1996n,1996o)original
workand(b)toexplorethesecondaryliteratureextanttoservant‐leadershipin
ordertodescribehowtheconceptasIhaveproposedisreflected.
ResearchQuestions
Accordingly,thisresearchstudyaskedtwoquestions:
• Question1:WhatisGreenleaf’sconceptualizationofthenatureandessence
ofservant‐leadershipascommunicatedinhis1991work,andinhisearly
essayscollectedinOnBecomingaServantLeader(1996)?
6
• Question2:Howdoesthesecondaryliteratureextanttoservant‐leadership
overthelast40yearsreflecttheessenceofGreenleaf’sconceptualizationasI
havediscernedfromQuestion1?
DefinitionofTerms
Thefollowingtermsanddefinitionsareusedforthepurposeofthispaper.
Concept.“Ageneralideaderivedorinferredfromspecificinstancesor
occurrences”(Concept,1997,p.287).
Construct.“Tocreatebysystematicallyarrangingideasorterms;aconcept,
model,orschematicidea”(Construct,1997,p.298).
Essence.“Theintrinsicorindispensablepropertythatcharacterizeor
identifysomething”(Essence,1997,p.469).
Leadership.“Aninfluencerelationshipamongleadersandfollowerswho
intendrealchangesthatreflecttheirmutualpurposes”(Rost1991,p.102).
Servantleader.“Theservant‐leaderisservantfirst…Itbeginswiththe
naturalfeelingthatonewantstoserve,toservefirst.Thenconsciouschoicebrings
onetoaspiretolead”(Greenleaf,1991,p.15).
Servicelearning.“Service‐learningjoinstwocomplexconcepts:community
action,the‘service,’andeffortstolearnfromthatactionandconnectwhatis
learnedtoexistingknowledge,the‘learning’”(Stanton,Giles,&Cruz,1999,p.2).
Thischapterhasoutlinedthebackground,problemandpurposestatements,
researchobjectives,andresearchquestionsforthisstudy.InthenextchapterIturn
toareviewofGreenleaf’sworksfollowedbyareviewofthesecondaryliterature
extanttoservant‐leadership.
7
Chapter2:LiteratureReview
Thischapterhasbeenseparatedintotwoparts.Thefirstdescribesservant‐
leadershipaccordingtoGreenleaf’swritings,whiletheseconddescribesthe
secondaryliteratureextanttoservant‐leadership.Thesecondaryliteraturehas
beenorganizedintosevensub‐sectionsinordertopresentthevastamountof
informationinacoherentandunderstandablemanner.
WhatisServantLeadershipAccordingtoGreenleaf?
Inperhapsthemostfrequentlyusedpassagefordescribingservant‐
leadership,Greenleaf(1991)suggeststhat:
Theservant‐leaderisservantfirst–asLeowasportrayed.Itbegins
withthenaturalfeelingthatonewantstoserve,toservefirst.Then
consciouschoicebringsonetoaspiretolead.Heissharplydifferent
fromthepersonwhoisleaderfirst,perhapsbecauseoftheneedto
assuageanunusualpowerdriveortoacquirematerialpossessions.
Forsuchitwillbealaterchoicetoserve–afterleadershipis
established.Theleader‐firstandtheservant‐firstaretwoextreme
types.Betweenthemthereareshadingsandblendsthatarepartof
theinfinitevarietyofhumannature.
Thedifferencemanifestsitselfinthecaretakenbytheservant‐firstto
makesurethatotherpeople’shighestpriorityneedsarebeingserved.
Thebesttest,anddifficulttoadminister,is:dothoseservedgrowas
persons;dothey,whilebeingserved,becomehealthier,wiser,freer,
moreautonomous,morelikelythemselvestobecomeservants?And,
8
whatistheeffectontheleastprivilegedinsociety;willhebenefit,or,
atleast,willhenotbefurtherdeprived?(p.15)
Further,regardingthenatureoftheservantGreenleafposits,“ifoneisservant,
eitherleaderorfollower,oneisalwayssearching,listening,expectingthatabetter
wheelforthesetimesisinthemaking”(p.11).
InhisearlyessaysGreenleafoftenconnectsleadershiptoanEthicof
Strength,whichhedefinesas“theability,inthefaceofthepracticalissuesoflife,to
choosetherightaimandtopursuethataimresponsiblyoveralongperiodoftime”
(Greenleaf,1996e,p.95).ThepassageillustratesthesearchofwhichGreenleaf
speaks,andthelifelongjourneythatonemustundertakeinitspractice.Inan
interviewwithDiStefano(Frick&Spears,1996),Greenleafsuggestsservant‐
leadershipis“basicallyaquestionofthevaluesthatareheldbyasociety”(p.348),
perhapsareflectiononageneralsenseofhopelessnessamongsttheyoung.
Greenleaf(1991)feltthattherightcourseofactioninresponsetothe
studentunrestofhisdaywasforenoughleadersto“convertthemselvesinto
affirmativebuildersofabettersociety”.Thisview,forservants“toemergeas
leaders”,orto“onlyfollowservant‐leaders”wasnotapopularone(p.12).Butfor
Greenleaf(1996j),constructivechange,incontrasttothedestructivesentimentsof
thosedays,requiredthatindividualsbewillingtoinvestthemselvesinandtotake
“responsibilityforleadership”,andtobewillingtotakethe“bitterwiththesweet,
thedullandroutinewiththeexcitingandchallenging”(p.293).Centraltothe
conceptofservant‐leadershipisthenotionthat“theforcesofgoodandevilinthe
worldoperatethroughthethoughts,attitudes,andactionsofindividualbeings.
9
Societies,movements,andinstitutionsarebutthecollectionorfocusofsuch
individualinitiatives”(Greenleaf,1996o,p.329).
AcommonthemetoGreenleaf’swritingwastheconcernfortheworld“not
thattherearesomanypoorlyequippedpeopleinitbutthatthewell‐equipped
peopledosopoorly”(Greenleaf,1996e,p.96).Andfurther,“ifaflawintheworldis
toberemedied,totheservanttheprocessofchangestartsinhere,intheservant,
notoutthere”(Greenleaf,1991,p.44).Ideas,movements,andchangeoriginate
withintheindividual,andcomeintotheworldbecauseof“originators,thosewho
imagineandwhotaketherisksofactingonanimaginedidea”(Greenleaf,1996g,p.
127).Greenleaf(1991)describesanessentialproblemofleadershipas:
Therealenemyisfuzzythinkingonthepartofgood,intelligent,vital
people,andtheirfailuretolead,andtofollowservantsasleaders.
Toomanysettleforbeingcriticsandexperts.Thereistoomuch
intellectualwheelspinning,toomuchretreatinginto“research,”too
littlepreparationforandwillingnesstoundertakethehardandhigh
risktaskofbuildingbetterinstitutionsinanimperfectworld,too
littledispositiontosee“theproblem”asresidinginhereandnotout
there.(p.46)
Whatfollowsfromadispositionofinhereandnotoutthereisa“senseof
responsibilityasanattitude,afeeling.Itisanoverridingpointofview,thecolorof
theglassesthroughwhichoneseestheworld,theframeofreferencewithinwhich
one’sphilosophyoflifeevolves”(Greenleaf,1996b,p.42).Thesourceforsuchan
attitudeisseenas“internalratherthanexternal.Responsibilityisnotseenasanact
10
ofconformity.Rather,itisthekeytoinnerserenity.Responsibilityisnotatested
formula,acode,orasetofrules”(p.42).Emergentisasenseofpurposethat
permeatesandinformsallofone’sactions,thoughts,andintentions.
ForGreenleaf(1996j),anattitudeofresponsibilityamongsttheyoung
seemedinshortsupply,forwhichhelaidblameonuniversitiesthattended“tobias
studentstowardbecomingcriticsandexpertsandawayfrombecomingresponsible
participantsinsociety”(p.289).Greenleaf(1991)quippedthat“aneducationthatis
preponderantlyabstractandanalytical”andthat“extendedforsomanysofarinto
theadultyears”robbedtheyoungof“normalparticipationinsociety…whenthey
werereadyforit”(p.47).Itwashisviewthat“ourverybestinfluenceneedstobe
broughttobearonourpotentiallybestyoungpeopleintheformativeyearsfrom
sixteentotwenty‐fivewhenthecrisisofidentityisbeingmet”(Greenleaf,1996d,p.
80).Thegreatestprioritywasandstillis“todevelopyoungpeopleastheycome
alongtodealcourageouslyandcreativelywiththefuture”(Greenleaf,1996n,p.
320),fosteringopportunitiestopracticeservingandleading;two“intuitionbased
concepts”inGreenleaf’sthinking(Greenleaf,1991,p.14).
Greenleaf(1991)describesintuitionas“afeelforpatterns”(p.24).He
envisionsaleaderwhohasa“sensefortheunknowableandbeabletoforeseethe
unforeseeable”(p.23),andsuggeststhatsuchaquality“ispartlywhatgivesthe
leaderhis‘lead’,whatputshimoutaheadandqualifieshimtoshowtheway”(p.
23).Actingonintuitionisessentialforaleader,butsuchbehaviorhasthepotential
tobeseenasimpulsivenessbythosewhoarehighlyrational(Greenleaf,1996c).
Greenleaf(1996c)cautionsthosepracticingservant‐leadershipto“regardthe
11
highlyrationalwithajaundicedeye”,though“sincerationalpeoplearenumerous
andneedtobetakenintoaccount,open,creativepeopleneedtolearnto
rationalize”(p.71).ForGreenleaf(1996m),“leadersmustbecreative;and
creativityislargelydiscovery–apushintotheunchartedandtheunknown”(p.
315).Heconnectsaleader’scapacityforcreativityandintuitiontothepractical
matterofdecisionmaking,forwhichaninformationgap“betweenthesolid
informationinhandandwhatisneeded”alwaysexists.Hence,“theartofleadership
rests,inpart,ontheabilitytobridgethatgapbyintuition,thatis,ajudgmentfrom
theunconsciousprocess”(Greenleaf,1991,p.24).
Connectedtothisintuitivecomponentofdecisionmakingisthenotionof
foresight.Greenleaf(1996h)viewedforesightas“afacetofintuitivefertility”(p.
170),andpartof“the‘lead’thataleaderhas”(Greenleaf,1991,27).Whenaleader
“losesthisleadandeventsstarttoforcehishand,heisleaderinnameonly.Heis
notleading;heisonlyreactingtoevents”(Greenleaf,1996n,p.319).ForGreenleaf,
“foresightmeansregardingtheeventsoftheinstantmomentandconstantly
comparingthenwithaseriesofprojectionsmadeinthepastandatthesametime
projectingfutureevents”(Greenleaf,1991,p.27).Exercisingforesightrequiresan
interestingperceptionoftimeinwhich“past,present,andfutureareoneorganic
unity”(Greenleaf,1996n,p.319).Greenleaf(1991)views“theabilitytodothisas
theessentialstructuraldynamicofleadership”(p.27),whichisrelatedmore
broadlytoaleader’sapproachtoknowledge.
12
ForGreenleaf(1991),theuseofforesightdependsuponone’sapproachto
knowledgeandreality,requiringwhathedescribesasa“sortofschizoidlife”(p.
28),inwhich:
Oneisalwaysattwolevelsofconsciousness:oneisintherealworld
–concerned,responsible,effective,valueoriented.Oneisalso
detached,ridingaboveit,seeingtoday’seventsandseeingoneself
deeplyinvolvedintoday’sevents,intheperspectiveofalongsweep
ofhistoryandprojectedintotheindefinitefuture.Suchasplit
enablesonebettertoforeseetheunforeseeable.Also,fromonelevel
ofconsciousness,eachofusactsresolutelyfrommomenttomoment
onasetofassumptionsthatthengovernhislife.Simultaneously,
fromanotherlevel,theadequacyoftheseassumptionsisexamined,
inaction,withtheaimoffuturerevisionandimprovement.Sucha
viewgivesonetheperspectivethatmakesitpossibleforhimtolive
andactintherealworldwithaclearerconscience.(p.28)
Suchanapproachleadstoanawarenessthat“meansopeningthedoorsof
perceptionwidesoastotakeinmorefromsensoryexperiencethanpeopleusually
takein”(Greenleaf,1996n,p.322);anawarenessthat“isnotagiverofsolace–itis
justtheopposite.Itisadisturberandanawakener.Ableleadersareusuallysharply
awakeandreasonablydisturbed.Theyarenotseekersaftersolace.Theyhavetheir
owninnerserenity”(Greenleaf,1991,p.29).
Thisviewofknowledgeandunderstandingis“bestdescribedbywordslike
perspective,enlargement,andinsight”,whicheschewsthenotionthatknowledge
13
andunderstandingleadtowardcertainty(Greenleaf,1996b,p.46).Forservant‐
leadership,“thebestknowledgeisnotcertainty(whetheraboutthepresentor
future)butprogressivelysharperinsights…theendresult,givenenoughtime,is
thatonewillbeknownaswise”(Greenleaf,1996n,p.321).Suchinsightbuildsfrom
anacceptanceofdoubt,somethingthatGreenleaf(1991)referstoasanactoffaith.
Inanoft‐usedquotefromDeanInge,faithisdescribedas“’thechoiceofthenobler
hypothesis’.Notthenoblest,oneneverknowswhatthatis.Butthenobler,thebest
onecanseewhenthechoiceismade”(p.16).Theacknowledgmentofuncertainty
providesa“psychologicalself‐insightthatisthemostdependablepartofthetrue
servant”(p.16).
Inferredisanapproachtoknowledgethatseekstrueunderstanding,bothof
one’sinternalandexternalenvironment.Anunderstandingthatrequirestrue
listening,illustratedwellintheSaintFrancisprayer,“grantthatImayseeknotso
muchtobeunderstoodastounderstand”(Greenleaf,1991,p.19).Greenleaf
(1996k)suggeststhat,“listenerslearnaboutpeopleinwaysthatmodify–firstthe
listener’sattitude,thenhisbehaviortowardothers,andfinallytheattitudesand
behaviorofothers”(p.303).Headmits“onlyatruenaturalservantautomatically
respondstoanyproblembylisteningfirst”,thoughbelievesonecanseekto
“becomeanaturalservantthroughalongandarduousdisciplineoflearningto
listen”(Greenleaf,1991,pp.18‐19).Greenleafbelieved“truelisteningbuilds
strengthinotherpeople”(p.19),prefacinganattitudetowardpowerinservant‐
leadershipmarkedbytheuseofpersuasion.
14
Greenleaf(1991),perhapsduetohisQuakerbeliefs,maintains“leadership
bypersuasionhasthevirtueofchangebyconvincementratherthancoercion”(p.
31).Hefeltthatcoercionwasoflittlevalue,asittendedtodestroyratherthan
build,andenactedamostseriousabuseofpower.Healsocautionedagainst
manipulation,whichoccurswhenoneis“guidedintobeliefsoractionsbyplausible
rationalizationsthattheydonotfullyunderstand”(Greenleaf,1996g,p.138).For
Greenleaf,itwasonlyinpersuasionthatonecouldcometoavoluntaryacceptance
andunderstandingofasituation.Persuasionismarkedbyanattitudethat“accepts
thatoneispersuadedonlywhenonearrivesatabelieforactionthroughone’sown
intuitivesenseoftherightnessofthatactionuntrammeledbycoercivepressureof
anykind”(Greenleaf,1996g,p.136).Itisa“difficult,time‐consumingprocess”,that
“demandsoneofthemostenactingofhumanskills”(p.129);askillthatreliesona
commitment“touseone’spoweraffirmativelytoserve,inthesensethatthose
beingservedbecomewiser,freer,moreautonomous,andmorelikelythemselvesto
becomeservants”(Greenleaf,1996h,p.171).
Theuseofpersuasionalsostemsfromagenuinebeliefinandacceptanceof
others;anacceptancethat“requiresatoleranceofimperfection”,giventhat“there
aren’tanyperfectpeople”(Greenleaf,1991,p.22).Greenleaf(1996k)believesthat
“anybodycanreachagoalthroughtheeffortsofotherpeopleifthosepeopleareall
perfect…Yeteventheimperfectpeoplearecapableofgreatdedicationandheroism.
Theyare,infact,allwehave”(p.303).Greatleadersarethosewho“haveempathy
andanunqualifiedacceptanceofthepersonsofthosewhogowiththeirleadership”
(Greenleaf,1991,p.22).Theyseeknottoempowerthosearoundthem,butrather
15
tofostertheconditionsnecessaryforotherstorealizeandexperiencetheirown
empowerment.
Thissentimentisillustratedwellinararelycitedaspectofservant‐
leadershiprelevanttosocialjustice,aboutwhichGreenleaf(1991)believes:
…thatsomeoftoday’sprivilegedwhowillliveintothetwenty‐first
centurywillfinditinterestingiftheycanabandontheirpresent
notionsofhowtheycanbestservetheirlessfavoredneighborand
waitandlistenuntilthelessfavoredfindtheirownenlightenment,
thendefinetheirneedsintheirownwayand,finally,stateclearly
howtheywanttobeserved.Thenow‐privilegedwhoarenatural
servantsmayinthisprocessgetafreshperspectiveonthepriority
ofother’sneedsandthustheymayagainbeabletoserveby
leading.(p.36)
Compassionandloveprovidethefoundation,ratherthananarmslength
applicationofproceduraljustice.Theservant‐leader,inseekingtobecomea
responsiblebuilder,demonstratestheir“ownunlimitedliabilityforaquitespecific
community‐relatedgroup”(Greenleaf,1991,p.39).ForGreenleaf,“assoonasone’s
liabilityforanotherisqualifiedtoanydegree,loveisdiminishedbythatmuch(p.
39).Therebuildingofinstitutions,andourbeliefinthem,isreliantuponthisnotion
ofsocialjustice.
Thissectionhasdescribedservant‐leadershipaccordingtoRobertK.
Greenleaf’sconceptualizationusingsomeofhisearlyessays.Thefollowingsection
describesthesecondaryliteratureextanttoservant‐leadership.
16
WhatisServantLeadershipAccordingtotheSecondaryLiterature?
Thissectionpresentsservant‐leadershipasdescribedinthesecondary
literature.Theinformationhasbeenorganizedintosevensub‐categories
(philosophy,transformationalleadership,newscience,process,service,awayof
being,andasameasurableconstruct)thatreflectthevariousperspectivesofthose
otherthanRobertK.Greenleaf.
Servantleadershipasaphilosophy.
Startingfromabroadperspective,someviewservant‐leadershipasa
philosophy;sometimesreferredtoasagroundingorhumanisticphilosophyof
leadership(Frick,1995;Polleys,2002;Rasmussen,1995).Formanyservant‐
leadershipismoreaphilosophyorwayoflife(e.g.,Frick,1998;Jaworski,2002;
McCollum,1995;Palmer,1998;Prosser,2010;Spears,1995,1998;Wheatley,
1999).Inreferencetoservant‐leadershipasaphilosophy,BeazleyandBeggs
(2002)suggestthat,“eachindividualandeveryorganization…willbedifferentin
thewayitteachesandpracticesservant‐leadership”(p.56).BarbutoandWheeler
(2006)putforththatforGreenleaf,servant‐leadership“describedanewleadership
philosophy,onethatadvocatestheservantasleader”(p.301).
Polleys(2002)suggests“servant‐leadershipcutsacrossthetheoriesand
providesafoundationalphilosophyforthetheoriesthatemphasizesprinciples
congruentwithhumangrowth”(p.125).Freeman,Isaksen,andDorval(2002)put
forththat“servant‐leadershipisamoralimperativeforthecreativitypractitioner”
andconversely,“practitionersofservant‐leadershipmust,bydefinition,be
interestedincreativity”(p.257).Zohar(2002)believesthat“servant‐leadership
17
involvestheessenceofquantumthinking”(p.112),positioningtheconceptinthe
realmofanemergentworldview.
Prosser(2010)putsforththequestioninarecentessayastowhetherornot
servant‐leadershipisindeedaphilosophy.Theconclusionhereachesisthat
servant‐leadershipisa“fundamentalwayofbeing”(p.32),andthatasaphilosophy,
servant‐leadershiphas“moretodowiththegeneralwaypeoplegaininsightinto
serviceandleadership”(p.10).Prosseralsosuggests–withaneyetotheprobable
–thatthemajorityofprominentwritersonthesubjectrefertoservant‐leadership
asaphilosophy.Thisstatementgivesonepausetowonderastothevalidityofsuch
anappealtothemasses,forjustbecausemanyagreeonsomethingdoesnotmakeit
true.Nonetheless,Prosserwasattemptingtoencourageadialogueastowhether
servant‐leadershipisindeedatheoryorphilosophy.Suchadiscussionisbeyondthe
scopeofthisthesis,thoughwewillrevisitthenotionofservant‐leadershipasa
theory,ormeasurableconstruct,inalatersection.
Servantleadershipcomparedwithtransformationalleadership.
Servant‐leadershipcomparedwithtransformationalleadershipprovidesless
adescriptionoftheservant‐leadershipconcept,butmoreofanattempttoposition
servant‐leadershipintherealmofleadershiptheory.Thetheoryof
transformationalleadershiporiginatedfromtheworkofJamesMacGregorBurns
(1978),tobelaterrefinedandoperationalizedbyBernardBass(1985).
Transformationalleadershipissaidtoinclude:idealizedinfluence(orcharismatic
influence),inspirationalmotivation,intellectualstimulation,andindividualized
consideration(Avolio,Waldman,&Yammarino,1991).
18
Inanattempttocategorizeservant‐leadership,manywritershavecompared
theconcepttotransformationalleadership(Farling,Stone,&Winston,1999;
Graham,1991;Liden,Wayne,Zhao,&Henderson,2008;Parolini,Patterson,&
Winston,2009;Patterson,2003;Polleys,2002;Sendjaya,Sarros,&Santora,2008;
Stone,Russell,&Patterson,2004;VanDierendonck,2011).Farling,Stone,and
Winston(1999)haveposited“thatservantleadersareindeedtransformational
leaders”(p.66).However,thereislittleevidencefromwithintheliteratureto
supportsuchclaims.
Stone,Russell,andPatterson(2004),thoughconcedingtherearemany
similarities,suggestthe“tendencyoftheservantleadertofocusonfollowers
appearstobetheprimaryfactorthatdistinguishesservantleadershipfrom
transformationalleadership”(p.349),whichtendstowardanorganizationalfocus.
Lidenetal.(2008)identifyacultivationof“servantleadershipbehavioursamong
followers”(p.163)tobeamajordifferencebetweenthetwoconcepts.Van
Dierendonck(2011)goesfurthersuggestingthat“servant‐leadershipfocuseson
humility,authenticity,andinterpersonalacceptance”(p.8),whichissimilartoa
moralfocusofservant‐leadershipthatisnotpresentintransformationalleadership
(Graham,1991;Parolini,Patterson,&Winston,2009;Polleys,2002).
Servantleadershipasaportrayalofthenewscience.
Servant‐leadershipisoftenlinkedwithconceptsofinterconnectivity,
systemstheory,quantumscience,andthenewparadigm.Zohar(2002)suggests
that“servant‐leadershipinvolvestheessenceofquantumthinking”(p.112),atype
ofthinkingreferredtoasthe“brain’sspirit”(p.120).Ourroleasco‐creatorsof
19
existenceandourresponsibilitytothecreationofsaidexistenceisseenas
foundationaltoservant‐leadership(Gardner,1998;Jaworski,1998,2002;Palmer,
1998;Senge,1995;Smith,1995;Wheatley,1998;Zohar,2002).ForJaworski
(2002),“thesubtlestdomainofleadership–butperhapsthemostvital–is
recognizingandstrengtheningourinnatecapacitytosenseandbringforth
emergingfutures”(p.287).InquotingaconversationwithphysicistDavidBohm,he
explains,“weareconnectedthroughandoperatewithinlivingfieldsofthoughtand
perception”(p.290).Itiswithintheserelationshipsorfieldswhereservant‐
leadershipoperates.
Relationshipsareseenasthebuildingblocksoflife,notthings(Senge,1995;
Smith,1995).Jaworski(1998)describedthisinaway“thateverythingisconnected
toeverythingelseandthatrelationshipistheorganizingprincipleoftheuniverse”
(p.261).Wheatley(1998)addsthat“organizationisaprocess,notastructure”(p.
348)andforservant‐leadersthereisthe“imperativetocreateone’sselfasan
explorationofnewnessandtheneedtoreachoutforrelationshipwithothersto
createsystems”(p.348).Thissenseofandlivinginrelationshipmeansthatone
must“beawarethatallhumanendeavor,includingbusiness,isapartofthelarger
andricherfabricofthewholeuniverse”(Zohar,2002,p.120).Atalevelof
practicingservant‐leadership,auniversalandrelationalawarenessplaysoutvia
systemsthinking.
Systemstheoryis“aboutunderstandingrelationships–betweenpeople,
processes,structures,beliefsystemsandahostofotherfactors”(Sipe&Frick,2009,
p.139),andaboutan“awarenessofinterdependency”(Senge,1995,p.225).The
20
servant‐leaderisconcernedaboutsystemicchange;somethingthatKim(2004)
believesrequiresonetooperateatthelevelofmentalmodels.Mentalmodels
represent“ourdeepbeliefsabouthowtheworldworksandhowthingsoughtto
be”,whileto“engageatthislevelmeansthatwemusttakereflectiveactions”(p.
212).AccordingtoSipeandFrick(2009),theservant‐leaderisasystemsthinker;a
characteristicthatallowsoneto“seethingswhole”(p.137).Thissenseof
wholeness,interdependency,andattentiontosystemicchangereflectsanew
paradigmthatisassociatedwithservant‐leadership.
Thenewparadigmisoftensetincontrasttotheoldparadigm;onemarked
byrigidity,control,linearthought,andstasis(McGee‐Cooper,1998;Smith,1995;
Wheatley,1998).Smith(1995)identifiesthreevaluessynonymouswithintheold
paradigm,whicharethevaluesofright‐wrong,objectivism,andequilibrium(p.
203);whileWheatley(1998)comparestheoldparadigmwithametaphorofthe
machine.Conversely,thenewparadigmismarkedbyinfinitepossibilityanda
toleranceforambiguity(Smith,1995),alongsideanacceptanceofchange,flux,and
anever‐endingprocess(McGee‐Cooper,1998).MargaretWheatley(1998)refersto
thenewparadigmasastoryillustratingthetaleoflife(p.344),inwhich“creative
self‐expressionandembracingsystemsofrelationshipsaretheorganizingenergies”
(p.344).Inthenewparadigmthereisanembeddedaccountabilitythatsprings
forthfromanawarenessthatweareallinterconnectedandco‐creatorsofour
reality(McGee‐Cooper,1998).
21
Servantleadershipasaprocess.
Servant‐leadershipasaprocessisoftendescribedasajourney(Page&
Wong,2000;Palmer,1998;SanFacon&Spears,2008;Sipe&Frick,2009)orapath
(Jaworski,1998;Jones,2002;Lad&Luechauer,1998;Lopez,1995)thatindividuals
mustembarkuponintheirownuniqueway.SipeandFrick(2009)remark,“the
journeyisthekeyforthoseseekersknownasServant‐Leaders”(p.29).Jaworski
(1998)describesa“difficultjourneytowardself‐discoveryandlifelonglearning”(p.
259),whilePalmer(1998)suggestsan“innerjourney”throughwhichanindividual
comestorealizethat“creationcomesoutofchaos”(p.206).Jones(2002)illustrates
thejourneyas“discoveringourownvoice”(p.44),whichleadsoneintoalifeof
imaginationandcreativity.Asanoutcomeofservant‐leadership,SanFaconand
Spears(2008)suggest,“somewherealongthejourney,eventhoughwehavebeen
enjoyingcomfortandmaterialgainundertheestablishedorder,webecomewilling
tochangethatordertofurtheraworldthatworksforall”(p.5).
Block(1998)proposesservant‐leadershipasanexpressionofenlightened
citizenship,whileLadandLuechauer(1998)remark,“inmanyways,servant‐
leadershipistheconsciouspracticeoftheGoldenRule”(p.67).Similarly,forSpears
(1998)“servant‐leadershipisalong‐term,transformationalapproachtolifeand
work–inessence,awayofbeing–thathasthepotentialforcreatingchange
throughoutsociety”(p.3).McCollum(1998)seesbecomingaservant‐leaderasa
“processoflearningtobalanceourthoughts,feelings,andvalueswithouractions.
Theactofseekingthisbalance,whichrequiresself‐awareness,courage,and
independence,isthecrucibleinwhichservant‐leadershipforms”(p.328).Frick
22
(1998)describesservant‐leadershipasa“processofinnergrowth”andputsforth,
“servant‐leadershipis,first,aboutdeepidentity”(p.354),whileKentKeith(2008),
CEOoftheGreenleafCenterforServantLeadership,echoesthisinacautionary
note,thatservant‐leadershipisneitherabout“self‐sacrifice”nor“self‐denial”,but
ratherabout“self‐fulfillment.”
Thenotionofchangeasanoutcomeofthejourneyisechoedoftenviathe
phrase“theprocessofchangestartsinhere,intheservant,notoutthere”(Rieser,
1995,p.56).Thejourneyisverymuchamovetowardgreaterindividualand
collectiveresponsibilityandaccountability.Gardner(1998)suggests“arevolution
isneededinhowwerelatetoeachotheraspeopleandhowwerelatetothewhole
ofcreation”(p.116),whilePalmer(1998)emphasizesa“revolutioninthesphereof
humanconsciousness”(p.198).Thischangetowardaheightenedconsciousnessis
connectedsomewhattothenotionoflifelonglearning,which,accordingtoSenge
(1995)cannotoccurwithoutsignificantchangestooureducationprocess.
McCollum(1995)seesthischangeaspartofacontinuum,inwhich“changeis
growth;growthislearning;learningisadaptation”(p.255).Growth,learning,and
adaptioncanunfoldonlyonceanindividualhasembarkeduponaspecificpath.
Thepathofservant‐leadershipoffersnosingleframeworkortemplateready
formimicry(Jones,2002;Sipe&Frick,2009).InquotingtheSpanishpoetAntonio
Machado,Jones(2002)suggests“youmakethepathbywalking”(p.43).Jaworski
(1998)alludestoa“paththatrevealsitselfaswewalkalong.Followingthepath
requiresustobefullyawake,filledwithasenseofwonder,acutelyawareof
everythingoccurringaroundus…”(p.266).This“pathtoservant‐leadershipseems
23
(sic)tofocusonthedevelopingordeepeningofnewskills;thosedevelopedfrom
otherthantherationalandthatarerelationalinnature”(Lopez,1995,p.151).
Spears(1998)stressesthatthisdevelopmentispartofa“long‐term,
transformationalapproachtolifeandwork”(p.3),whichFrick(2011)describesas
a“becomingthatneverends”(p.6).Forservant‐leadership,wetakethejourney
towardgrowthandlearningalongourownpath,butwedosoinchoruswithothers
engagedintheprocessofexpandedconsciousnessandunderstanding.This
heightenedawarenessisoftenreferredtoasbeinginservicetoourhighercallingor
purpose.
Servantleadershipasservice.
Thenotionofservant‐leadershipasserviceoftenrefersto(a)theindividual
asaservant,(b)anindividual’scallingorpurpose,or(c)abroaddescriptionofthe
notionofservice.Theconnectingofservicetotheindividualasservantisperhaps
duetoGreenleaf’s(1991)mostusedpassage,whichdescribestheservant‐leaderas
servantfirst.SipeandFrick(2009)describetheconceptofservantwell,inthat
“whenweactasaservanttoothers,weareconcernedwiththefull‐rangeoftheir
knowledge,skills,emotionalandbehaviouraldynamics”(p.39).Fromthis
understanding,theyillustrateaservantwhoservesbymeansoftheirpresenceand
listening(p.36).Rieser(1995)conceivesofwhathecallsthe“servantwithin,who
istheretohelptoservebothyouandme...thekeytomyrelationshipwithmyself,
withotherhumans,andperhapswithcreation”(p.49).Theideaorconceptof
servantrefersnotonlytoadesireorfeelingtoserveothers,butalsotoadesireor
feelingtobeofservicetosomething“greaterthanoneself”(Sipe&Frick,2009,p.
24
30).Prosser(2010)identifiesthisasa“commitmentfromthedominantideaof
servingone’sfellowhumanbeings”(p.32).Theimageofservicebeingsomething
largerthanoneselfisoftenpresentwhenpicturingserviceasacalling.
Serviceasacalling–firstpopularizedbyBarbutoandWheeler(2002)–has
beendescribedasbeingcognizantofone’ssocialresponsibilities(Graham,1991),
asa“passionateluretothehighestleveloffulfillment”(Sipe&Frick,2009,p.32),or
assomethingthat“involvesasenseofinterconnectednessbetweentheinternalself
andtheexternalworld(Sendjaya,Sarros,&Santora,2008,p.408).SanFaconand
Spears(2008)suggest,“wearecalledtoserveall–ourselves,ourlovedones,our
neighbours,ourtribe,ourpeople,otherpeoples,futuregenerations,otherlife
forms,livingsystems,andevencreationitself”(p.5).
Thisseemsratherdaunting,butillustrateswelltheon‐going,lifelongjourney
associatedwithone’scallingorpurpose,thatBordas(1995)describesasbeginning
“withthedesiretoconnectwiththe‘greatestgood,’bothwithinoneselfandsociety”
(p.180).Jaworski(1998)goessofarastosaythatitis“theresponsibilityof
servant‐leaderstodiscoverandservetheirowndestinyandthatoftheir
organization”(p.267),andthat“werefusethecallbecausedeepdownweknow
thattocooperatewithfatebringsnotonlygreatpersonalpower,butgreatpersonal
responsibilityaswell”(p.261).Thisperhapssumsupbestthecallingofthe
servant‐leader,onethatevokesandelicitsgreatresponsibility.Forsome,the
responsibilityissogreatthattheservantisviewedas“aservantofthevacuum,a
servantofthemanifoldpotentialityattheheartofexistence”(Zohar,2002.p.112).
25
MargaretWheatley(1999),internationallyknownforherworkin
organizationaltheory,paraphrasesGreenleaf’s(1991)wordsthat“servant‐
leadershipstartswithafeeling”,towhichsheadds“adesiretoserveothersthat
thenbecomesacommitmenttomovethatdesireintopractice,toactuallytakeon
thegreatcourageoustaskofservingothers”(p.5).Muchlikethesentiment
describedbyWheatley,PageandWong(2000)positionservant‐leadershipasan
“attitudetowardtheresponsibilitiesofleadershipasmuchasitisastyleof
leadership”(p.71).Thisnotionofservant‐leadershipasanattitudeorfeelingseems
quitecommon,leadingusintoadiscussionofservant‐leadershipasawayofbeing.
Servantleadershipasawayofbeing.
Awayofbeingisperhapsoneofthemostcommondescriptionsusedwhen
communicatingwhatservant‐leadershipis(Batten,1998;Block,1998;Bordas,
1995;DiStefano,1995;Farling,Stone,&Winston,1999;Ferch,2004;Frick,1998,
2011;Gardner,1998;Jaworski,1998,2002;Jeffries,1998;Jones,2002;Keith,2008;
Lopez,1995;McCollum,1995,1998;McGee‐Cooper,1998;Page&Wong,2000;
Palmer,1998;Patterson,2003;Prosser,2010;Russell,2001;SanFacon&Spears,
2008;Senge,1995;Sipe&Frick,2009;Spears,1998;Wallace,2007;Wheatley,
1999;Zohar,2002).Somecommonaspectsassociatedwiththisdescriptionare
awareness(Jaworski,2002;Jones,2002;McGee‐Cooper,1998;SanFacon&Spears,
2008;Zohar,2002),self‐awareness(Jones,2002;Keith,2008;Lopez,1995;Palmer,
1998),reflection(Block,1998;SanFacon&Spears,2008;Wheatley,1999),
openness(Batten,1998;McCollum,1995;Spears,1998;Wheatley,1999),listening
(Frick,2011;Jaworski,2002;Jeffries,1998),dialogue(Block,1998;Ferch,2004;
26
Lad&Luechauer,1998;McGee‐Cooper,1998;SanFacon&Spears,2008;Senge,
1995),livinginthequestion(Block,1998;Jones,2002),anattitudeofresponsibility
(Page&Wong,2000;Patterson,2003;Smith,1995),anunqualifiedacceptanceof
others(McGee‐Cooper,1998;Russell,2001;SanFacon&Spears,2008;Sendjaya,
Sarros,&Santora,2008;Stone,Russell,&Patterson,2004),aworldview(Wallace,
2007),creativity(Jones,2002;Wheatley,1999),adispositionoftheheart(Jones,
2002;Prosser,2010),andpresence(Frick,2011;SanFacon&Spears,2008;Sipe&
Frick,2009).Awareness,openness,listening,anunqualifiedacceptanceofothers,
anddialogueseemtoemergethroughouttheliteratureasimportanttopicsrelevant
totheservant‐leadershipwayofbeing.
AwarenessisdescribedbyFrick(2011)as“thelifebloodofaleader’s‘lead’”
(p.17),andisapplicabletonotionsofself,other,environment,society,andlife
itself.Awarenessissaidtolead“topresence,thestateofbeingfullyavailableinthe
momenttoone’senvironmentandtootherpeople”(p.18).Italsoinvolvesaself‐
awarenessthat“includesknowledgeoftheimpactthatone’swordsanddeedshave
onothers”(Keith,2008,p.36),indicatinganunderstandingofourselvesasco‐
creatorsintheuniverse(Zohar,2002),oradeepeningsenseofwhatisunfolding
aroundusintheuniverse(Jones,2002).Awarenessfostersanunderstandingofour
innerandouterlives(McCollum,1998),andisamannerofbeingthateschews
dogmawhileembracingopenness.
Opennessissaidtobeoneofthehallmarksofservant‐leadership(McCollum,
1995).Itisasmuchanapproachtotheworldasitisanapproachtoexaminingand
toquestioningone’sbeliefsonaperpetualbasis.Opennessisinone’sattitude
27
towardnewnessandcreativity,andawelcomingofdiversityandsurprise
(Wheatley,1999).It’saboutopeningourselvestoothers(McCollum,1998),and
havingthecouragetokeepourheartsopenevenwiththerisksinvolved(Wheatley,
1999).Gardner(1998)describesitasbeing“openinmindandbodyandheart”(p.
124).Oneisopentobeingintheprocess,opentotransformation,andopento
change(Sipe&Frick,2009),whilealsokeeping“anopenandflexiblemind”,with
therealizationthatan“openmindgrows”anda“closedminddies”(Batten,1998,p.
48).McCollum(1995)considersopennessas“listeningfromtheother’s
perspective”(p.255),anaspectperhapsmostconnectedtoservant‐leadership.
Listeninggoesbeyondconventionalnotionsofmerelyhearingwhatothers
aresaying,requiringthatoneisopentoothersandtoself‐reflection.SipeandFrick
(2009)describelisteningas“gettingintouchwithone’sinnervoiceandseekingto
understandwhatone’sbody,mind,andspiritarecommunicating…Itrequires
listeningtooneselffirstandnurturinganemergingcomplexityofintegration”(p.
58).Listeningmeansfirstandforemostthatoneiswillingtobeginwithquestions
(Keith,2008),andthatoneisableto“askquestionsinaspiritofopeninquiryand
wonder”(p.19).Willingnesstoquestionallowsonetoliveinambiguity,to“express
doubtandtolivewithoutanswers”(Block,1998,p.93).Jaworski(1998)describesa
“willingnesstolisten,yield,andrespondtotheinnervoicethatguidesustoward
ourdestiny”(p.261).Listeningprovidesaccesstoourintuition,andis“alsoakey
waythroughwhichleadersdemonstraterespectandappreciationofothers”
(Russell,2001,p.80).
28
Anunqualifiedacceptanceofothersforwhotheyare(Lopez,1995;Sendjaya,
Sarros,&Santora,2008)andanunconditionalconcernforothers(Stone,Russell,&
Patterson,2004)areachievedthroughtheactoflistening.McGee‐Cooper(1998)
extendsthisacceptanceofotherstoanacceptanceofself.Self‐acceptanceandan
acceptanceofothersleadtoahumilityinwhichapersonseesoneselffroma
realisticandforgivingperspective(Ferch,2004).Awayofbeingmarkedby
acceptanceallowsforonetocommunicateinamodelofdialogue.
Dialogue,accordingtoPeterSengeofferssomeinterestinginsightsintothe
natureofcommunication,suggestingtheservant‐leaderentersintoconversationin
thespiritofdialogue.Senge(1995)putsforth“theoriginalmeaningoftheword
‘dia‐logos’wasmeaningmovesthroughorflowofmeaning”,whichhecontrasts
withtheworddiscussion,meaningliterally“toheaveone’sviewsattheother”(p.
226).Manydescribethepracticeofservant‐leadershipasengagingindialogue
(Block,1998;Ferch,2004;Jeffries,1998;Lad&Luechauer,1998;McGee‐Cooper,
1998).Fortheservant‐leader“dialoguerequiresthatIrevealmylogicandholdup
myassumptionsandbeliefs,ratherthanmyarguments,forpublicscrutiny”
(McCollum,1998,p.338).Ferch(2004)suggeststhat“inmeaningfuldialoguethe
servantasleadersubmitstoahigherperspective,onethatcanbepivotaltothe
developmentoftheselfinrelationtoothers”(p.235).Dialogueasanaspectofthe
servant‐leadershipwayofbeingdependsuponthepracticingofawareness,
openness,listening,andanacceptanceofothers.
Theprecedingdescriptionsofthesecondaryliteratureextantservant‐
leadershipspeaktoavarietyofperspectivesrelatedtotheconcept.Thenext
29
sectionprovidesareflectionontheperspectivesofthosewhoviewservant‐
leadershipasatheoryofleadershipthatlendsitselftothecreationofmeasurable
constructs.
ServantLeadershipasaMeasurableConstruct
Therearenolessthanelevendifferentconstructscreatedbydifferent
authorsseekingtomeasureservant‐leadership;manyofwhomlambastthe
servant‐leadershipliteratureforananecdotalandphilosophicalfocusthatlacks
empiricallyvalidatedandtestableconstructs(Barbuto&Wheeler,2006;Farling,
Stone,&Winston,1999;Liden,Wayne,Zhao,&Henderson,2008;Page&Wong,
2000;Russell&Stone,2002;Sendjaya,2003;Sendjaya&Sarros,2002;Sendjaya,
Sarros,&Santora,2008;Stone,Russell,&Patterson,2004;VanDierendonck,2011;
Wallace,2007;Washington,Sutton,&Field,2006).
Accordingtothiscamp,thelackofempiricalresearchonservant‐leadership
isexplainedbythefactthatthereisnoagreedupontheoreticalframeworkforuse
increatingadefinitionoftheconcept(Barbuto&Wheeler,2006;Farling,Stone,&
Winston,1999;Page&Wong,2000;Wallace,2007;VanDierendonck,2011).Avolio,
Walumba,andWeber(2009)cautionthe“measurementofservantleadershipis
problematic”asaresultof“problemswithitsdefinition”(p.437).Indescribingthe
literatureonservant‐leadershipBarbutoandWheeler(2006)state,“mostpapers
havestand‐alonequalities,buttheworktodatehasnotevolved,withseemingly
moredifferentiationthanintegrationintheliterature”(p.303).Aswewillsee,
therehavebeenmanyattemptstocreateameasurableconstructoftheconcept,
despiteanacknowledgedlackofdefinitionorconceptualfoundation.
30
Thefirstattempttodescribeservant‐leadershipwasputforthbySpears
(1995),whichBarbutoandWheeler(2006)refertoas“theclosestrepresentation
ofanarticulatedframeworkforwhatcharacterizesservantleadership”(p.302).
Spears(1995)identifiedtenservant‐leadercharacteristicsas;listening,empathy,
healing,awareness,persuasion,conceptualization,foresight,stewardship,
commitmenttothegrowthofpeople,andcommunitybuilding.PageandWong
(2000),inanextensivesurveyofgeneralleadershiptheory,createdaconstructfor
measuringservant‐leadershiparoundthecharacteristicsof;integrity,humility,
servanthood,caringforothers,empoweringothers,developingothers,visioning,
goalsetting,leading,modeling,teambuilding,andshareddecision‐making.They
makeitclearthattheywerecarefultobuildupontheearlierframeworkdeveloped
bySpears,inaneffortto“stripservant‐leadershipofitsmysteryandreduceitto
quantifiablekeycomponents”(p.88).
AroundthesametimeasPageandWong,BarbutoandWheeler(2002)
offeredaconstructthataddedthedimensionofcallingtoSpears’ten
characteristics,whichtheyviewas“fundamentaltoservantleadershipand
consistentwithGreenleaf’soriginalmessage”(Barbuto&Wheeler,2006,p.303).
Followingtheirworkidentifyingelevencharacteristics,BarbutoandWheeler
(2006)performedafactoranalysis,whichfoundaltruisticcalling,emotional
healing,wisdom,persuasivemapping,andorganizationalstewardshipasbeing
“conceptuallyandempiricallydistinct”(p.318).Theprecedingauthorsmade
attemptstobuildfromSpears’(1995)work,thoughotherconstructsofservant‐
leadershipseemtobelessconnectedtohispioneeringefforts.
31
RussellandStone(2002)differentiatebetweenwhattheycallfunctional
attributes(vision,honesty,integrity,trust,service,modeling,pioneering,
appreciationofothers,andempowerment)andaccompanyingattributes
(communication,credibility,competence,stewardship,visibility,influence,
persuasion,listening,encouragement,teaching,anddelegation).Inresponse,
authorshavecommentedthatthereisalackofunderstandingastowhat
constituteseitherafunctionaloraccompanyingattribute(VanDierendonck,2011).
Farling,Stone,andWinston(1999),precedingtheworkofRussellandStone,
provideasomewhatsimilarlist,suggestingservant‐leadershipcontainsthe
variablesof“vision,influence,credibility,trust,andservice”(p.51).
Patterson(2003)andLaub(2003)offerconstructsemergingfromPhD
dissertationwork.Patterson(2003)identifiessevenvirtuousconstructsas:agapao
love,humility,altruism,vision,trust,empowerment,andservice.Laub(2003)
createdtheOrganizationalLeadershipAssessmentmodelfromhisdissertation
workonservant‐leadership,inwhichhedescribesaservant‐leadershipas:valuing
people,developingpeople,buildingcommunity,displayingauthenticity,providing
leadership,andsharingleadership.
Lidenetal.(2008)returntoadefinitionoftheconstructbasedonSpears’
tencharacteristics,inwhichtheyidentifyninedimensionsofservant‐leadershipas:
emotionalhealing,creatingvalueforthecommunity,conceptualskills,empowering,
helpingsubordinatesgrowandsucceed,puttingsubordinatesfirst,behaving
ethically,relationship,andservanthood.Theiruseofthetermsubordinatesinlieuof
followerswouldleadmanyservant‐leadershipscholarstogivepause.Nonetheless,
32
theirworkdoesidentify“therelationshipsthatformbetweenleadersandfollowers
ascentraltoservantleadership”(p.162).
Sendjayaetal.(2008)claimtohavedevelopedaholisticconstructof
servant‐leadership,identifiedbysixdimensionsthatare:voluntarysubordination,
authenticself,covenantalrelationship,responsiblemorality,transcendental
spirituality,andtransforminginfluence.However,theholisticnatureoftheir
frameworkisnotcleargiventheirassertionthatservant‐leadershiporiginatesin
theteachingsofJesusChrist;discountingtheconceptualizationaccordingtoRobert
K.Greenleaf(Sendjaya&Sarros,2002).Further,thedimensionofvoluntary
subordination,aswithLidenetal.’suseofthetermsubordinatesabove,wouldgive
someservant‐leadershipscholarspause(Keith,2008).
Clearly,thereisavastandwidearrayofdimensions,attributes,
characteristicsthatarebelievedtorepresentameasureableconstructofservant‐
leadership.VanDierendonck(2011)attemptstoprovideclaritytothesubjectby
differentiatingbetween“antecedents,behaviors,mediatingprocesses,and
outcomes”(p.27).Hisanalysisprovidessixkeyservant‐leadercharacteristicsas:
empoweringanddevelopingpeople,humility,authenticity,interpersonal
acceptance,providingdirection,andstewardship.Timewilltellastothedegreeto
whichhissynthesisandanalysisareagreeduponamongstservant‐leadership
scholars,thoughitseemsthathistheoreticalframeworkprovidesagood
foundation.
Giventhenecessityfortheadvancementofanacknowledgeddefinitionor
conceptualfoundation,muchdisparityandlackofconsensusstillexists.Patterson
33
(2003)raisesthequestionastowhetherservant‐leadership“isindeedaviable
theory,asubsetofanothertheorysuchastransformationalleadership,orjust
merelyaconceptualidea”(p.1).Polleys(2002)alsopondersthetheoretical
foundationsofservant‐leadershipandconcludes;“developmentofatheoryof
servant‐leadershipisprobablynotplausible”(p.125),thoughservant‐leadershipas
“afoundationalphilosophyforthetheoriesthatemphasizeprinciplescongruent
withhumangrowth”(p.125)ismorelikely.
DiStefano(1995)positsthelackofconsensusregardingameasurable
constructofservant‐leadershipisaresultoftheuniquenatureoftheservant‐leader
journeyforeachindividual.BeazleyandBeggs(2002)echothissentimentstating,
“nopreciseformulaguidesitsimplementation.Itsexpressionisalwaysan
individualexperiencebasedontheperson’suniquesetofskillsortalents”(p.56).
Frick(1998)cautionsthatanyattempttofixcertaincharacteristicsorattributesto
servant‐leadershiprunstheriskofreducingittoaneasilyappliedformula;thusby‐
passingthelifelonginnerjourneythatoneembarksontowardanunderstanding
andpracticeoftheconcept.
Asillustratedinthesecondaryliteratureextanttoservant‐leadership,there
isawidescopeofperceptionsregardingthefoundationsoftheconcept.Perhaps,as
morethoughtisgiventounderstandingtheconceptualfoundationsofservant‐
leadership,anagreedupontheoreticalframeworkmayonedaybepossible
(Polleys,2002).Thelackofacommonunderstandingregardingwhatconstitutes
servant‐leadership,aseitheraconceptorasameasurableconstruct,indicatesthat
aturntotheworkofRobertK.Greenleafmaybeprudent.Itmaybethatcurrent
34
interpretationsofservant‐leadershiphavemanagedtodriftawayfromtheintentof
hisoriginalmessage,makingthecaseforatleastanexplorationoftheidea.
Thischapterhasreviewedtheliteratureintwosteps.Thefirstwasto
describetheliteratureaccordingtoGreenleaf,whilethesecondwastodescribethe
secondaryliteratureaccordingtotheperspectiveofthoseotherthanRobertK.
Greenleaf.Thenextchapterpresentsthemethodusedforthisstudy.
35
Chapter3:ResearchMethod
Themethodforthisstudyisinformedbyaqualitativeapproachtoresearch
thatisconcernedwithcontextandprocess(Bogdan&Biklen,2007).Qualitative
inquiryseekstofindmeaninginexperience,andrecognizesthatallknowingand
formsofinquiryareinterpretive(Creswell,2009;Giarelli&Chambliss,1988;Noblit
&Hare,1988;Shank,2006).ShermanandWebb(1988)suggestthat,“qualitative
inquiryseekspossibilitiesinexperience…orrelationshipsamongevents”(p.6).
Relationshipsandpossibilitiesemergeasthemes,perspectives,orconcepts,allof
whichserveasmetaphorsforqualitativeinquiry(Noblit&Hare,1988).
Qualitativeresearchcanbeseenasacontinuousprocesstodefineand
redefinetheproblem(Sherman&Webb,1988).Aresearchstudyissaidtomerita
qualitativeapproachwhenlittleisknownorunderstoodaboutaconceptor
phenomenon(Creswell,2009).Qualitativeresearch“embracesnewwaysoflooking
attheworld”(Shank,2006,p.10),withthegoalsof“insight,enlightenment,and
illumination”(p.14)inmindasdesiredoutcomes.However,aqualitativeapproach
toresearchsometimesfaceschallenges,capturedwellinadescriptionofqualitative
researchas:
Aformofsocialandhumanscienceresearchthatdoesnothavefirm
guidelinesorspecificproceduresandisevolvingandchanging
constantly.Thiscomplicatestellingothershowoneplanstoconduct
astudyandhowothersmightjudgeitwhenthestudyisdone.
(Creswell,1998,p.17)
36
Therearemanyapproachesavailableforaresearchertostudyanindividual
orgroupofindividuals.Theresearcherlooksforthe“essential,invariantstructure
(oressence)orthecentralunderlyingmeaningoftheexperience”(Creswell,1998,
p.52),attemptingtogaininsightintohowindividualsconstructandinterpretreality
(Bogdan&Taylor,1975;Creswell,2009;Gall,Gall,&Borg,2007).Sheorhedoes
thisby“relyingonintuition,imagination,anduniversalstructurestoobtaina
pictureoftheexperience”(Creswell,1998,p.52).Furthermore,accordingto
Creswell,Hanson,PlanoClark,andMorale(2007),qualitativeapproachesare
appropriatetogeneratethelevelofdatadetailanddescriptionforfivetypesof
researchquestions,thefourthofwhichis“essencequestions”focusingonone
phenomena(p.239).
ReflectiveAnalysis
AccordingtoGall,Gall,andBorg(2007),analysisforqualitativeresearch
canutilizeproceduresofreflectiveanalysis,describedas“aprocessinwhichthe
researcherreliesprimarilyonintuitionandjudgmentinordertoportrayor
evaluatethephenomenonbeingstudied”(p.472).Reflectiveanalysisusually
“involvesadecisionbytheresearchertorelyontheirownintuitionandpersonal
judgmenttoanalyzethedataratherthanontechnicalproceduresinvolvingan
explicitcategoryclassificationsystem”(p.472).Thisisconsistentwithamore
generalapproachinqualitativeresearchinwhich“standardsarelargelyrelatedto
theresearcher’sinterpretation”(Creswell,1998,p.207).
Inareflectiveanalysis“theresearchercarefullyexaminesandthenre‐
examinesallthedatathathavebeencollected.Asthisprocesscontinues,certain
37
featuresofthephenomenonarelikelytobecomesalient”(Gall,Gall,&Borg,2007,p.
473).Inasimilarfashion,Creswell(1998)describesaprocessinwhichone“reflects
onhisorherowndescriptionandusesimaginativevariationorstructural
description,seekingallpossiblemeaningsanddivergentperspectives,varyingthe
framesofreferenceaboutthephenomenon,andconstructingadescriptionofhow
thephenomenonwasexperienced”(p.150).Followingthisiterativeprocess“the
researcherthenconstructsanoveralldescriptionofthemeaningandtheessenceof
theexperience”(p.150),anddoessobymeansof“anongoingprocessinvolving
continualreflection”(Creswell,2009,p.184).
Inageneraldescriptionofpotentiallevelsofanalysis(tobetakeninanon‐
linearsense),Creswell(2009)suggeststhattheresearcher(a)organizesand
preparesthedataforanalysis,(b)readsthroughallthedatainordertoobtaina
generalsense,(c)withasenseofthewholebeginstoclustersimilartopics,(d)
shapesclustersintogeneraldescriptionsorthemes,(e)advanceshowthe
descriptionandthemeswillberepresentedinthequalitativenarrative,and(f)
makesaninterpretationormeaningofthedata(pp.185‐189).
DependabilityandCredibility
Qualitativeresearcherstendtospeakofquantitativeconceptslike
reliabilityandvalidityintermsofdependabilityandtransferability(Shank,2006).
Forqualitativeresearchers,“verificationandstandardsarelargelyrelatedtothe
researcher’sinterpretation”(Creswell,1998,p.207).Shank(2006)suggests,“the
keystrategyforensuringdependabilityisanaudittrail.Withanaudittrail,thereisa
clearandconstantpathbetweenthecollectionofthedataanditsuse”(p.114).
38
Shankalsoreferstotransferabilitysuggesting,“theprimarytoolforestablishing
transferabilityistheuseofadequateanddetaileddescriptioninlayingoutallthe
relevantdetailsoftheresearchprocess”(p.115).
Credibilityisdescribedasanaspectofqualitativeresearchmethodthat
enhancesthetrustworthinessofastudy(Denzin,1994;Guba,1981).Janesick
(1994),indiscussingthecredibilityofastudystates,“qualitativeresearchhastodo
withdescriptionandexplanation,andwhetherornotagivenexplanationfitsa
givendescription”(p.216).Aresearchercanestablishthecredibilityofastudyby
meansofaprolongedexposuretoaphenomenon,triangulationofsources,peer
debriefing,andclarifyingthebiasofanauthor(Creswell,2009;Guba,1981).
RoleoftheResearcher
AccordingtoCreswell(2009)itiscommonpracticeforaqualitative
researcherto“explicitlyidentifyreflexivelytheirbiases,values,andpersonal
background,suchasgender,history,culture,andsocioeconomicstatus,thatmay
shapetheirinterpretationsformedduringastudy”(p.177).Theideabehinddoing
soisthebeliefthatthepurposefulandinterpretivenatureofqualitativeinquiry
tacitlyembedstheresearcherwithintheresearch.
Therefore,Iamawhitemaleinmythirties,marriedwithtwochildrenand
currentlylivinginsubsidizedhousing.Igrewupnotofprivilege,thoughfeltneither
thehorridaffectsofstarvationnorwanting.AstheeldestoffiveIhavebeenthrust
intorolesofresponsibilityforthebulkofmylife.Myscholarlyandleisurebased
pursuitshavebeenself‐financedviaamyriadofjobsrangingfromtruckdriverto
campcounselortohousepaintertoyouthleadertobartendertotree‐planter.Ithas
39
beenaneclecticlifetodate,markedbyvarietyandflux.Iamagraduatestudentin
LeadershipStudiesattheUniversityofVictoria,andhavepresentedattwo
internationalconferencesonthetopicofservant‐leadership.Iamthesole
researcherandinterpreterforthisresearchstudyandhavenovestedinterestin
servant‐leadership,otherthanthebeliefthatthereissomethinginherentlygood
abouttheconcept.
ResearchProcedureQuestion1
Thefirstobjectiveofthestudywastoproposeanunderstandingofthe
conceptualessenceofGreenleaf’s(1991,1996a,1996b,1996c,1996d,1996e,
1996f,1996g,1996h,1996j,1996k,1996m,1996n,1996o)originalwork.Thus
followsadescriptionoftheresearchprocedureseekingananswerto:Whatis
Greenleaf’sconceptualizationofthenatureandessenceofservant‐leadershipas
communicatedinhis1991work,andinhisearlyessayscollectedinOnBecominga
ServantLeader(1996)?
Datacollection.
TheresearchbeganwithcollectingandorganizingdatalocatedinThe
ServantasLeader(Greenleaf,1991)andacollectionofearlyGreenleafessaysinOn
BecomingaServantleader(Frick&Spears,1996).Theseworksdonotrepresent
theentiretyofGreenleaf’swriting,thoughwerechosenbecauseoftheclaritywith
whichtheyspokedirectlytoservant‐leadership.TheServantasLeaderisthemost
widelyusedanddisseminatedworkonservant‐leadership,whilethecollectionof
essaysinOnBecomingaServantLeaderreflectsomeofGreenleaf’sthoughtsand
ideaswrittenbeforeTheServantasLeader.Theseworksprovideadepictionof
40
Greenleaf’swritingthatisbothbroadanddeep,reflectingthemanylayerspresent
inhisthinking.TheessayscollectedinOnBecomingaServantLeaderoriginateat
differentpointsintimebeforethepublicationofTheServantasLeader,illustrating
aprogressionofandcontinuitytoGreenleaf’sthought.Suchavarietyofsources
contributetoatriangulationofdatacollectionthatisimportantinvalidating
qualitativeresearchprocedures(Creswell,2009;Guba,1981).
Datareductionandanalysis.
ThecollecteddatawerereadthroughinordertoobtainwhatCreswell
(2009)referstoasa“generalsenseoftheinformationandtoreflectonitsoverall
meaning”(p.185).Thisprocessofreadingthroughthedatawasrepeatedinorder
toensureageneralsenseorfeelingforthemeaningofthetext.Ithenidentified
importantpassageswithinthetexts,andcondensedTheServantasLeaderdownto
about10pagesfrom40pages,andcondensedOnBecomingaServantleaderdown
fromover300pagestoabout40pages.Apassagewasdeemedasimportantifit
spokedirectlytotheconceptofservant‐leadership,ratherthansomething
tangentialandlooselyconnected.Thiswasaccomplishedbymeansofintuitive
judgementandthesensingofpatternsfromwithinthetext,whichisconsistentwith
theprocedureofreflectiveanalysis.
OnceIhadcollectedmydatafromtheoriginaltext,Ithenre‐commenceda
processofreadingandre‐readingwithoutmakingnotes,inordertoonceagain
obtainageneralsenseandappreciationforthewholenessofthetext.Afterthefifth
reading,IbegantounderlinepassagesthatseemedimportantorthatIwas
interpretingasemergingpatternsfromwithinthetext.Ithenbegantocreatealist
41
oftermsfromthetextonaseparatepieceofpaper.Iwouldrevisitthislistbefore
subsequentreadingsinordertocheckthatIwasindeedsensingapatternorto
discernthatanitemwasnotasprominentasIhadinitiallyinterpreted.Itis
importanttonote,thatanywherefromonetothreedayswouldpassbetweeneach
reading.Thiswasdoneinanattempttoallowthesubstanceofthetexttopenetrate
mysubconsciousandtoallowtimefortheintuitiveprocessofunderstandingto
occur.
Theprocessofreflectiveanalysisrecurredcloseto15times,atwhichpointI
wascomfortablethatIhadexhaustedmyinterpretivecapacities.Topicswere
groupedintosimilarcategories,witheachremainingtruetothelanguagefound
withintheoriginaltext.Sometopicsweresubsumedintoothers,suchasthetopicof
self‐awarenessthatwasinterpretedtobelongtoabroadercategorythatwas
namedawareness.Eachrepetitionprovidednewinsightandilluminatedtopicsthat
hadyettoemerge.TheprocessstoppedwhenIwasnolongerdiscoveringnew
topics,atwhichpointIsetouttocreatedescriptionsthatcouldbepresentedina
narrative.Theprocessissomewhatdescribedbytheanalogyofpeelingbackthe
onion,bywhichresearchersmove“deeperanddeeperintounderstandingthe
data…andmakinganinterpretationofthelargermeaningofthedata”(Creswell,
2009,p.183).
Iendedupwitheightessentialelementsofthephenomenonaccordingtothe
textualdata.OvertheperiodofaboutaweekIwouldvisitandrevisitthelisttosee
ifanythingfeltoutofplace.EventuallyIbecamecomfortablewiththelistasit
stood,andthensetouttofindexamplesfromwithinthetextthatcouldexpanda
42
descriptionofeachelement.Thesedescriptionswouldthenprovidethebasisfor
whichtheessencecouldbeusedforanexplorationofthesecondaryliterature.
Dependabilityandcredibility.
Severalmeansweretakentoensuredependabilityandcredibilityinthe
researchprocedureandproductforquestionone.First,multiplesourcesof
informationwereusedwithanaimtowardtriangulatingthedatacollection
process.Second,peerreviewersfamiliarwithservant‐leadershipwereconsulted
duringtheprocessofdiscerningthemeaningandessenceofGreenleaf’swork.
Third,Dr.CarolynCrippen,anexpertinthefieldofservant‐leadership,provided
guidanceandcritiqueatvariousintervalsduringthereflectiveprocess.Fourth,the
researcher’sexposuretoandimmersioninthesubjectofservant‐leadershiplasted
overthecourseofseveralyears,providingaprolongedexposuretothetopicof
study.Lastly,theessenceofservant‐leadershipasIhadinterpretedfrom
Greenleaf’sworkwaspresentedtoagroupofpeersataninternationalleadership
conference,allowingopportunityforpublicdiscourseandscrutiny.
ResearchProcedureQuestion2
Thesecondobjectiveofthestudywastoexplorethesecondaryliterature
extanttoservant‐leadershipandtodescribehowtheessenceofGreenleaf’s
conceptualization,asIhaveproposed,isreflected.Thusfollowsadescriptionofthe
researchprocedureseekingananswerto:Howdoesthesecondaryliteratureextant
toservant‐leadershipoverthelast40yearsreflecttheessenceofGreenleaf’s
conceptualizationasIhavediscernedfromQuestion1?
43
Datacollection.
Thesecondaryliteratureforthisresearchprojectwascollectedusinglibrary
databasesforarticleandbookretrieval,Googlewebsearchengines,GoogleScholar,
servant‐leadershipwebsitescanning,andreversereferencecheckingformajor
worksinthefield.Eitherservantleaderorservantleadershipwasusedasasearch
engineterm,whilejournalsspecifictopopularfieldsofapplicationinbusiness,
nursing,andeducationwerevisuallyscannedmanuallyforcontent.Some120
articleswereinitiallyfoundonthetopic,coupledwithapproximatelyanother50
chaptersandbooksonthesubject–aprocessthatspannedthecourseofnearly
threeyears.
Articlesfromscholarlyjournalsandchaptersfromentirebooksonservant
leadershipweredeemedasacceptable.Similartothereversereferencecheckwas
theuseofatimescitedfeatureofGoogleScholar,whichhelpedtodetermine
prominentworksinthefield.Insomecasespapersfrompeerreviewedconference
proceedingswereadmitted,whileon‐linearticlesandpopularpresswerenot
deemedassuitableforthisproject.Literaturethatspokedirectlytoservant‐
leadershipwaschosen,whileworkswithtangentialorlooseconnectionsto
servant‐leadershipwerenot.
Datareductionandanalysis.
Theanalysisofthedataforthesecondresearchquestiontookplaceintwo
stages.First,Isoughttogainanunderstandingofthesecondaryliteratureextantto
servant‐leadershipandtoorganizeitamannerthatwasusefulforanalysisand
exploration.Second,Isoughttoexplorethesecondaryliteratureforrepresentation
44
oftheeightessentialelementsofservant‐leadership,asIhaddiscernedfrom
Greenleaf’sworkinanswertoquestionone.
Followingthecollectionofsecondaryliteratureandtheidentificationof
prominentworks,Iengagedinaninitialreadingtodevelopasenseofandto
immersemyselfintotheliterature.Afterafirstreading,Ire‐readthecollected
literatureandbegantotranscribeimportantpassagesthatspokedirectlyand
clearlytoservant‐leadership,endingupwithapproximately50pagesofnotes.I
thenreadandre‐readthroughthesenotessomewhereintheneighbourhoodoffive
times,onceagainseekingtodiscernageneralsenseofthelargercontext.
Aftermanyreadingsandreflectiveiterations,Ibegantoorganizethe
secondaryliteratureintosimilartopicsorclusters,withanaimtoassistboththe
readerandmyselfinnavigatingtheinformation.Ididthisbykeepingarunninglist
oftopicsthatIwouldreferto,adjust,andconferwithduringthereflectiveprocess.
Intheend,sevenclustersemerged,whichsupportedthegroupingofliketopicsand
subjects.Thepurposefordoingthiswasforliterarydeviceandtoprovidea
structuredandorganizedframeworkfromwhichareflectiveanalysisexploring
representationoftheessentialelementscouldcommence.Followingthe
organizationandreductionofthesecondaryliterature,Iproceededtousereflective
analysisdeductively.Thatismyeightessences,asdiscernedfromGreenleaf’swork
inanswertoquestionone,becamemytheoreticallensthroughwhichIreadthe
reducedsecondaryliterature.
Atthispointintheprocess,Ireadthroughthereducedsecondaryliterature
lookingforrepresentationofGreenleaf’sessenceofservant‐leadershipasIhad
45
discerned.Ireadandre‐readthecondensedsecondaryliteratureapproximately
fivetimestogainasenseofitsmeaningandcontext.OnceIfeltfamiliarwithand
connectedtothesecondaryliteratureIthenbegantoreadthroughthe50pagesof
notesexploringthetextforrepresentationoftheeightessentialelementsasIhad
identifiedinquestionone.
Icreatedamentalmaponflipchartpaperconsistingofeachessential
element,towhichIaddedexamplesfromthesecondaryliteratureastheywere
discovered.Irepeatedthisprocessapproximately10timesuntilnonew
representationemerged.Thisprocessspannedthecourseofclosetoonemonth,
withroughly2to3daysinterspersedbetweenreadingstoallowfortheintuitive
process.DuringthelaterstagesofthisiterativeprocessIwouldlookmore
intentionallyforrepresentationofelementsforwhichIhadyettofindmany
examplesof.Thiswasdonetoensurethatmyfindingsforrepresentationwerenot
theresultsofmyownbiasedperceptions,andtoensurethatIwasexploringthe
secondaryliteratureforeachoftheeightessentialelementsequally.
Dependabilityandcredibility.
Severalstrategieswereemployedtoensuredependabilityandcredibilityfor
theresearchprocedureandproductrelativetoquestiontwo.First,secondary
literaturewascollectedoverthecourseofthreeyears,providingaprolonged
immersionandexposuretothetopic.Second,overthecourseofthosethreeyears,
peersandexpertsonservant‐leadershipwereconsultedforadviceastoprominent
literaturethatwasimportanttothestudyofservant‐leadership.Third,Dr.Carolyn
Crippenprovidedguidanceandfeedbackduringtheprocessesoforganizingthe
46
secondaryliteratureandforthereflectiveanalysisseekingreflectionofthe
essentialelementswithinsaidliterature.Fourth,mywifewhohasbecomewell
versedinthesubjectofservant‐leadership,providedmanyaneveningdiscussion
anddebateoverthementalmappingofandorganizingofthesecondaryliterature.
Andlastly,thecontinualprocessofreflectiveanalysisallowedfortheconstant
checkingandquestioningofmeaningasitdevelopedandemerged.
Thischapterhasdescribedthequalitativemethodusedforthisstudyby
meansofreflectiveanalysis,andhasprovidedadetaileddescriptionoftheresearch
proceduresforquestiononeandquestiontwo.Thenextchapterpresentsthe
findingforthisstudy.
47
Chapter4:Findings
Thischapterhasbeendividedintotwosections.Thefirstofwhichdescribes
thefindingsforquestionone,followedbyaseconddescribingthefindingsfor
questiontwo.ThefindingsforquestiononepresenttheessenceofGreenleaf’s
conceptualizationofservant‐leadershipasIhavediscerned,whilequestiontwo
presentsanexplorationofthesecondaryliteratureseekingtodescribehowthe
essenceasIhavediscernedisreflected.
Question1
• WhatisGreenleaf’sconceptualizationofthenatureandessenceofservant‐
leadershipascommunicatedinhis1991work,andinhisearlyessays
collectedinOnBecomingaServantLeader(1996)?
Anin‐depthexplorationofGreenleaf’s(1991)originalessayTheServantas
LeaderandGreenleaf’s(1996a,1996b,1996c,1996d,1996e,1996f,1996g,1996h,
1996j,1996k,1996m,1996n,1996o)earlyessaysfoundinOnBecomingaServant
Leaderrevealedeightessentialelementsoftheservant‐leadershipconcept.The
eightessentialelementsasIhaveidentifiedandinterpretedbymeansofreflective
analysisare:anattitudeofresponsibility,listening,awareness,intuitiveinsight,
foresight,creativity,persuasion,andunlimitedliability.
Anattitudeofresponsibility.
Anattitudeofresponsibilityisthefoundationuponwhichthephilosophyof
servant‐leadershiprests.Itisanantecedentforbuildingbettercommunities,
institutions,andsocieties.Onenolongerviewsoneselfasseparatefromtheworld,
butratherasconnectedtoandinrelationwithit.Greenleaf’s(1991)responseto
48
theturmoilofthe1960swastoinsistthatindividualsangryaboutthestatusquo
seektobecome“affirmativebuildersofsociety”(p.44).Onemustviewthe
problemsandsuccessesoftheworldasresidinginhereandnotoutthere.An
attitudeofresponsibilityemergesfromaninternalseekingratherthanexternal
obligations(Greenleaf,1996b,p.42).CommontoGreenleaf’swritingsisthenotion
thatsocieties,systems,andcommunitiesarecreatedbecauseofindividualswhoact
onideasandgreatdreams.Anattitudeofresponsibilitymeansthat“apersonthink,
speak,andactasifpersonallyaccountabletoallwhomaybeaffectedbyhisorher
thoughts,words,anddeeds”(p.41).Itprovidesthebackboneforaholistic
conceptualizationofservice,andallowsonetopracticecompassion,empathy,and
healing.
Listening.
Listeningisthekeytoopennessandunderstanding.Itinfersstandard
notionsofcommunicationbetweenindividuals,butincludesideaslikeself‐
reflection,contemplation,meditation,attentiveness,andsilence.Greenleaf(1991)
wasquiteforwardinsuggestingthat,“onlyatrueservantresponds…bylistening
first”(p.18).Listeningisdescribedasadiscipline,thatwhenpracticedcouldbe
learned,helpinganon‐servantbecomeaservant(p.19).Commontoservant‐
leadershipverbiageistheSt.Francisprayer“grantthatImaynotseeksomuchto
beunderstoodastounderstand”(p.19).ForGreenleaf,“thesearchisthething”
(Greenleaf,1996a,p.33),andlisteningprovidesthestartingpointforonewhoison
thesearchingpath.Iflisteningisabsent(initsholisticsense)notmuchof
substantiveimportcanproceed.
49
Awareness.
Awarenessoffersanapproachtoknowledgeandknowingthatstraddlesthe
consciousandunconsciousmind.Greenleaf(1991)describesthesetwolevelsof
consciousnessasallowingonetobeintherealworldwhileatthesametimebeing
detachedfromit.Tobeawarerequiresthat“eachofusactresolutelyonasetof
assumptionswhileatthesametimequestioningtheseassumptions”(p.28).
Awarenessincludesanopennessandacceptanceofuncertainty,coupledwiththe
willingnesstoacceptthatsomeofourmostcherishedillusionsmaybewrong.Ina
rarejudgementaltoneGreenleafsuggeststhat,“dogmaticpeopleinthepresent,are
usuallydogmaticaboutthefuture–andwrong”(Greenleaf,1996d,p.77).The
Socraticadagethat“theunexaminedlifeisnotworthliving”isoftconnectedtothe
notionofawareness(p.34).One’sabilitytostraddlethelinebetweenconviction
anddoubtisinstrumentalifonedesirestomaintainasearchingapproachto
knowingandunderstanding.
Intuitiveinsight.
Intuitiveinsightreferstothinkinganddecision‐makingprocessesthatrest
apartfromconventionalrationalthought.Greenleafviewedintuitiveinsightas“the
essentialartistryinone’s[sic]leadership”(Greenleaf,1996f,p.113).Thesourceof
informationorknowledgeaccessedforintuitiveinsightoriginatesfromwhat
Greenleaf(1996a)referstoas“belowthewaterline”(p.34),orratherfromthe
subconscious.Toaccessthisinformationoneisencouraged“towithdrawfromthe
analyticalsearchandallowtheunconsciousresourcestodeliverarangeofchoices”
(Greenleaf,1996h,p.170).Intuitionisseenasa“feelforpatterns”,and“theperson
50
whoisbetteratthisthanmostislikelytoemergetheleader”(Greenleaf,1991,p.
24).Intuitiveinsightrequiresacertainkindoffaith,illustratedbytheoft‐citedDean
Ingequotethat“‘Faithisthechoiceofthenoblerhypothesis.’Notthenoblest,one
neverreallyknowswhatthatis”(p.16).
Foresight.
Foresightmightbedescribedastheanalyticalprocessofservant‐leadership.
Itisoftenreferredtoasthe“leadthataleaderhas,”andthatoncethisleadisgone
thepersonisaleaderonlyinname(Greenleaf,1991,p.27).Foresightrequiresthat
oneconceiveof“nowasamovingconceptinwhichpast,presentmoment,and
futureareoneorganicunity”(p.26).Thisentailsthatonebeabletodisassociate
withconventionalclocktimeunderstanding,andtopositiononeselfasafluidand
evolvingparticipantinlife.Theleaderwhocanviewnowinitsqualitativeand
contextualsensewillbemorelikelythanmosttoanticipatethefuture.For
Greenleaf,ifonecandevelopforesight“theendresult,givenenoughtime,isthat
onewillbeknownaswise”(Greenleaf,1996n,p.321).
Creativity.
Creativity,theprocessofbridgingtheconsciousandunconsciousmind,has
beenreferredtoas“theessentialstructuraldynamicofleadership”(Greenleaf,
1991,p.27).Creativityrequiresthedesireandcouragetogooutaheadandshow
theway.ItispoignantthatGreenleafdevotedsomanywordstoAlbertCamus’final
publishedlecture,entitledCreateDangerously(p.13).Thecreativeimpulseacts
uponintuitiveinsight,thusonebearstheriskofbeingwrong.Creativityisoneof
themostimportantskillsnecessaryforenvisioningandbuildingabettertomorrow,
51
andmustbefosteredwithvigorandpurposeamongsttheyoung.Creativity
emergesfromone’sopennesstoknowingandunfetteredcommitmenttothesearch.
Itisthegreatleapintotheunknown.
Persuasion.
Persuasionmightbeviewedastheactivecomponentoftheservant‐
leadershipphilosophy.Itisthemomentatwhichoneseekstoinfluenceothers
towardavisionorgoal.Persuasionisanimportantelementofthephilosophyof
servant‐leadership,insistingonebeawareofandastudentofissuesrelevantto
power.Greenleaf(1991)sawthat“leadershipbypersuasionhasthevirtueof
changebyconvincement”(p.31).Persuasionissaidtobewhenone“arrivesata
feelingofrightnessaboutabelieforactionthroughone’sownintuitivesense”
(Greenleaf,1996g,p.139).Itisperhapsthemosttroublingofqualitiesfor
individualsworkingandinteractingwithintraditionalinstitutions,whichtendto
promotequickdecisionprocessessteepedincoercionandmanipulation.True
persuasionrequirestime,andisperhapsagoalbettertobestrivedforwith
knowledgethatitmightneverbeobtained.Consensualdecisionprocessessupport
amovetowardpersuasion.
Unlimitedliability.
Unlimitedliabilityisperhapstheultimategoaloftheservant‐leadership
philosophy.Itenvisionsaworldthathasmovedawayfromarelianceonjustice
basednotionsofethicstowardanethicsofcare.Unlimitedliabilityrelatestothe
conceptoflove,andrequiresthatonecarryanattitudeofresponsibility.Greenleaf
(1991)believedthat“assoonasone’sliabilityforanotherisqualifiedtoanydegree,
52
loveisdiminishedbythatmuch”(p.39).Loveisviewedastobeindialogue,a
dialoguethatseeksunderstandingandpromotesacceptance.Unlimitedliabilityand
anattitudeofresponsibilityarethebookendsthatfostercompassion,empathy,
healing,andgrowth.ForGreenleaf,“allthatisneededtorebuildcommunity…isfor
enoughservant‐leaderstoshowtheway…byeachservant‐leadershowinghisown
unlimitedliabilityforaquitespecificcommunity‐relatedgroup”(p.40).Unlimited
liabilitymustbepresentinordertomakethingstrulywhole.
Takeninconcerttheseeightessentialelementsprovideinsightintothe
originsoftheservant‐leadershipconceptbyreflectingsomeofGreenleaf’soriginal
writingsonthesubject.Asdescribedaboveintheresearchproceduressection,the
findingsweretheresultofseveralyearsofprolongedexplorationusingmultiple
worksassourcesofinformation(Creswell,2009;Guba,1981).Peerreviewand
expertcritiqueprovidedchecksandbalancesduringtheprocessofdevelopingthe
findings,whilethefinalproductwassubjecttopublicdiscourseandscrutinyatan
internationalleadershipconference.Thesestepsallowedmetoproceedtothe
secondresearchquestionwithaconfidenceinthetrustworthinessofthefindings.
Question2
• Howdoesthesecondaryliteratureextanttoservant‐leadershipoverthelast
40yearsreflecttheessenceofGreenleaf’sconceptualizationasIhave
discernedfromQuestion1?
OncetheessentialconceptualelementshadbeendiscernedfromGreenleaf’s
work,Iwasabletoexplorehowthoseelementswerereflectedwithinthesecondary
53
literatureextanttoservant‐leadership.Thefollowingsectionpresentseachelement
withadescriptionofthefindingsbaseduponthesecondaryliterature.
Anattitudeofresponsibility.
Anattitudeofresponsibilitywasreflectedwithinthesecondaryliteraturein
variousforms.PageandWong(2000)referto“anattitudetowardtheresponsibility
ofleadershipasmuchasitisastyleofleadership”(p.70).Rieser(1995)speaksof
thetendencyinservant‐leadershipforindividualstotakeresponsibilityfor
problemsthatmayarise,somethingthatSanFaconandSpears(2008)extendtoa
thoughtprocessthatalwaystakesintoaccounttheeffectsthatone’s“actionswill
haveonindividualpeople,families,andthelargerfamiliesofthecommunityand
theworld”(p.151).McGee‐Cooper(1998)callsthisan“ultimateaccountability”,in
whichoneacknowledges“ourparticipationinthebiggerpicture”(p.78).Suchan
orientation,accordingtoPalmer(1998),requiresthatone“takespecial
responsibilityforwhat’sgoingoninsidehisorherownself,insidehisorher
consciousness”(p.200).
Thisbroadandallencompassingattitudeofresponsibilityisreflectedinthe
beliefthatwearetheresponsibleco‐creatorsofourreality(Palmer,1998;Smith,
1995;Zohar,2002).Itisbelievedthatbecauseweareresponsibleforthechoices
wemakeandthecreationswepursue,wemustbewillingto“takerisksandto
assumeownership”(Smith,1995,p.206).Palmer(1998)believesthat“weshare
responsibilityforcreatingtheexternalworldbyprojectingeitheraspiritoflightor
aspiritofshadowonthatwhichisotherthanus”(p.200).ThisleadstowhatZohar
(2002)viewsasa“senseofengagementandresponsibility,asenseof‘Ihaveto’”(p.
54
120),connectingtowhatsomeviewasacallingorsenseofpurpose(Bordas,1995;
Jaworski,1998;Sipe&Frick,2009).
Anattitudeofresponsibilityisreflectedinthenotionthatoneiscalled“to
discoverandservetheirowndestiny”;somethingthatJaworski(1998)suggests
brings“greatpersonalresponsibility”(p.261).SipeandFrick(2009)describethis
calltoresponsibilityasaninvitationtoparticipateinsomethinglargerthanoneself,
whichBordas(1995)seesasapersonalpurposethat“beginswiththedesireto
connectwiththe‘greatestgood’,bothwithinoneselfandsociety”(p.180).This
connectiontoandresponsibilityforthegreatergoodthenleadsonetowhat
BarbutoandWheeler(2006),Graham(1991),andPatterson(2003)describeasa
calltoserve.SanFaconandSpears(2008)viewthisasacallingto“serveall–
ourselves,ourlovedones,ourneighbor,ourtribe,ourpeople,otherpeoples,future
generations,otherlifeforms,livingsystems,andevencreationitself”(p.5).The
aboverepresentsquitealistthatreflectswelltheextenttowhichanattitudeof
responsibilityisbelievedtopermeateallaspectsofourlives,inthoughtandaction.
Listening.
Listeningisreflectedinamannerthatrepresentedbyopenness,
understanding,andreflection.McCollum(1995)describesanopennesstothe
perspectivesofothers,whilePeck(1995)believesthattoreallylisten,onemustbe
willing“toemptythemselves…togiveupexpectations”leadingtoanincreasedlevel
ofconsciousness(p.94).Theservant‐leaderalwayslistensfirstwithanopenmind
andflexiblemind(Batten,1998;Lopez,1995;Spears,1995).Anopenandflexible
orientationtoothersgraduallydevelopsintoattentivenessofone’ssurroundings
55
(Jeffries,1998).McCollum(1995)referstoanopennesscouchedinobservationthat
originatesfromtheheart,seekingtotrulyunderstandtherealityofanother.
Ferch(2004)suggests“onlyonewhoisaservantisabletoapproachpeople
firstbylisteningandtryingtounderstand,ratherthanbytryingtoproblemsolveor
lead”(p.232).Truelistening,hesays,hasthecapacityforbuilding“strengthin
otherpeople”(p.232),somethingthatsomefeelisaccomplishedbythemere
presencethatintenseandattentivelisteningcreates(Frick,2011;Gardner,1998).It
isinlisteningthat“servantleadersseektounderstandandempathizewithothers
inordertoidentifyandclarifythewilloftheirgroup”(Washington,Sutton,&Field,
2006,p.702).Listeningrequiresthe“willingnesstosupplement–andtranscend–
personalegowithaninterestinanddesiretounderstandothers”(Sipe&Frick,
2009,p.58).Inseekingtounderstandbeyondone’sownperceptions,onemust
“learntolisten,askquestions,expressdoubt,andlivewithoutanswers”(Block,
1998).SomethingJaworski(1998)extendsto“awillingnesstolisten,yield,and
respondtotheinnervoicethatguidesustowardourdestiny”(p.261).
Cory(1998)suggestslisteningtoourinnervoiceisnecessarysothatwemay
becognizantofourresponsibilityforwhatweareandwhatwecreate.Bordas
(1995)believesthatsucha“self‐insightcanonlybeborninsilence–wemust
withdrawintothedeeperwellofourselves”(p.185).SipeandFrick(2009)describe
thenecessityfor“self‐reflection;thatis,gettingintouchwithone’sinnervoiceand
seekingtounderstandwhatone’sbody,mind,andspiritarecommunicating…it
requireslisteningtooneselffirst”(p.58).Itisthroughthisactofself‐reflection,or
listeningtooneself,thatwecanbegintoengageina“processoflearningtobalance
56
ourthoughts,feelings,andvalueswithouractions”,abalancethatisviewedasa
“crucibleofservant‐leadership”(p.328).Frick(2011)referstoaspiritualjourney
whenonelistenswiththe“mind,senses,heart,andspirit”(p.16),whileWheatley
(1999)urges“wemusttaketimetoreflect”,suggestingtodosoisa“revolutionary
act”(p.3)inthesetroubledtimes.
Awareness.
Awarenessisreflectedasanacknowledgementoftheinterconnectednature
ofourco‐createdreality,inwhich“aservant‐leadercultivatesheightened
awareness,allowinghimtoseeconnectionsbetweenhistory,people,events,
possibilities,anddeepintuition”(Sipe&Frick,2009,p.137).Suchawareness
requiresanunderstandingoftherelationshipbetween“people,processes,
structures,beliefsystems,andahostofotherfactors”(p.139).Jaworski(1998)
describesashiftinourunderstandingfromanatomizedviewofthingstoanotion
“thateverythingisconnectedtoeverythingelseandthatrelationshipisthe
organizingprincipleoftheuniverse.Insteadofseeingtheuniverseasmechanistic,
fixed,anddetermined,webegintoseeitasopen,dynamic,andalive”(p.261).
Gardner(1998)refersto“interrelatedness”anda“deepinternalawareness
ofthewhole”(p.117),whicharefundamentalrealizationsforwhatSenge(1995)
believesarethefoundationalbuildingblocksoforganizations,suchthat“our
institutionsmightbeindeeperharmonywithouremergingunderstandingofthe
physicaluniverseandamorepositiveforceinourincreasinglyinterdependent
world”(p.225).Smith(1995)seesachangeinawarenessthat“involvesseeingand
embracingthepowerofrelationships….therelationshiponehaswithoneself;that
57
onehaswithothers;thatoccurbetweenteams,areas,departments,anddivisions
withinorganizations;andthatoccuramongorganizationswithinsociety”(p.213).
Suchanorientationisconnectedtoanawarenessthat“weparticipatein
creatingthefuture,notbytryingtoimposeourwillonit,butbydeepeningour
collectiveunderstandingofwhatwantstoemergeintheworld,andthenhavingthe
couragetodowhatisrequired”(Jaworski,1998,p.266).One’scourageisbolstered
bythebeliefthat“externalrealitydoesnotimpingeuponusasaprisonorasan
ultimateconstraint”(Palmer,1998,p.199).Instead,anawarenessemergesthatwe
aretheco‐creatorsofourexistence(Zohar,2002),requiringthatoneiscomfortable
withandabletolivewithalargeamountofuncertainty(Jones,2002;Spears,1995).
Thisuncertaintyisdescribedas“livinginthequestion”,cultivatinga
capacityto“letgoofwhatwebelieveoughttobehappening,andindoingsowewill
discoveradeepeningawarenessofwhatisalreadytryingtohappennaturallyinour
life”(p.42).SipeandFrick(2009)suggest“aServant‐Leaderisnotcomfortable
withcomplexitybecausehehasfiguredoutalltheanswers,butbecausehecanlive
withtheremainingquestionsandtruststhatitispossibletoliveintonewanswers”
(p.140).
Intuitiveinsight.
Intuitiveinsightisreflectedasafeelforpatterns,asenseoftheunknown,
andasanimportantaspectofdecisionmaking.Intuition,whenviewedasafeelfor
patterns,allowsonetogainasenseforandtoaccesstheunknownandtheunseen
(Bordas,1995;Rieser,1995).Rieser(1995)purportsthat“therehasbeenserious
neglectoftheintuitiveandspontaneoussideofournature”(p.58).TowhichSipe
58
andFrick(2009)assert,“oneofGreenleaf’smajorcontributionstobusinessthought
wasexplainingtheimportanceofreflectionandintuition”(p.9).Theygoonto
suggest“knowinghowtoaccessintuitionisaprerequisitefordevelopingforesight,
andforthatmatter,fullyunderstandingServantLeadership”(p.106).SanFaconand
Spears(2008)andVanDierendonck(2011)agreethatintuitiveinsightisan
importantskillfordevelopingforesight.Bordas(1995)putsforththat“intuitionis
independentofourreasoningprocess.Itistheabilitytodiscernknowledgefrom
withinourselves”(p.182),though“todevelopintuition,wemustlearntotrustour
hunches,perceptions,andfeelings”(p.189).
Theabilitytotrustourintuitivehunchesandtoactonthemgivesusthe
capacityto“bridgethegaps”inconsciousdecisionmaking(Bordas,1995,p.354).
SomethingJaworski(1998)viewsas“ourabilityto‘intuitthegap’betweenwhat
consciousrationalthoughttellsusandwhatweneedtoknow,betweenwhatisand
whatcanbe”(p.266).SipeandFrick(2009)seethisaspectofdecisionmakingas
mostproblematicforsome,asit“requirestakingtimeawayfromthemattertogain
perspectiveandtodrawuponthewisdomofintuition”(p.9).McCollum(1998)
suggeststheintuitiveaspectofdecisionmaking“requiresanawarenessand
understandingofourinnerlife”(p.328).Somefeelthatintuitionistheentranceto
understandingourcalling(Jeffries,1995),whileothersviewitasanessentialskill
fortheservant‐leader(Frick,1998).
Foresight.
Bordas(1995)describes“foresightasacentralethicofleadership…
groundedinanunderstandingthatthe“past,presentmomentandthefutureare
59
oneorganicunity”(p.186),whileLopez(1995)viewsthepracticeofforesightas
beingableto“seethewayandtopointtoit”(p.155).ForKeith(2008),“exercising
foresightcandomorethanprepareusforthefuture–itcanhelpuscreatethe
futurethatwedesirethemost”(p.55).Similarly,Kim(2004)asserts,“ifweareto
exerciseforesight,weneedtocontinuallyexpandourawarenessandperception,to
takeinmorethanwemightifwekeptthefocusofourattentiontoonarrowand
strictlylogical”(p.208).Hegoesontosaythatforesight,inrelationtomental
models,requires“ustosurface,suspend,andtestourdeepestbeliefsortheories
abouttheworld”(p.212).
Sipe&Frick(2009)suggestforesight“goesbeyond…mostlyanalyticaltools,
takingadvantageofresourcesinthehead,heart,andguttoaccesstheintuitive
mind…thetrickistofocusthebrain’spattern‐generatingcapacitysoitbecomesa
usefultoolforinsight”(p.111).Theyalsoproposeforesightasa“morefocused
applicationofcreativity”(p.122),andanessential“partofthedeepidentityofa
Servant‐Leader”(p.129).Foresightisviewedbymanyasanintegralcomponentof
theservant‐leader’scapacityfordecisionmaking(Frick,1998;Keith,2008;
SanFacon&Spears,2008;Spears,1995;VanDierendonck,2011).Kim(2004)
contends,“thefailuretoleadwithforesightisaethicalfailurebecausewherethere
isnovision,ourpeoplereallydoperish”(p.214).
Creativity.
Creativityisreflectedasemergingfromchaos,fromwithinquestions,andas
anembraceofnewness.Rieser(1995)claims,“itwasGreenleaf’sconvictionthatthe
modernworldhasstifledthecreativityofitsleadersinthestraitjacketofthe
60
rationalandanalytical”(p.51).Freeman,Isaksen,andDorval(2002)suggest,“an
understandingofcreativityisessentialtotheservant‐leader”(p.257),whileSipe
andFrick(2009)seecreativityasanintegral“partofthedeepidentityofaServant‐
Leader”(p.122).Creativityemergesfromconditionsofchaos;somethingPalmer
(1998)believesshouldbefosteredandsupported.Smith(1995)putsforththat
“therearenotriedandtrueblueprintsthatwilldefinitivelyshowustheway,or
showushowtoactoncewearethere”(p.206).Jaworski(1998)believesthata
creativecapacityisoneofthemostfundamentalcomponentsofservant‐leadership.
Thiscapacityforcreativityisreflectedinawillingnesstoacceptuncertainty
andtoseekoutandlivewithinquestions.Jones(2002)suggestsifaquestionor
problemexists,andweapproachitby“inquiringintowhattheanswermightfeelor
looklike,andbeingcuriousaboutit’spossibilities,itwillleadustothingswecould
nothaveplannedwiththestrategicpartofourmind”(p.41).Suchanimmersion
intouncertaintyprovideswhatJonesreferstoasan“experienceofbeinglost”,
duringwhichtimethe“imaginative,sensing,feelingheartcomesmostalive”(p.42).
Wheatley(1999)describesthisasasearchfornewness,andargues,“partofthejob
descriptionofaservantleader…isthatwehavetobethosewhowelcomenewness”
(p.5).Shepointstoan“imperativetocreateoneselfasanexplorationofnewness
andtheneedtoreachoutforrelationshipwithotherstocreatesystems”(Wheatley,
1998,p.341).Thisreflectsa“storyaboutlifethathascreativityandconnectedness
asitsessentialthemes”(p.345).
61
Persuasion.
Persuasionisreflectedbytheapproachthataleadertakestopowerand
influence(Barbuto&Wheeler,2006;Russell&Stone,2002;Spears,1995;
VanDierendonck,2011).Inservant‐leadershippersuasionisthepreferredmethod
ofinfluencereflectingaspecificattitudetowardtheuseofpower(Sipe&Frick,
2009).Servantleadersarethosewho“usepowerethically”andwhoarethus
“buildersofcommunity”(Lopez,1995,p.152).McCollum(1998)describesan
“ethicalbasisthatservesthefeelingofrightnessthatseparatespersuasionfrom
manipulation”(p.336).Intheuseofpersuasionservant‐leadersforgotheactof
control,seekinginsteadtoallowotherstheopportunityforgrowthand
empowerment(Lopez,1995),whichconnectstoMcCollum’s(1998)descriptionof
mentoringasaformofpersuasionusedbyservant‐leaders,“inthesenseofhelping
someonelearnhowto‘be’ratherthanwhatto‘do’”(p.336).Inreferringtothe
wordsofRobertBly,McCollumdescribesmentoringas“averticalprocess–onein
whichyoungmembersofasocietylearnhowto‘be’inthatsociety”(p.337).
Unlimitedliability.
Unlimitedliabilityisreflectedinservant‐leaderswho“takecarethatother’s
highestpriorityneedsarebeingmet”(Sipe&Frick,2009,p.40).Anunlimited
concernforothersisreflectedinprovidingopportunitiesforindividualstomeet
theirhighestpriorityneeds,andto“helpthemgetafeelingofwhatmaturegrowth
involvesandassumesomeresponsibilityfortheirowngrowth”(p.41).The
unlimitedliabilityexpressedbyservant‐leaders(Lopez,1995)containswithinita
“strongsenseofmutuality”(Rieser,1995,p.49),inwhich“morecareisshownfor
62
peoplethantheorganization’sbottomline”(Patterson,2003,p.3).Wheatley
(1999)describesthe“workofbeingaservant‐leader…tobecourageousenoughto
keepyourheartopen”(p.6).
Unlimitedliabilityinthisregardisreferredtoasunconditionallove(McGee‐
Cooper,1998;Sipe&Frick,2009;Stone,Russell,&Patterson,2004),alovethat
“leadstoservingthebestinterestofothers”(Patterson,2003,p.3).Gardner(1998)
describesthisas“beingfullypresent,beingopeninmindandbodyandheart,
listeningunconditionally”(p.124).Anunconditionalconcerniswhatcallsthe
servant‐leadertocareforandappreciateothers(SanFacon&Spears,2008;Stone,
Russell,&Patterson,2004).An“appreciationofothersbyservantleadersreflects
fundamentalpersonalvaluesthatesteemandhonorpeople”(Russell,2001,p.80),
emulatedbythosewho“demonstratealevelofcaringandappreciationthat
unconditionallyaffirmsothers–whoevertheyare,whatevertheircircumstances,
allowingeachpersontofeelunderstoodandappreciated”(Sipe&Frick,2009,p.
53).VanDierendonck(2011)suggeststhislevelofunconditionalconcernand
acceptance“includestheperspectivetakingelementofempathy”(p.7),and“the
outcomeofacceptanceandempathyisthatwewillnotrejecttheotherandwill
thereforebepracticing‘unlimitedliability’”(Lopez,1995,p.153).
Summation.
ThusconcludestherepresentationoffindingsforQuestion2,forwhicha
varietyofstrategieswereusedtoensuredependabilityandcredibility.First,
secondaryliteraturewascollectedoverthecourseofthreeyears,providinga
prolongedimmersionandexposuretothetopic.Second,Dr.CarolynCrippen
63
providedguidanceandfeedbackduringtheprocessesoforganizingthesecondary
literatureandforthereflectiveanalysisseekingreflectionoftheessentialelements
withinsaidliterature.Andlastly,acontinualprocessofreflectiveanalysisallowed
fortheconstantcheckingandquestioningofmeaningasitdevelopedandemerged,
supportedbyconsultationsamongstpeersfamiliarwithservant‐leadership.
Thischapterhaspresentedthefindingsrelevanttothetworesearch
questionsforthisstudy.Thenextchapterprovidesadiscussion,conclusion,some
recommendations,andafinalreflection.
64
Chapter5:Discussion
Thefinalchapterbeginswithadiscussionofthefindingsforquestionone
andquestiontworespectively.Theimplicationsforthefindingsofthisstudyare
thatitdiscernstheessenceofGreenleaf’swork,whichnoscholarorpractitioner
hasadmittedtodoingyet.Italsoacknowledgesandsupportssomeofthemore
prominentworksinthefield,particularlytheworkofSpears(1995)andofSipeand
Frick(2009).TheessenceasIhavediscernedisalsointendedtosparkdialogueand
toturnthegazeofourattentionbacktowhatGreenleafwastryingtocommunicate
some40yearsago.
Question1
• WhatisGreenleaf’sconceptualizationofthenatureandessenceofservant‐
leadershipascommunicatedinhis1991work,andinhisearlyessays
collectedinOnBecomingaServantLeader(1996)?
ThereasonforaskingthefirstquestionwasinresponsetoadiscordthatI
sensedamongstthoseseekingtounderstandservant‐leadership.Thissenseof
discordcalledmetoturnmyattentiontoGreenleaf’soriginalwords,withthe
intentiontoexplorehismessage,whichwouldthenperhapsallowmeto
understandthewiderangeofperspectivesonservant‐leadershipthatothershad
writtenabout.InthatsensethefindingsforquestiononerepresenthowIhave
interpretedGreenleaf,andtheessenceofwhathewastryingtosay.Idon’tfeelas
thoughtheeightessentialelements(anattitudeofresponsibility,listening,
awareness,intuitiveinsight,foresight,creativity,persuasion,unlimitedliability),as
Ihavediscerned,represent“mylist”thatisnowsettocompetewithothers.In
65
responsetoquestionone,theeightessentialelementspresentthefindingsofan
explorationseekingtoprovideclaritytoaconcept.Ibelieved,perhapsintuitively,
thatthediscordIfeltcouldbealleviatedsomebyreturningtothethoughtsof
RobertK.Greenleaf.Thisconceptualfoundationthenprovidedmewiththelens
throughwhichIcouldviewandmakesenseoftheperspectivesofothers.
Limitations.
TheessenceofGreenleaf’sworkasIhavediscernedwasdonetothebestof
myabilities,asfallibleandprodigiousastheymaybe.Itwouldhavebeenmost
prudenttohavebeenabletositdownwithGreenleaf,inordertoengageintrue
dialogue.Inwrittenwordsweonlyhaveinterpretationsandapproximationsofour
experience.TositindialoguewithGreenleafwouldhaveclearlyenhanced
understanding.Isaythisbecausetopicscommontoservant‐leadershipsuchasflux,
flow,change,chaos,anddoubtcanbehardtopindown.Interpretingandreflecting
onthesecanbedifficult,thusafinallimitationisthatIwasnotabletoconverse
withmore“experts”inthefield.IwasfortunatetoworkwithDr.CarolynCrippen,
oneoftheforemostauthoritiesonservant‐leadershipintheworld,buttimeand
tougheconomictimesdidnotallowformeetingswithothergiantsinthefieldsuch
asLarryC.Spears,ShanFerch,DonFrick,AnnMcGee‐Cooper,PeterSenge,and
MargaretWheatley.
Question2
• Howdoesthesecondaryliteratureextanttoservant‐leadershipoverthelast
40yearsreflecttheessenceofGreenleaf’sconceptualizationasIhave
discernedfromQuestion1?
66
OnceIhaddiscernedtheessentialelementsofGreenleaf’sconceptualization,
Iwasthenabletoexplorethesecondaryliteraturetoseehowsaidessencewas
reflected.Ifoundthattheelementsoflistening,anattitudeofresponsibility,
awareness,andanunlimitedliabilitywerewellrepresented,whileintuitiveinsight,
foresight,creativity,andpersuasionwerepresentbutofteninamoreindirect
manner.
Theelementoflisteningwasrepresentedinthenotionsofopennessto
others,understanding,andreflection.Byfarthiselementwasmostprevalent,
thoughmoreemphasiswasgiventotheperceivedactoflistening,ratherthana
deepcommitmenttounderstandingothersandtoengaginginpersonalreflectionto
understandoneself.ThisissomewhatsurprisinggivenGreenleaf’s(1991)habitual
useofthephrase“grantthatImayseeknotsomuchtobeunderstoodasto
understand”(p.19).Apotentialreasonforthisisthatinthemodernorganization
timeisinshortsupply,sothatmomentsofdeeplisteningandreflectionbecome
whatWheatley(1999)referstoasrevolutionaryacts.Mostmodernorganizations,
andtheresearchtheyfund,seeknotrevolutionbutstableandpredictable
environments.Totrulylisten,andengageindialogue,meansthatonemustbeopen
tochangeandwillingtostepintoaworldofuncertainty.
Therewasanaspectofopennesstouncertaintythoughthatwasreflectedin
secondaryliteraturearoundtheelementofawareness.Awarenesswasrepresented
inmanywaysthatconnecttotheiceberganalogyGreenleaf(1991;1996d)often
usedtoillustrateoursenseofknowledgeforboth“below”and“above”the
waterline.Descriptionswithinthesecondaryliteraturesuchasinterconnectivity,
67
interrelatedness,relationship,uncertainty,co‐creation,andtheemergentnatureof
thingsreflectedtheelementofawarenessasGreenleafspokeofit.
Therepresentationofthesenotionsthoughdropsoffifonenarrowstheir
gazetotheliteratureseekingtocreatemeasurableconstructsofservant‐leadership.
Ofthosepresentinglistsofservant‐leadermeasures,onlySpears(1995)and
BarbutoandWheeler(2002)makementionofawarenessasanessential
component.Perhapsagainthisspeakstoaninclinationtowardspredictabilityand
stabilitythatmanyinorganizationalenvironmentsseeknottostrayfrom.In
speakingofinstitutionsthough,Greenleaf’s(1991)responsetotheunrestofthe
1960swasthatinstitutionsneededtoexpandtheirperceptionsofknowledgeand
tosupportnewtrendsinconductthatwereemerging.
Greenleaf(1991),indescribingtheseemergingtrendsspokemuchofthe
greatresponsibilitythatindividualswouldneedtotakeon.Theessentialelementof
anattitudeofresponsibilitywasrepresentedwellinavarietyofways,asauthors
spoketoaccountability,acalling,apurpose,service,andasensethatweareall
responsiblefortheco‐creationofourreality.Someattachedthisattitudeof
responsibilitytothenotionoftrust(Farling,Stone,andWinston,1999;Patterson,
2003;Russell&Stone,2002),whileothersspokeofauthenticityandintegrity
(Laub,2003;Page&Wong,2000;Russell&Stone,2002).Spears(1995)spokeof
responsibilityasacommitmenttothegrowthofothers,somewhatakintowhat
Sendjayaetal.(2008)refertoasresponsiblemorality.
Itwasthroughvariousinterpretationsofresponsibilitythatthenotionof
serviceemergedintheliterature.Theinnatefeeling,throughasenseofpurposeor
68
calling(Barbuto&Wheeler,2002;Sipe&Frick,2009),thatonewasresponsiblefor
othersreflectswellGreenleaf’s(1991)urgingofindividualstobecomeaffirmative
buildersofsocietyandtoviewanyproblemtheyencounterasresiding“inhere”
and“notoutthere”.
Thisaspectofresponsibility,leadingtothedesiretoserve,coupleswellwith
theessentialelementofanunlimitedliability.Ifoundgoodrepresentationwithin
thesecondaryliteraturegroundedindescriptionssuchasunconditionallove,
acceptance,empathy,andcare.Anorientationtowardunlimitedliabilityalso
supportedthedesireforindividualstoserveothers,andprovidedsomedirection
forwhattheappropriatemeanstodosomightbe.Manydescribedunlimited
liabilityasunconditionallove(McGee‐Cooper,1998;Stone,Russell,&Patterson,
2004),whileothersuncomfortablewithsuchfuzzynotionspreferreddescriptors
suchasacceptanceandempathy(Sipe&Frick,2009;VanDierendonck,2011).
Itseemsacommonlyacceptedaspectofservant‐leadership,withinallthe
writings,istheactofcaring.Greenleaf(1991)wentsofarastosaythatthemoment
unlimitedliabilityisdiminishedloveisalsobythesamedegree,whichgivescritics
thebasisforderidingservant‐leadershipasbeingsoft.Itcomesacrossstrongly
thoughwithintheliteraturethatservant‐leadershipputspeoplefirst,andthrough
thegrowthandstrengthofindividualstheorganizationwillflourish(Patterson,
2003;Sipe&Frick,2009;Spears,1995;VanDierendonck,2011).
Asomewhatsurprisinglackofrepresentationfortheessentialelementof
foresightwasfound.Iwouldhaveexpected,givenGreenleaf’s(1991)beliefthat
foresightistheleadthataleaderhasandthatfailuretouseforesightcouldbe
69
viewedasanethicalfailure,therewouldhavebeenmorewhomadereferenceto
foresight(Barbuto&Wheeler,2002;Keith,2008;Sipe&Frick,2009;Spears,1995;
VanDierendonck,2011).Itcouldbethattheelementofforesightisincorporated
intootherdescriptionsofservant‐leadership.Forexample,somerefertovision
(Farling,Stone,&Winston,1999;Page&Wong,2000;Patterson,2003)asa
componentofservant‐leadership,whichcouldeasilybeconstruedasforesight.
What’smissingthoughisanorientationtotimeinwhichGreenleaf(1991)
describesthepast,present,andfutureasoneorganicunity,whichwasonlytouched
onbysome(Bordas,1995;Sipe&Frick,2009).
Connectedtoforesightisintuitiveinsight,whichwasreflectedinonlysome
oftheliteratureasafeelforpatterns,asensefortheunknown,andasanimportant
aspectofdecisionmaking;eventhoughitisreferredtoasanintegralcomponentof
servant‐leadership(Greenleaf,2001;Sipe&Frick,2009).PerhapsRieser’s(1995)
statementthat“therehasbeenaseriousneglectoftheintuitiveandspontaneous
sideofournature”(p.58)isworthnoting.Greenleaf(1996f)hadevenpositioned
intuitiveinsightas“theessentialartistryinone’sleadership”(p.113).
Intuitiveinsight,reflectedbysomeasasensefortheunknown(McCollum,
1998;Jaworski,1998)orasafeelforpatterns(Bordas,1995;Rieser,1995),may
inflictwavesofpanicandanxietyforthosemorecomfortablewiththesupposed
predictabilityoflinearrationalthought.ThoughGreenleaf,indescribingaleader’s
decisionmakingprocess,suggestsintuitionandbeingabletoactuponitisthe
distinguishingfactorfortheeffectiveleader.Itispossible,thatthenotionof
70
intuitionisembeddedwithintheessenceofawareness(Barbuto&Wheeler,2002;
Spears,1995)orevenforesightforthatmatter.
Similartointuitiontheessentialelementofcreativityisratherabsentfrom
thesecondaryliterature,especiallywithintheliteratureseekingtocreatelistsof
measurableconstructs.RussellandStone(2002)refertopioneeringwhichcouldbe
looselyconnectedtocreativity,thoughlackingisGreenleaf’sembracingofand
leapingintotheunknown.Creativityisreflectedinsomeofthesecondaryliterature
asanembraceofnewness,ofchaos,andoflivinginthequestion.
Mostauthors,saveforSipeandFrick(2009),whomakereferenceto
creativitydosofromaworldviewthatembracesthenewscienceofquantum
mechanics(Jaworski,1998;Jones,2002;Smith,1995;Wheatley,1998,1999).Senge
(1995)andKim(2002)provideaclueastowhythismaybethecase,asboth
promoteandfosternewapproachestoorganizing,inwhichsystemstheoryand
learningorganizationsareoffashion.Theoldstyleoforganizing,representedin
muchoftheliterature,lacksanembraceofnewnessandcreativitythatpermeates
allfacetsoflife(Smith,1995;Wheatley,1998).Creativityperhapsrequiresmore
attention,givenGreenleaf’s(1991)referencetocreativityas“theessential
structuraldynamicofleadership”(p.27).
Lastly,theessentialelementofpersuasionisreflectedwithinthesecondary
literatureintermsofpower,influence,andmentoring.Somerefertopersuasionas
thepreferredmethodofinfluenceinanorganization(Barbuto&Wheeler,2006;
Russell&Stone,2002),whileothersfocusmoreonone’sapproachtotheissueof
power(Sipe&Frick,2009;Spears,1995).Persuasionwasreflectedasaformof
71
mentoring(McCollum,1995;Lopez,1995),supportingGreenleaf’s(1991)belief
thatthenumberonepriorityofasocietyshouldbetoprepareyoungpeoplefor
positionsofleadership.
Persuasioncouldbepresentinwhatsomerefertoasabeliefinthe
capacitiesanddeficienciesofothers(Sipe&Frick,2009;Smith,1995).Inthis
regard,whatseemslikeadearthofreferencetopersuasioncouldsimplybethatthe
essentialelementsofunlimitedliabilityandanattitudeofresponsibilityinferthe
ethicaluseofpowerthatGreenleafdescribedinpersuasion.Theomissionof
persuasionforsomemaybeduetotheconstrictingandlimitedviewthatmodern
organizationshaveoftime,anditsapparentlacking.Truepersuasiontakestime,
andultimatelymanifestsinanorganizationalcontextasconsensualdecision
making;thoughagain,theperceptionoflimitedamountsoftimeconstrainsand
restrictsattemptsforitsimplementation.
Inallthereisreasonablerepresentationwithinthesecondaryliterature
extanttoservant‐leadershipoftheeightessentialelementsasIhavediscerned
fromGreenleaf’swriting.Forthemostpartthoughtheessentialelementsare
representedinpiece‐meal,withsmatteringsofoneelementhereandanother
somewhereelse.Thisholdstruebothwithintheso‐calledanecdotalliteratureand
withintheliteratureseekingtocreatemeasurableconstructsofservant‐leadership.
Thisperhapsindicates,giventhatmyinterpretationsarevalid,thatareturnto
Greenleaf’soriginalworkhasbeenprudent.
Thatsaid,thelistoftencharacteristicscreatedbySpears(listening,
empathy,healing,awareness,persuasion,conceptualization,foresight,stewardship,
72
commitmenttothegrowthofothers,andbuildingcommunity)isstilltheclosest
representationtoGreenleaf’sconceptualizationofservant‐leadershipasIhave
discerned.What’smissingthough,isafocusonunlimitedliabilityandanattitudeof
responsibility,whichIbelievearenecessaryconditionsforthedevelopingof
stewardship,commitmenttoothers,empathy,healing,andbuildingcommunity.
Also,itispossiblethatmyinterpretationofintuitiveinsightandcreativityismerely
anotherwayofexpressingconceptualizationandawareness,thoughIbelieve,in
discerningGreenleaf’swork,thatintuitionandcreativitydeserveaplaceunto
themselves.
Finally,ifonedesirestoembarkonanexplorationofservant‐leadership,and
wishestogobeyondTheServantasLeader(1991)andtheessayscollectedinOn
BecomingaServantLeader(1996),IwouldrecommendTheSevenPillarsofServant
Leadership:PracticingtheWisdomofLeadingbyServing,bySipeandFrick(2009).
Inmyestimationtheseauthorsrepresentmosttrulywithoutanypretensethe
essenceofGreenleaf’sconceptualization.Aprolongedexposuretothewritingsof
RobertK.GreenleafleadsmetobelievethatSipeandFrick,alongwithothergiants
suchasLarryC.Spears,GeorgeSanFacon,ShanFerch,ParkerPalmer,Carolyn
Crippen,JosephJaworski,AnnMcGee‐Cooper,PeterSenge,andMargaretWheatley
seemtosomehowgetwhatGreenleafwastryingtosay.Thereareofcourseothers,
butforsomeintuitivereasontheseindividualssimplystandout.
Limitations.
Theprocessfordiscerninghowtheessentialelementsarereflectedwithin
thesecondaryliteraturewasasoloaffair,andthoughIhadtheprivilegeofpeer
73
reviewandexpertfeedbackalongtheway,theproductisbasedonmy
interpretationsalone.Agroupapproachtothistypeofstudymayprovide
interestingresults,thoughthetimeandfinancialconstraintsforthisprocesswould
nothaveallowedforsuchalengthyendeavour.Itisalsoimpossibletocollectallthe
secondaryliteratureonthesubject,thusthereisthepossibilitythatanimportant
pieceofworkwasmissed.Thislimitationwasaddressedthoughbyconsultingwith
otherstoidentifyandensurethatimportantworkswereincluded.Lastly,most
literatureoriginatesfromacorporatecontextwheremeansexisttofundresearch,
leavingoutmanypotentiallyvaluableperspectivesofcommunityandnon‐profit
organizations.
OverallThoughts
Itseemsthatservant‐leadershiprepresentsfirstandforemostawayofbeing
intheworld,oraworldviewthatshapesandinformsone’sinteractionswiththe
world.Thisnotionofadeepinnerqualityisevidentwithintheso‐calledanecdotal
writingsonthesubject,butseemsratherabsentwithinworksseekingtocreate
measurableconstructsoftheservant‐leadershipconcept.Thismaybeduetoa
cautionarynotefrommanywritersthatproblemswithdefiningservant‐leadership
couldstemfromalackofsolidconceptualfoundation(Barbuto&Wheeler,2006;
Farling,Stone,&Winston,1999;Page&Wong,2000).
Muchoftheservant‐leadershipliteraturethoughisnotaimedatcreatinga
standardized,cookie‐cuttertypeframeworkforunderstandingservant‐leadership.
Itseemsthatmostwritershavetakentheessenceofwhattheservant‐leadership
conceptmeanstothem,andhaveappliedittostoriesanddescriptionsoftheirown
74
realities(Ferch,2004;Jones,2002;Lopez1995).Thusmanyofthewriters
describingservant‐leadershipspeaktotheconceptinawaythatisrelevanttotheir
ownperspectives,perhapsindicatingloudlythatservant‐leadershipisindeedaway
ofbeingthatblossomsintoaninfinitearrayofrepresentations.
Manywritershavecommentedthatservant‐leadershipisanindividualpath
thatweavesthroughacomplexwebofrelationshipsandsystems(Jaworski,1998;
Jones,2002;Sipe&Frick,2009).Thepotentialfordifferentiationincharacterized
orbehavioraloutcomesisimmense,andgrowslargerintheabsenceofanagreed
uponandthoroughlyconsideredconceptualfoundation.Moreproblematictothe
searchforstandardizationistheinevitabledifferencethatemergesgivenavariety
ofinstitutional,societal,cultural,andcommunitycontexts.
Therelationalaspectsofservant‐leadershipspeaktoaviewofleadership
thatpromotesmutualunderstandingandasenseofresponsibilityforcreating
ratherthanimpedingordestroying.Thisviewofleadershipplantstheseedsforthe
promotionofthegreatergood,orofthecommongood,assomeprefertodescribe
(Bordas,1995).IbelievethiswasoneofGreenleaf’sgreatestgoals,somethingIlike
torefertoasasortof“appliedhumanity”blueprintormoralpraxisforthenew
ages.
Conclusion
ForthreeyearsIhavebeenimmersedinthetopicofservant‐leadership,
duringwhichtimeIsensedadiscordastohowitwasperceived.Inoticedthismost
apparentlywithintheliteratureseekingtocreatemeasurableconstructsofservant‐
leadership,whichseemedtoindicateaproblemwithitsconceptualization.Ithus
75
venturedforthtoexplorethisproblem,firstbydiscerninganessenceofservant‐
leadershipfromGreenleaf’swritingusingreflectiveanalysis.ThroughthisprocessI
interpretedeightessentialelements,whichwere:anattitudeofresponsibility,
listening,awareness,intuitiveinsight,foresight,creativity,persuasion,and
unlimitedliability.
Ithenexploredthesecondaryliteratureextanttoservant‐leadership,
seekingtodescribehowGreenleaf’sconceptualization,asIhaddiscerned,was
represented.Ifoundrepresentationofeachelementinvariousforms,though
findingapieceofworkthatreflectedalleightproveddifficult.However,Ididfind
thatLarrySpears,arecognizedpioneerinservant‐leadership,cameclosestto
reflectingalleightelementsasIhaddiscerned.Thisisperhapsnosurprisegiven
BarbutoandWheeler’s(2006)beliefthatSpears,outofallthoseseekingtopresent
listsofservant‐leadership,comesclosesttotheoriginalwritingsofGreenleaf.
Thatisuntil2009,whenSipeandFrickputtogetherabookcalledTheSeven
PillarsofServantLeadership:PracticingtheWisdomofLeadingbyServing.Ifound
thatthisbookmostaptlyreflectedtheessentialelementsofGreenleaf’swritingasI
haddiscerned,anditmanagestodosofromaperspectiveofcorporate
organization.Wastheirworktheresultofaleapoffaithontheirpart?Wasittheir
willingnesstofollowtheirintuitionandtopushintouncharteredwaters?Whatever
theimpetusandsourceofinspiration,SipeandFrickactedwithforesightto
producearecommendedreadingforanystudentseekingtoexploreand
understandtheconceptofservant‐leadership.
76
RecommendationsandNextSteps
Thefollowingfiverecommendationsstemfromtheresearchfindingsand
aremeanttosuggestpossibledirectionsforfutureresearch.
Recommendation1:Engageindialogue.
AdialogueaboutGreenleaf’soriginalworkseemsappropriategiventhe
acknowledgedlackofconceptualfoundationsthatcouldleadtowardanagreed
uponunderstanding.Suchadialoguecouldhelptofocuseffortsinseekingto
discerndescriptionsofbehaviours,attributes,orcharacteristicsthatonemay
emulatewhenadoptingaservant‐leadershipworldview.Itcouldalsoturnattention
backtotheoriginalworksofGreenleafprovidingananchorforthecreationof
sharedmeaninganddialogue.
Recommendation2:FollowVanDierendonck’slead.
VanDierendonck(2011)suggestsdifferentiatingbetween“antecedents,
behaviours,mediatingprocesses,andoutcomes”(p.27)asanapproachtothestudy
ofservant‐leadership.Suchanapproachcanprovideanorganizedresearch
structureformovingtowardanunderstandingoftheservant‐leadershipconcept.
Recommendation3:Explorevariedcontexts.
Muchoftheworktodateonservant‐leadershipexistsintherealmof
businessandorganizationaltheory.Expandingthehorizonsofinquirytoinclude
settingssuchascommunity,family,relationship,sport,art,andsoforth,maylead
towardamoreholisticandaccuraterepresentationoftheservant‐leadership
concept.Thefactthemuchresearchandstudyoriginatesfromthebusinessrealm
needstobeconsideredasabiasofsortsandhasyettobeaddressed.
77
Recommendation4:Explorehistoricalroots.
Greenleaf,anacknowledgedQuaker,pointstoameldingofProtestantand
easternreligiousworldviewsthatcontributedtohisconceptionofservant‐
leadership.HecreditsreadingHesse’sJourneytotheEastasasourceofinspiration
forTheServantasLeader,andhintsatotherinfluencesinsomeofhiswritings.
GreenleafalludestomanygreatthinkerssuchasPauloFreire,KurtLewin,Albert
Camus,AldousHuxley,RalphWaldoEmerson,AlfredKorzybski,andErikEriksonto
namejustafew.Anexplorationofthesethinkersandothersmayhelptocreatean
evenricherunderstandingofthebreadthanddepthofservant‐leadership.
Recommendation5:Exploretheconceptoffollowership.
Greenleafspokeofacontinuuminherentinservant‐leadershipinwhichone
movedbetweenleadingandfollowing.Theconceptoffollowershipisquitenewbut
mayprovideinsightandadeeperunderstandingofservant‐leadership.Itmaybe
thattheleadership‐followershipcontinuumisrelatedinsomemannertothe
relationshipbetweenservantandleader.Thiscouldbeavaluablecontributionto
thestudyofservant‐leadership,leadingtowardabroaderunderstandingof
influenceprocessesthataresynonymouswithleadership.
FinalReflections
Itseemsnecessary,iftheservant‐leadershipconceptistoflourishandgrow,
thatpractitionersandscholarsrevisitGreenleaf’smessage.Iamsurethateach
individualwhoreadsGreenleaf’soriginalworkwillhaveadifferentandunique
perspectiveofservant‐leadership.Thus,Ibelievethatadialogueconcerningthe
essenceoftheconceptisimportant,beforeanyfurtherdissolutionofitssubstance
78
occurs.IhopemyinterpretationofferingeightessentialelementsofGreenleaf’s
(1991,1996a,1996b,1996c,1996d,1996e,1996f,1996g,1996h,1996j,1996k,
1996m,1996n,1996o)workencouragessuchadialogue.
ItseemstomethatforRobertK.Greenleafitwasthepromotionofthe
greatergoodthatlayattheheartofhisimmensecontribution.Thedifficultyfor
mostisthathechosetoneitherdictatenorprescribe,buttorathersharesome
insightsthathadoccurredtohimalonghisownlife‐longseekingjourney;ajourney
inwhichhemarveledatthemysteryandwonderoftheworld,somethingthathe
hopedtopersuadeotherstodoaswell.
79
References
Avolio,B.J,Waldman,D.,&Yammarino,F.(1991).Leadinginthe1990s:ThefourIs
oftransformationalleadership.JournalofEuropeanIndustrialTraining,15(4),
9‐16.
Avolio,B.J.,Walumba,F.O.,&Weber,T.J.(2009).Leadership:Currenttheories,
research,andfuturedirections.AnnualReviewofPsychology,60,421‐429.
Barbuto,J.E.,&Wheeler,D.W.(2002).Becomingaservantleader:Doyouhavewhat
ittakes?NebGuideG021481A.Lincoln:UniversityofNebraska,Nebraska
CooperativeExtension.
Barbuto,J.E.,&Wheeler,D.W.(2006).Scaledevelopmentandconstructclarification
ofservantleadership.GroupandOrganizationManagement,31(3),300‐326.
Bass,B.M.(1985).Leadershipandperformancebeyondexpectations.NewYork:Free
Press.
Batten,J.(1998).Servant‐leadership:Apassiontoserve.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),
Insightsonleadership:Service,stewardship,spirit,andservantleadership(pp.
38‐53).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.
Beazley,H.,&Beggs,J.(2002).Teachingservant‐leadership.InL.C.Spears&M.
Lawrence(Eds.),Focusonleadership:Servantleadershipforthetwentyfirst
century(pp.53‐63).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.
Block,P.(1998).Fromleadershiptocitizenship.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),Insightson
leadership:Service,stewardship,spirit,andservantleadership(pp.87‐95).New
York:Wiley&Sons,Inc.
80
Bogdan,R.C.,&Biklen,S.K.(2007).Qualitativeresearchforeducation:An
introductiontotheoriesandmethods(5thed.).Boston,MA:PearsonA&B.
Bogdan,R.,&Taylor,S.J.(1975).Introductiontoqualitativeresearchmethods:A
phenomenologicalapproachtothesocialsciences.NewYork,NY:JohnWiley
andSons,Inc.
Bordas,J.(1995).Powerandpassion:Findingpersonalpurpose.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),
ReflectionsonLeadership:HowRobertK.Greenleaf’stheoryofservant
leadershipinfluencedtoday’stopmanagementthinkers(pp.179‐193).New
York:Wiley&Sons,Inc.
Burns,J.M.(1978).Leadership.NewYork:HarperandRow.
Concept.(1997).NelsonCanadianDictionaryoftheEnglishLanguage:An
EncyclopedicReference(tradeed.,p.287).Scarborough,Ontario:ITPNelson.
Construct.(1997).NelsonCanadianDictionaryoftheEnglishLanguage:An
EncyclopedicReference(tradeed.,p.298).Scarborough,Ontario:ITPNelson.
Creswell,J.W.(1998).Qualitativeinquiryandresearchdesign:Choosingamongfive
traditions.ThousandOaks,CA:SAGEPublicationsInc.
Creswell,J.W.(2009).Researchdesign:Qualitative,quantitative,andmixedmethods
approaches(3rded.).ThousandOaks,CA:SAGEPublicationsInc.
Creswell,J.W.,Hanson,W.E.,PlanoClark,V.L.,&Morales,A.(2007).Qualitative
researchdesign:Selectionandimplementation.TheCounsellingPsychologist,
35(2),236‐264.
Crippen,C.(2005).Thedemocraticschool:Firsttoserve,thentolead.Canadian
JournalofEducationalAdministrationandPolicy,47,1‐17.
81
Denzin,N.K.(1994).Theartofpoliticandinterpretation.InN.K.Denzin,&Y.S.
Lincoln(Eds.),Handbookofqualitativeresearch(pp.500‐515).Thousand
Oaks,CA:SagePublications.
DiStefano,J.J.(1995).TracingthevisionandimpactofRobertK.Greenleaf.InL.C.
Spears(Ed.),ReflectionsonLeadership:HowRobertK.Greenleaf’stheoryof
servantleadershipinfluencedtoday’stopmanagementthinkers(pp.61‐78).
NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.
Essence.(1997).NelsonCanadianDictionaryoftheEnglishLanguage:An
EncyclopedicReference(tradeed.,p.469).Scarborough,Ontario:ITPNelson.
Farling,M.L.,Stone,A.G.,&Winston,B.E.(1999).Servantleadership:Settingthe
stageforempiricalresearch.JournalofLeadershipStudies,1(2),49‐72.
Ferch,S.R.(2004).Servant‐leadership,forgiveness,andsocialjustice.InL.C.Spears,
&M.Lawrence(Eds.),Practicingservantleadership:Succeedingthroughtrust,
bravery,andforgiveness(pp.225‐239).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐Bass.
Freeman,T.L.,Isaksen,S.G.,&Dorval,K.B.(2002).Servant‐leadershipandcreativity.
InL.C.Spears&M.Lawrence(Eds.),Focusonleadership:Servantleadershipfor
thetwentyfirstcentury,(pp.257‐267).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.
Frick,D.M.(1995).Pyramids,circles,andgardens:Storiesofimplementingservant‐
leadership.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),ReflectionsonLeadership:HowRobertK.
Greenleaf’stheoryofservantleadershipinfluencedtoday’stopmanagement
thinkers(pp.257‐281).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.
Frick,D.M.,&Spears,L.C.(1996).Onbecomingaservantleader.SanFrancisco,CA:
Josey‐BassInc.
82
Frick,D.M.(1998).Afterward:UnderstandingRobertK.Greenleafandservant‐
leadership.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),Insightsonleadership:Service,stewardship,
spirit,andservantleadership(pp.353‐358).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.
Frick,D.M(2011).Greenleafandservantleaderlistening.Westfield,IN:The
GreenleafCenterforServantLeadership.
Gall,M.D.,Gall,J.P.,&Borg,W.R.(2007).Educationalresearch:Anintroduction(8th
ed.).Boston,MA:PearsonEducationInc.
Gardner,J.J.(1998).Quietpresence:Theholygroundofleadership.InL.C.Spears
(Ed.),Insightsonleadership:Service,stewardship,spirit,andservantleadership
(pp.116‐125).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.
Giarelli,J.M.,&Chambliss,J.J.(1988).Philosophyofeducationasqualitativeinquiry.
InR.R.Sherman,&R.B.Webb(Eds.),Qualitativeresearchineducation:Focus
andmethods(pp.30‐43).Philadelphia,PA:TheFalmerPress.
Graham,J.W.(1991).Servant‐leadershipinorganizations:Inspirationalandmoral.
LeadershipQuarterly,2(2),105‐119.
Greenleaf,R.K.(1991).Theservantasleader.Westfield,IN:TheGreenleafCenterfor
ServantLeadership.
Greenleaf,R.K.(1996a).Thesearch.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.Spears(Eds.),Onbecoming
aservantleader(pp.31‐40).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐BassInc.
Greenleaf,R.K.(1996b).Therequirementsofresponsibility.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.
Spears(Eds.),Onbecomingaservantleader(pp.41‐52).SanFrancisco,CA:
Josey‐BassInc.
83
Greenleaf,R.K.(1996c).Thepracticeofopenness.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.Spears(Eds.),
Onbecomingaservantleader(pp.65‐72).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐BassInc.
Greenleaf,R.K.(1996d).Thefutureisnow.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.Spears(Eds.),On
becomingaservantleader(pp.73‐80).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐BassInc.
Greenleaf,R.K.(1996e).Purposeandlaughter.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.Spears(Eds.),On
becomingaservantleader(pp.91‐98).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐BassInc.
Greenleaf,R.K.(1996f).Businessethicsandmanipulation.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.
Spears(Eds.),Onbecomingaservantleader(pp.109‐126).SanFrancisco,CA:
Josey‐BassInc.
Greenleaf,R.K.(1996g).Coercion,manipulation,andpersuasion:Reflectionsona
strategyforchange.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.Spears(Eds.),Onbecomingaservant
leader(pp.127‐148).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐BassInc.
Greenleaf,R.K.(1996h).Buildingtheethicofstrengthinbusiness.InD.M.Frick,&
L.C.Spears(Eds.),Onbecomingaservantleader(pp.163‐176).SanFrancisco,
CA:Josey‐BassInc.
Greenleaf,R.K.(1996j).Thecrisisofleadership.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.Spears(Eds.),
Onbecomingaservantleader(pp.287‐297).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐BassInc.
Greenleaf,R.K.(1996k).Thestrategiesofaleader.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.Spears(Eds.),
Onbecomingaservantleader(pp.299‐311).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐BassInc.
Greenleaf,R.K.(1996m).Leadershipandtheunknown.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.Spears
(Eds.),Onbecomingaservantleader(pp.313‐316).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐
BassInc.
84
Greenleaf,R.K.(1996n).Leadershipandforesight.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.Spears(Eds.),
Onbecomingaservantleader(pp.317‐326).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐BassInc.
Greenleaf,R.K.(1996o).Theindividualasleader.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.Spears(Eds.),
Onbecomingaservantleader(pp.327‐338).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐BassInc.
Guba,E.G.(1981).ERIC/ECTJAnnualreviewpaper:Criteriaforassessingthe
trustworthinessofnaturalisticinquiries.EducationalCommunicationand
Technology,29(2),75‐91.
Janesick,V.J.(1994).Thedanceofqualitativeresearch.InN.K.Denzin,&Y.S.Lincoln
(Eds.),Handbookofqualitativeresearch(pp.209‐219).ThousandOaks,CA:
SagePublications.
Jaworski,J.(1998).Destinyandtheleader.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),Insightson
leadership:Service,stewardship,spirit,andservantleadership(pp.258‐267).
NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.
Jaworski,J.(2002).Synchronicityandservant‐leadership.InL.C.Spears&M.
Lawrence(Eds.),Focusonleadership:Servantleadershipforthetwentyfirst
century(pp.287‐293).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.
Jeffries,E.(1998).Workasacalling.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),Insightsonleadership:
Service,stewardship,spirit,andservantleadership(pp.29‐37).NewYork:
Wiley&Sons,Inc.
Jones,M.(2002).Servant‐leadershipandtheimaginativelife.InL.C.Spears&M.
Lawrence(Eds.),Focusonleadership:Servantleadershipforthetwentyfirst
century(pp.35‐45).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.
85
Keith,K.M.(2008).Thecaseforservantleadership.Westfield,IN:TheGreenleaf
CenterforServantLeadership.
Kim,D.H.(2004).Foresightasthecentralethicofleadership.InL.C.Spears,&M.
Lawrence(Eds.),Practicingservantleadership:Succeedingthroughtrust,
bravery,andforgiveness(pp.201‐224).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐Bass.
Lad,L.J.,&Luechauer,D.(1998).Onthepathtoservant‐leadership.InL.C.Spears
(Ed.),Insightsonleadership:Service,stewardship,spirit,andservantleadership
(pp.54‐67).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.
Laub,J.(2003).Frompaternalismtotheservantorganization:Expandingthe
organizationalleadershipassessment(OLA)model.ServantLeadership
ResearchRoundtableProceedings.Retrievedfrom
http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/home.cfm
Liden,R.C.,Wayne,S.J.,Zhao,H.,&Henderson,D.(2008).Servantleadership:
Developmentofamultidimensionalmeasureandmulti‐levelassessment.The
LeadershipQuarterly,19(2),161‐177.
Lopez,I.O.(1995).Becomingaservant‐leader:Thepersonaldevelopmentpath.In
L.C.Spears(Ed.),ReflectionsonLeadership:HowRobertK.Greenleaf’stheoryof
servantleadershipinfluencedtoday’stopmanagementthinkers(pp.149‐160).
NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.
McCollum,J.(1995).Chaos,complexity,andservant‐leadership.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),
ReflectionsonLeadership:HowRobertK.Greenleaf’stheoryofservant
leadershipinfluencedtoday’stopmanagementthinkers(pp.241‐256).New
York:Wiley&Sons,Inc.
86
McCollum,J.N.(1998).Theinside‐outproposition:Finding(andkeeping)our
balanceincontemporaryorganizations.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),Insightson
leadership:Service,stewardship,spirit,andservantleadership(pp.326‐339).
NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.
McGeeCooper,A.(1998).Accountabilityascovenant:Thetaprootofservant‐
leadership.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),Insightsonleadership:Service,stewardship,
spirit,andservantleadership(pp.77‐84).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.
Neill,M.W.,&Saunders,N.S.(2008).Servantleadership:Enhancingqualityofcare
andstaffsatisfaction.TheJournalofNursingStudies,38(9),395‐400.
Noblit,G.W.,&Hare,R.D.(1988).Metaethnography:Synthesizingqualitativestudies.
NewburyPark,CA:SagePublications.
Page,D.,&Wong,P.T.P.(2000).Aconceptualframeworkformeasuringservant
leadership.InS.Adjibolooso(Ed.),Thehumanfactorinshapingthecourseof
historyanddevelopment(pp.69‐110).Washington,DC:AmericanUniversity
Press.
Palmer,P.J.(1998).Leadingfromwithin.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),Insightsonleadership:
Service,stewardship,spirit,andservantleadership(pp.197‐208).NewYork:
Wiley&Sons,Inc.
Parolini,J.,Patterson,K.,&Winston,B.(2009).Distinguishingbetween
transformationalandservantleadership.LeadershipandOrganization
DevelopmentJournal,30(3),274‐291.
87
Patterson,K.(2003).Servantleadership:Atheoreticalmodel.ServantLeadership
ResearchRoundtableProceedings.Retrievedfrom
http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/home.cfm
Polleys,M.S.(2002).Oneuniversity’sresponsetotheanti‐leadershipvaccine:
Developingservantleaders.TheJournalofLeadershipStudies,8(3),117‐130.
Prosser,S.(2010).Servantleadership:Morephilosophy,lesstheory.Westfield,IN:
TheGreenleafCenterforServantLeadership.
Rasmussen,T.(1995).Creatingacultureofservant‐leadership:Areallifestory.In
L.C.Spears(Ed.),ReflectionsonLeadership:HowRobertK.Greenleaf’stheoryof
servantleadershipinfluencedtoday’stopmanagementthinkers(pp.282‐297).
NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.
Rieser,C.(1995).Claimingservant‐leadershipasyourheritage.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),
ReflectionsonLeadership:HowRobertK.Greenleaf’stheoryofservant
leadershipinfluencedtoday’stopmanagementthinkers(pp.49‐60).NewYork:
Wiley&Sons,Inc.
Rost,J.C.(1991).Leadershipforthetwentyfirstcentury.NewYork,NY:Praeger.
Russell,R.F.(2001).Theroleofvaluesinservantleadership.Leadershipand
OrganizationDevelopmentJournal,22(2),76‐83.
Russell,R.F.(2003).Apracticaltheologyofservantleadership.ServantLeadership
ResearchRoundtableProceedings.Retrievedfrom
http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/home.cfm
88
Russell,R.F.,&Stone,A.G.(2002).Areviewofservantleadershipattributes:
Developingapracticalmodel.LeadershipandOrganizationDevelopment
Journal,23(3),145‐157.
SanFacon,G.,&Spears,L.C.(2008).HolisticServantleadership.Indianapolis,IN:The
SpearsCenterforServantLeadership.
Sendjaya,S.(2003).Developmentandvalidationofservantleadershipbehaviour
scale.ServantLeadershipResearchRoundtable,Retrievedfrom
https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/home.cfm
Sendjaya,S.,&Sarros,J.C.(2002).Servantleadership:Itsorigin,development,and
applicationinorganizations.JournalofLeadershipandOrganizationalStudies,
9(2),57‐64.
Sendjaya,S.,Sarros,J.C.,&Santora,J.C.(2008).Definingandmeasuringservant
leadershipbehaviourinorganizations.JournalofManagementStudies,45(2),
402‐424.
Senge,P.M.(1995).RobertGreenleaf’slegacy:Anewfoundationfortwenty‐first
centuryinstitutions.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),ReflectionsonLeadership:HowRobert
K.Greenleaf’stheoryofservantleadershipinfluencedtoday’stopmanagement
thinkers(pp.217‐240).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.
Shank,G.D.(2006).Qualitativeresearch:Apersonalskillsapproach(2ndEd.).Upper
SaddleRiver,NJ:PearsonEducation,Inc.
Sherman,R.R.,&Webb,R.B.(1988).Qualitativeresearchineducation:Afocus.In
R.R.Sherman,&R.B.Webb(Eds.),Qualitativeresearchineducation:Focusand
methods(pp.2‐21).Philadelphia,PA:TheFalmerPress.
89
Sipe,J.W.,&Frick,D.M.(2009).Sevenpillarsofservantleadership:Practicingthe
wisdomofleadingbyserving.Mahwah,NJ:PaulistPress.
Smith,R.W.(1995).Servant‐leadership:Apathwaytotheemergingterritory.InL.C.
Spears(Ed.),ReflectionsonLeadership:HowRobertK.Greenleaf’stheoryof
servantleadershipinfluencedtoday’stopmanagementthinkers(pp.198‐213).
NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.
Spears,L.C.(1995).Introduction:Servant‐leadershipandtheGreenleaflegacy.In
L.C.Spears(Ed.),ReflectionsonLeadership:HowRobertK.Greenleaf’stheoryof
servantleadershipinfluencedtoday’stopmanagementthinkers(pp.1‐14).New
York:Wiley&Sons,Inc.
Spears,L.C.(1998).Introduction:Tracingthegrowingimpactofservant‐leadership.
InL.C.Spears(Ed.),Insightsonleadership:Service,stewardship,spirit,and
servantleadership(pp.1‐12).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.
Stanton,T.K.,Giles,D.E.,&Cruz,N.I.(1999).Servicelearning:Amovementspioneers
reflectonitsorigins,practice,andfuture.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey‐BassInc.
Stone,A.G.,Russell,R.F.,&Patterson,K.(2004).Transformationalversusservant
leadership:Adifferenceinleaderfocus.LeadershipandOrganization
DevelopmentJournal,25(4),349‐361.
VanDierendonck,D.(2011).Servantleadership:Areviewandsynthesis.Journalof
Management,37(4),12281261.
Wallace,J.R.(2007).Servantleadership:Aworldviewperspective.International
JournalofLeadershipStudies,2(2),114‐132.
90
Washington,R.R.,Sutton,C.D.,&Field,H.S.(2006).Individualdifferencesinservant
leadership:Therolesofvaluesandpersonality.LeadershipandOrganization
DevelopmentJournal,27(8),700‐716.
Wheatley,M.J.(1998).Whatisourwork?InL.C.Spears(Ed.),Insightsonleadership:
Service,stewardship,spirit,andservantleadership(pp.340‐351).NewYork:
Wiley&Sons,Inc.
Wheatley,M.J.(1999).Servant‐leadershipandcommunityleadershipinthe21st
century.Keynoteaddress,TheRobertK.GreenleafCenterforServantLeadership
AnnualConference,June1999,retrievedfrom
http://www.margaretwheatley.com/articles/servantleader.html
Wheatley,M.(2006).Leadershipandthenewscience:Discoveringorderinachaotic
world.SanFrancisco,CA:Berrett‐KoehlerPublishers.
Zohar,D.(2002).Servant‐leadershipandrewiringthecorporatebrain.InL.C.
Spears&M.Lawrence(Eds.),Focusonleadership:Servantleadershipforthe
twentyfirstcentury(pp.111‐121).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.