View
120
Download
4
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Servant Leadership Theory: Application of the Construct of Service in the
Context of Kenyan Leaders and Managers
Submitted to Regent University
School of Leadership Studies
In partial fulfillment of the Requirements
For the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Organizational Leadership
Jeremiah Ntaloi Ole Koshal
April 2005
UMI Number: 3188226
31882262005
Copyright 2005 byKoshal, Jeremiah Ntaloi Ole
UMI MicroformCopyright
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
All rights reserved.
by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
ii
iii
Abstract
By extending the research of Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory, this
dissertation explores the acceptability and applicability of servant leadership
theory’s construct of service in the context of Kenyan leaders and managers. The
study examines 25 leaders and managers from varied organizational settings.
From the analysis of the responses, it emerged that (a) role modeling, (b)
sacrificing for others, (c) meeting the needs of others (employees) and
developing them, (d) service as a primary function of leadership, (e) recognizing
and rewarding employees, (f) treating employees with respect (humility), and (g)
involving others in decision making are prevalent themes reminiscent to
Patterson’s servant leadership theory’s construct of service. Thus, the construct
of service has acceptability and applicability among Kenyan leaders and
managers.
iv
Acknowledgements
To God, for sufficient grace throughout the process of this dissertation.
To all my 15 brothers and sisters, especially Joshua and Samuel, for their
immeasurable moral support and perpetual prayers. Though you were all tens of
thousands of miles away, I knew you were thinking and praying for me.
To my community of Naikarra, for making me feel loved. Your support
and good will is something that I will always remember and treasure.
To my best friend, Dr. Steven Kiruswa, for the good example you have set
in academia so that I could follow. You are part of the reason why I got into this
program. We have indeed wintered and summered together.
To my friends Rev. Dr. Jan and Dave McCray, Al and Gail Barrett, Michael
Alban, Barbara Rosato, and Charles and Lauren Havener, for their prayers and
financial contributions toward the data collection for this project. Many thanks to
you guys!
To my best couples, Amos and Emmy Miring’u, for opening up their home
for me while I was collecting data, and to Joseph and Edna Mpaa, for the
unlimited usage of their car during the process of data collection.
To Dr. John Mulford, for making it possible for me to get into this program
by way of scholarship. Also, thank you for the opportunity of working with you.
To Dr. Bruce Winston, my committee chair, for insisting on rigor and
academic fervor. I appreciate your patience, efficiency and promptness—what an
example of a servant leader you have been! God bless you, sir!
v
To Dr. Kathleen Patterson and Dr. Corne Bekker, for being so supportive
as committee members.
vi
Definition of Key Terms
Several terms are instrumental to this study and, therefore, they are worth
defining:
Leader. Any member who consistently acts on behalf of and for the benefit
of others (Noonan, 2003). Leaders are those who serve their followers and are
first experienced as servants (Bass, 2000; Greenleaf, 1977).
Leadership. Involves a process whereby one person exerts intentional
influence over other people to guide, structure, and facilitate activities and
relationships in the organization (Rost, 1993; Yukl, 2002). It is one of the highest
forms of service, which is best exercised when it freely motivates others to a
decision that is really theirs, but which may never have been reached without the
leader’s influence (Murray, 1997).
Servant Leader. One who directs attention away from himself or herself to
focus on the followers (Weinstein, 1998; William, 1994). Servant leaders focus
more on the well being of their followers than that of the organization (Patterson,
2003). They listen to their followers, as well as support and redirect them to make
sure they have made a difference in their lives and that they have also impacted
the organization (Blanchard, 1997).
Servant Leadership. An understanding and practice of leadership that
places the good of those led over the self-interests of the leader (Laub, 1999).
Servant leadership inspires the leader to give up personal rights to find greatness
in service to others (Bass, 2000; Blanchard, 2000; Greenleaf, 1977; Meyer,
Brown, & Browne, 1998; Spears, 1995, 1996).
vii
Service. The act of benefiting others or rendering help to someone else
(Kanungo & Conger, 1993), meeting others’ needs (Cohen, 2003), a concern for
others over one’s self (Conger & Kanungo, 1998), a release of ego and
understanding that a true sense of self connects us with the rest of humanity
(Lopez, 1995). “Service is the reason for leadership” and it should not be seen
merely as a qualification for leadership but an end of leadership (Bradley, 1999,
p. 49).
Harambee. A Swahili (a language spoken in East and Central Africa) word
for “pulling together” (Chieni, 1997). Its alternative linguistic interpretation is
derivation from the twin words halahala and mbee, which signify “doing things
quickly and collectively with a forward connotation” (Yassin, 2004, para. 7).
Harambee embodies and reflects the strong ancient value of mutual assistance,
joint effort, mutual social responsibility, and community self-reliance, which
became sort of a voluntary movement in post-independence and has continued
to play an absolutely cardinal role in local development initiatives in Kenya
(Bailey, 1993; Chieni; Mbithi & Rasmusson, 1977; Shikuku, 2000; Wilson, 1992).
Chief. An individual in the traditional African set up that represented a king
and one who would never impose his decision on his council or people. The chief
did not rule, he served and led by consensus (Ayittey, 1992).
Ubuntu. A focus on the person not living for himself or herself but rather
living for others (Gakuru, 1998; Mamadou, 1991; Mazrui, 1986)
Individualism. A cognitive recognition of one’s existence, and as
Descartes declared, “I think—hence I am” (as cited in Ellsworth, 2002, p. 227).
viii
Individualism is the atomistic notion that a community is no more than the sum of
the individuals in it. An individualistic system is driven by competition and
materialism (Waddock, 2002).
Collectivism. Serves in many ways as a counterpoint to individualism, and
is characterized by an emphasis on community (i.e., people who live together
and share similar ideologies or backgrounds). Under collectivist systems, people
believe that the needs and interests of the community take precedence over
those of individuals (Fairholm, 1997; Waddock, 2002).
In-depth interviewing. A type of interview that researchers utilize to elicit
information in order to achieve a holistic understanding of the interviewee’s point
of view or situation. It involves asking informants open-ended questions, and
probing them wherever necessary to obtain deep, “rich” and salient data deemed
useful by the researcher (Mason, 2002).
ix
Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................iii Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................iv Definition of Key Terms ........................................................................................vi List of Tables ........................................................................................................xi Chapter One: Introduction .................................................................................... 1
Purpose and Rationale of Study ....................................................................... 4 Research Question ........................................................................................... 5 Expected Findings ............................................................................................ 6 Research Postulate........................................................................................... 8 Method and Analysis......................................................................................... 8 Importance of the Study.................................................................................. 12 Limitations of the Study................................................................................... 14
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ............................................................... 16 Definition of Service ........................................................................................ 16 Servant Leadership Theory............................................................................. 20 Patterson’s (2003) Definition of Servant Leadership Theory........................... 26 Leadership and Service in the African Context ............................................... 32 The Kenyan Philosophy of Harambee ............................................................ 36 Summary and Hypotheses.............................................................................. 42
Chapter Three: Method and Procedure .............................................................. 44 Description of Research Design...................................................................... 44 Reliability and Validity ..................................................................................... 47 Research Participants..................................................................................... 50 Instrumentation ............................................................................................... 52 Data Collection................................................................................................ 52 Standardized Open-ended Interview............................................................... 53 Interview Procedure ........................................................................................ 54 Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 57 Summarizing Data .......................................................................................... 58 Coding Data .................................................................................................... 58 Interpreting Data ............................................................................................. 59 Limitations of the Study................................................................................... 60
x
Summary......................................................................................................... 61 Chapter Four: Findings....................................................................................... 63
Description of the Research Participants ........................................................ 63 Role Modeling ................................................................................................. 67 Sacrificing for Others ...................................................................................... 74 Meeting the Needs of Others (Employees) and Developing Them ................. 81 Service as a Primary Function of Leadership.................................................. 90 Recognizing and Rewarding Employees ........................................................ 97 Treating Employees with Respect (Humility)................................................. 105 Involving Others (Employees) in Decision Making ........................................ 113 Chapter Summary......................................................................................... 121
Chapter Five: Discussion.................................................................................. 126 Leadership and Service in the African Context ............................................. 126 The Kenyan Philosophy of Harambee .......................................................... 129 Commentary on the Findings ........................................................................ 131 Role Modeling ............................................................................................... 132 Sacrificing for Others .................................................................................... 133 Meeting the Needs of Others (Employees) and Developing Them ............... 134 Service as a Primary Function of Leadership................................................ 135 Recognizing and Rewarding Employees ...................................................... 136 Treating Employees with Respect (Humility)................................................. 137 Involving Others in Decision Making ............................................................. 139 Recommendations for Future Research ....................................................... 140 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 141
References ....................................................................................................... 143 Appendix A ....................................................................................................... 154
xi
List of Tables
Table 1 Participants by Organizational Sectors .................................................. 64
Table 2 Participants by Gender .......................................................................... 65
Table 3 Demographic Profile of Participants....................................................... 66
Table 4 Participants’ Comments on Role Modeling ............................................ 68
Table 5 Participants’ Statements on Sacrificing for Others................................. 74
Table 6 Participants’ statements on meeting the needs of others and developing
them ............................................................................................................ 82
Table 7 Participants’ Comments on Service as a Primary Function of Leadership
.................................................................................................................... 91
Table 8 Participants’ Comments on Recognizing and Rewarding Employees ... 98
Table 9 Participants’ Statements and Comments on treating and showing
Respect for Others .................................................................................... 105
Table 10 Participants’ Comments and Statements on Involving Others in
Decision-making........................................................................................ 114
Table 11 Participants’ Responses and Frequency leading to the 7 Categories
(Overriding Themes) ................................................................................. 123
1
Chapter One: Introduction
Snyder, Dowd, and Houghton (1994) posited that writers who study
leadership advocate that one of the primary motivations of leadership should be
serving others. Service to others calls for leaders, who genuinely serve others’
needs (Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996; Murray, 1997; Nair, 1994), meaning that a
strong relationship exists between service and leadership (“A draft,” 2000; Bass,
1995; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Bradley, 1999; Fuller, 2000; Murray; Nair; T’Shaka,
1990; Taninecz, 2002). Sarkus (1996) observed that much of the current
literature that supports serving and valuing people has been presaged by the
work of Robert K. Greenleaf. Servant leadership, which is a paradigm of
leadership based on the philosophy of Greenleaf (1977), calls for leaders to be of
service to others (e.g., employees, customers, and communities), to give more
than they take, and to serve others’ needs more than their own. Though
Greenleaf is the one most responsible for popularizing the theory of servant
leadership (Spears, 1996), the theory has been practiced for many years
throughout all cultures (Nyabadza, 2003).
Two key notions underlie the various definitions of servant leadership:
First, servant leadership emphasizes service (Blanchard, 2000; Farling, Stone, &
Winston, 1999; Greenleaf; Lee & Zemko, 1993; Lubin, 2001; Melrose, 1995;
Russel & Stone, 2002; Sarkus; Spears, 1995, 1996, 1998; Spears & Lawrence,
2002; Tatum, 1995; Wis, 2002), and second, servant leadership is other-centered
rather than leader or self-centered (Covey, 2002; Fairholm, 1997; Greenleaf;
Joseph, 1997; Kouzes & Posner, 1993; Laub, 1999; Melrose; Pollard, 1997;
2
Spears & Lawrence; Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2003). Similarly, according to
Saunders (1993), servant leadership means supporting others in their growth and
development. Blanchard (1997) and Yukl (2002) posited that servant leaders
listen to their people, praise them, support them, and learn about their needs. In
other words, they are constantly trying to find out what their needs are in order to
be successful. Some of these characteristics, including service, appear in the list
of characteristics that are central to the development of servant leaders (Spears,
1995, 1996, 1998, 2002). Thus, the emergence of servant leadership is likely to
meet the deep desire in our society for a world where people truly care for one
another, where workers and customers are treated fairly, and where the leaders
can be trusted to serve the needs of their followers rather than their own (Spears,
1998).
To help create a platform for more specific research on servant
leadership, Patterson (2003) developed a working theory of servant leadership
comprising the constructs of agapao love, humility, altruism, vision, trust,
empowerment, and service. The idea of service is at the core of servant
leadership theory and it occurs as the leader serves others, mainly his or her
followers (Arjoon, 2000). Though servant leadership crosses all boundaries and
is being applied by myriad organizations (Spears, 1996), the theory is mainly
concentrated in North American organizations (Autry, 2001; Branch, 1999;
Douglas, 2003; Galvin, 2001; Levering & Moskowitz, 2000, 2001; McLaughlin,
2001; Pollard, 1997; Rubin, Powers, Tulacz, Winston, & Krizan, 2002; Spears,
1996; Spears & Lawrence, 2002; Taninecz, 2002), where it has provided a
3
means for companies to value their people in order to be successful (Fletcher,
1999; Lowe, 1998). Thus, Patterson’s servant leadership theory and the
construct of service may be contextually constrained. In other words, the theory,
and more specifically the construct of service, needs research in various contexts
in order to see if it applies in varied cultural and organizational settings like
Kenya.
A study by Nelson (2003), which explored Patterson’s (2003) servant
leadership theory (i.e., all constructs: altruism, empowerment, humility, love,
service, trust, and vision) among black leaders in South Africa, found that
Patterson’s servant leadership theory has acceptability and applicability among
black leaders in South African organizations even though there were some
contextual concerns. Capitalizing on the ubuntu philosophy, which focuses on the
person not living for himself or herself, but rather living for others (“An afro-
centric,” 2001; Dia, 1994; Mamadou, 1991; Mazrui, 1986; Mbiti, 1969; Mibigi &
Maree, 1995; Wright, 1984), Nelson found service to be the primary function of
leadership among black leaders in South Africa. Service was not based on the
leaders’ own interests, but rather on the interests and welfare of their employees.
The study, however, is limited in the sense that it can only be generalized to
black leaders in South African organizations. Thus, there is need to undertake a
similar study in the Kenyan context.
The fact that ubuntu and other concepts and philosophies that relate to
serving others (e.g., “I am because we are: and since we are, therefore I am”)
(Mbiti, 1969, p.10) are widely shared across Africa, would mean that servant
4
leadership, and the construct of service might be positively received by the
Kenyan leaders and managers. The traditional African leadership set-up has
been more intent on reaching consensus (Ayittey, 1992; Mamadou; Mersha,
2000) and has always placed the community’s interest ahead of its own. Even
the African communities themselves believed that the welfare of an individual
means the welfare of the entire community (Bell, 2002; Gakuru, 1998; Mamadou;
Waiguchu, Tiagha, & Mwaura, 1999; Wright). Furthermore, the Kenyan
philosophy of harambee, which was adopted by Jomo Kenyatta who was the
founding president (Chieni, 1997; Versely, 1997), is based on African traditions of
community cooperation and mutual aid (Hill, 1991; Mbithi & Rasmusson, 1977;
Ngau, 1987). It embodies and reflects a strong ancient value of mutual
assistance and community reliance (Bailey, 1993; Chieni; Ngau; Shikuku, 2000;
Yassin, 2004). The harambee philosophy, which is usually used in the discussion
of economic and social developments (Chieni; Ngau), became a kind of voluntary
movement in post-independence (after 1963) and has continued to play an
absolutely cardinal role in local development initiatives or projects (Bailey, 1993;
Chieni; Hill; Ndegwa, 1996; Ngau; Wilson, 1992).
Purpose and Rationale of Study
The purpose of this study is to build on Patterson’s (2003) work on servant
leadership theory. By developing a working theory of servant leadership,
Patterson opened the door to empirical research on the theory. Further, as a
possibility for more research, Patterson indicated that the theory needs
contextual research–-that is looking to see if the theory applies in varied cultural
5
settings and, if so, how it looks in such settings. Nelson’s (2003) study, which
explored Patterson’s servant leadership theory (i.e., all constructs: altruism,
empowerment, humility, love, service, trust, and vision) among black leaders in
South Africa, found that Patterson’s servant leadership theory has acceptability
and applicability among black leaders in South African organizations even though
there were some contextual concerns. Nelson’s study, however, can only be
generalized to black leaders in South African organizations. Thus, this study
specifically seeks to explore the acceptability and applicability of Patterson’s
servant leadership theory’s construct of service among Kenyan leaders and
managers of varied ethnic origins. The study also seeks to determine if the
construct of service can be applied in organizational settings throughout Kenya.
Research Question
This study stems from Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory, which
premises that the primary focus of servant leaders is serving their followers.
Servant leaders are more concerned with the followers’ welfare than the
organization. Autry (2001), a top-selling author and former CEO of Meredith
Corporation says in his book, The Servant Leader: How to Build a Creative
Team, Develop Great Morale, and Improve Bottom-line Performance, “service to
others” is the most efficient way to lead. In other words, servant leaders should
always seek to find if their colleagues have grown professionally during their
leadership tenure. Bradley (1999) stated, “Service is the reason for leadership”
(p. 49). Service is not seen merely as a qualification for leadership but as an end
of leadership. Therefore, this study seeks to do the following:
6
1. Determine if Patterson’s servant leadership theory’s construct of service
has validity and acceptability in Kenyan organizations.
2. Determine if, and to what degree, Kenyan leaders and managers of varied
organizational backgrounds (settings) apply Patterson’s servant
leadership theory’s construct of service with their followers.
Expected Findings
Many researchers have argued for the universality of servant leadership
theory. According to Spears (1996) and Tatum (1995), servant leadership
crosses all boundaries and is being applied by a wide variety of people working
for myriad organizations. Bradley (1999) pointed out that servant leadership
theory should find a “home” in numerous religions and philosophies. Similarly,
Nair (1994) noted that the importance of service to leadership has also been
acknowledged and practiced for many years. For instance, the ancient monarchs
acknowledged that they were in the service of their country and their people.
Today’s modern coronation ceremonies and inaugurations of heads of state
would always acknowledge their service to God, country, and the people.
According to Taninecz (2002), history’s greatest leaders (e.g., Jesus Christ,
Confucius, Gandhi, and Buddha) have been servant leaders. Similarly, in ancient
West Africa, the king was the servant and shepherd of the people (T’Shaka,
1990). Further, in South Africa each tribe had (as is still today) a traditional leader
who did not exercise as an autonomous individual but in collaboration with a
tribal council that represented the people. People saw him as a spiritual, cultural,
and judicial leader (“A draft,” 2000). Since the above statements about servant
7
leadership are presumed to be applicable to most cultural settings, it is expected
that the responses from the Kenyan leaders and managers on servant leadership
theory’s construct of service would reflect this assertion.
According to Rowe (2003), servant leadership is embedded in many
indigenous cultures. Moreover, anthropologists demonstrate that people who led
others in tribal situations very often were the servants of others. These cultures
were holistic, cooperative, and communal. Mamadou (1991) and Mersha (2000)
presented the African culture as being characteristically similar to this
description. For instance, though led by a chief, most decisions affecting the
African people were based on consensus more than litigation by the book.
Similarly, in the African traditional social-set up people regarded each other as
brothers and sisters. African communities strongly believed that the welfare of an
individual means the welfare of the whole community (Ayittey, 1992; Gakuru,
1998; Mbiti, 1969). Giving a specific example from Kenya, the philosophy of
harambee, meaning “let us all pull together” embodies ideas of mutual
assistance, joint effort, and community self-reliance (Bailey, 1993; Chieni, 1997;
Hill, 1991; Shikuku, 2000; Wilson, 1992). The efforts of the people, private sector,
and the government come together in a cooperative endeavor to speed up
development. Thus, it is expected that the Kenyan leaders and managers accept
and apply servant leadership theory’s construct of service.
Further, the results of the study undertaken by Nelson (2003), which
examined the validity and acceptability of Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership
theory in the context of black leaders in South Africa, found the theory to be
8
applicable and acceptable though it has some contextual constrains. Capitalizing
on the ubuntu philosophy, which focuses on the person not living for himself or
herself but rather living for others (“An afro-centric,” 2001; Dia, 1994; Mamadou,
1991; Mazrui, 1986; Mbiti, 1969), Nelson found service to be the primary function
of leadership among black leaders in South Africa. Service was not based on the
leaders’ own interests but rather on the interests and welfare of their employees.
Thus, though Nelson’s study is limited in the sense that it can only be
generalized to black leaders in South African organizations, the fact that ubuntu
and other concepts or philosophies relating to serving others are widely shared
across Africa would mean that this study might be positively received by the
Kenyan leaders and managers.
Research Postulate
The primary postulate in the study is that Patterson’s (2003) servant
leadership theory’s construct of service has acceptance and applicability among
Kenyan leaders and managers of varied organizational backgrounds.
Method and Analysis
This study seeks to examine Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership
theory’s construct of service (i.e., acceptance and applicability) in the context of
Kenyan leaders and managers. Since not much research has been done on
servant leadership, especially in cross-cultural settings, this study calls for a
qualitative investigation that will attempt to enhance existing literature through
revelation of details not captured in qualitative inquiry (Creswell, 1994; Merriam,
9
1998). The proposed research lends itself to qualitative inquiry because the
researcher seeks reality as seen by the participants in the study (Maxwell, 1996).
Miles and Huberman (1996) also associated qualitative studies with certain
strengths, which are pertinent to this study.
Qualitative inquiry typically focuses in depth on relatively small samples,
selected purposefully. The logic and power behind purposeful or theoretical
sampling lie in selecting information-rich cases for study in-depth (Bryman &
Burgess, 1999; Mason, 2002; Patton, 2002). Theoretical sampling provides just
enough data since the researcher will look for indicators of saturation (Morse &
Richards, 2002; Seidman, 1998; Yin, 1994). Using a theory-based sampling
strategy, which is one of the strategies for purposefully and theoretically selecting
information-rich cases, this study will select 25 leaders and managers (from the
executive and upper management) from Kenyan organizations, to examine using
the in-depth interviewing (standardized open-ended) technique (Huberman &
Miles, 2002; Mason; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Rubin & Rubin, 1995). The
sample population of leaders and managers is selected based on the theory-
driven criteria for being a servant leader. These leaders and managers, who
seem to espouse Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory’s construct of
service and the Kenyan harambee philosophy, represent corporate
organizations, governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), and institutions of higher learning (e.g., universities and colleges), all of
which are perceived to practice servant leadership as stipulated in their mission
or vision statements. To do justice to the research question, the researcher used
10
the following predetermined questions, along with probes (or follow-up) in order
to understand or verify the participants’ understanding of ethnocentristic or cross-
cultural reading of concepts like harambee.
1. Like the harambee philosophy, which is guided by the principle of
collective good rather than individual gain, consider service as putting
others’ welfare (e.g., employees, customers, and community) and interest
first. Service is caring for others enough to facilitate their growth,
development, and success without expecting any reward. In light of this
description, what is your own understanding of service? What do you see
as the role of service in your organization?
2. Leadership being the process whereby the leader (one who acts for the
benefit of others) exerts influence over others (e.g., employees) in the
organization, do you see service as the primary function of leadership?
Why? Why not?
3. Do leaders in this organization understand that serving others is most
important? For instance, do they reflect an overarching helping concern
for others (e.g., employees) without any regard for self-interest, even
when such concern involves considerable sacrifice or inconvenience (i.e.,
harming self-interest) on their part? Are they the type of leaders that would
rather give more than take (e.g., resources and time), and serve others’
needs rather than theirs? In other words, do they view employees as the
most important resource of the organization and as having an intrinsic
value that goes beyond their tangible contributions as workers?
11
4. Service occurs when we naturally and authentically claim and champion
someone else’s excellence, success, and fulfillment. In light of this, how
do leaders in this organization feel about serving or helping others (their
followers)? Do they have the spontaneity, the commitment, and the
appreciation for what it takes to perform beyond self-imposed limitations?
5. Service may be demonstrated in many different ways: by role modeling
(leading by example), through humility, showing respect for others
(acknowledging one’s self-worth), listening, praising, supporting, and
redirecting them when they deviate from goals. In light of this, how do
leaders in this organization demonstrate service to their followers?
6. Some organizations may observe service through collective-problem
solving based on consensus, seeking involvement in decision-making, and
creating a sense of community whereby people are bound by a fellowship
of endeavor (social interactions) rather than coercion, genuine concern
rather than instrumental manipulation, and commitment to mutual goals.
Can you comment on this?
7. An increasing number of organizations have adopted service as part of
their corporate philosophy. They recognize the importance of service to
others that is to be felt, understood, believed, and practiced. In light of this,
do you think that the construct of service is good? Why? Do you think that
your organization would adopt it?
There are three distinct components to the analysis of the data collected
during this study. The first component consists of the transcription of the data
12
(material) collected from the in-depth interviews (Rubin & Rubin, 1995; Walsh,
2003). The second component consists of coding the transcribed data and
material using NUD*IST, a computer program that provides for non-numerical
unstructured data indexing, categorizing, searching, and concept and theory
building. The third and final component involves the synthesis (interpretation) of
the results of the first and second components (Patton, 2002; Rubin & Rubin;
Walsh). Since the main goal of qualitative research is to demonstrate the
trustworthiness of the findings (Walsh), the researcher addressed the questions
of validity and reliability by making the data collection methods and analyses
detailed and explicit (Creswell, 1996; Huberman & Miles, 2002; Mason, 2002;
Merriam, 1998; Yin, 1994).
Importance of the Study
The concept of servant leadership is not new. Though Greenleaf, who is
perceived as the father of servant leadership, was only able to coin the concept
in 1970 (Spears, 1996) in order to bring to the forefront the perspective that
leaders are those that are servants first; the theory has been around for many
years (Greenleaf, 1977; Nyabadza, 2003). Patterson (2003) developed a working
theory of servant leadership comprising of the constructs of agapao love,
humility, altruism, vision, trust, empowerment, and service, which helps create a
platform for more specific research. One of Patterson’s main concerns was that
the theory needs researching contextually, to see if it applies in varied cultural
settings and if so, how the theory looks in various organizational settings. Thus,
through this study, servant leadership theory and the construct of service in
13
particular is likely to receive further contextual validation in varied cultural and
organizational settings.
According to Rubin et al. (2002) and Spears (1996), servant leadership
theory has already been used to transform modern corporations in North
America. Individuals within such corporations have adopted servant leadership
as a guiding philosophy. An increasing number of organizations have adopted
the theory as part of their corporate philosophy (e.g., as part of their mission
statement). Further, the theory has also influenced many of today’s noted writers
(e.g., Max DePree, Peter Senge, Peter Block, and James Autry), to mention but
a few. Lloyd (1996) observed that leadership theory that is based on the concept
of service is now the central paradigm in current leadership literature; however,
there are still major challenges to be made in this area. With more research of
this magnitude, servant leadership is likely to become even more influential and
impacting in the realm of leadership studies throughout the world. Thus, the
results of this study solidified the appropriateness of the theory’s construct of
service and also put it on the limelight to globalization and internationalization.
Further, the theory of servant leadership can be used as a template for
training and instilling the attitude of service in the Kenyan organizations, which
have been plagued by poor service emanating from leaders that focus on
themselves instead of focusing on their followers, customers, and the community
at large. Though the African philosophy (e.g., the Kenyan philosophy of
harambee) promotes a caring culture, where people are suppose to show
concern and care for one another, there is need to transform organizations
14
through servant leadership by igniting and invoking such cultural iconic
statements. There is a need for leaders who see themselves as servants in
Kenya today.
Limitations of the Study
This study has several important limitations that should be addressed.
Like many qualitative studies, which utilize a version of theoretical (or purposive)
sampling (Mason, 2002) this study limits generalization by focusing on only a few
leaders from the fields of business, government, non-governmental, and
educational institutions (universities) in Kenya. Thus, though the results will be
meaningful theoretically and empirically, they are not generalizable to a larger
universe (Yin, 1994).
Because the researcher is usually in the presence of the informants only
briefly, and must draw inference from what happened during that brief period to
the rest of the informants’ life, interviewing poses some special problems for
internal generalizability (Huberman & Miles, 2002).
In addition, the resources (e.g., time and money) available in this study
limited the researcher to a particular geographical region, Kenya, as well as to
just a handful of organizations. And, although the results are generalizable to
theoretical propositions (Yin, 1994), a more diverse sampling would evince
greater clarity. Further, the results found in this study may potentially be
somewhat idiosyncratic of the sample.
Finally, as with most qualitative methods of inquiry, the researcher is the
primary instrument for gathering and analyzing data. As a human instrument, the
15
researcher is limited by being human. In other words, mistakes are made,
opportunities are missed, and personal biases interfere (Merriam, 1998). The
researcher is not neutral, distant, or emotionally uninvolved (Rubin & Rubin,
1995). Therefore, complete objectivity is not feasible. The researcher may have
brought personal experience into the study, which may have transcended
interpretation and influenced data analysis.
16
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
In order to understand the construct of service in the context of Kenyan
leaders and managers, which was the fundamental objective of this study, the
following review of the literature mainly concentrates on:
1. The definition of the concept of service.
2. Servant leadership theory (Greenleaf, 1977).
3. Definition of Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory.
4. Leadership and service in the African context.
5. The Kenyan philosophy of harambee.
Definition of Service
Writers, who study leadership, advocate that one of the primary
motivations of leadership should be serving others. In their book, Vision, Values
and Courage, Snyder et al. (1994) argued that a real customer focus requires
leadership with service to others—an interest in or an orientation to other people
that places importance on their well-being. Murray (1997), who is a consultant in
philanthropy, submitted that the servant leadership concept has maximum
opportunity to portray its value when practiced within the framework of
philanthropy. Philanthropy encourages the sharing of resources, talents, time,
and effort on the part of those who have to those who do not–-all of which are
part of service. Murray further observed that there are quotes after quotes, which
underscore service:
17
Albert Schweitz, a physician, whose love for others took him to Africa, said
as follows in a commencement speech: “I don’t know what your destiny
will be, but one thing I know: the only ones among you who will be truly
happy are those who have sought and found how to serve.” Marian Wright
Edelman, known for her concern for underprivileged children, said:
“Service is what life is all about; it never occurred to me not to be involved
in the community.” Charles F. Kettering, one of America’s great inventors
had this to say: “You have got to be a servant to somebody or something.”
Sebastian Kresge, founder of what have become K-Mart and the well
known foundation carrying his name, urged: “Find out where you can
render a service, and then render it. The rest is up to the lord.” (p. 3)
According to Murray, these four personalities have made a difference in society
and they challenge everyone to carve out a niche in their home, neighborhood,
town, or suburb, or even at the national level to serve others. Living to serve
others brings the greatest joy that humans can experience.
According to Nair (1994), Mahatma Gandhi placed before us a higher
standard of leadership based on an enduring spirit of personal service. Gandhi,
who is acknowledged as a servant leader says: “We must place service at the
core” (as cited in Nair, p. 59). Gandhi further challenged leaders to treat others
as themselves, for the ideal service is selfless service: you see everybody as
yourself and expect no reward. According to Kanungo and Mendonca (1996),
there is an increasing realization today for business leaders to become more
responsible, not just to their stockholders but also to other stakeholders (e.g.,
18
consumers, employees, suppliers, the government, and the local communities).
Nair noted the existence of service in business between companies and their
customers, shareholders, management, and employees, a relationship that is
mainly sustained by altruistic behaviors, which reflect a helping concern for
others without any regard for self-interest, even when such concern involves
considerable personal sacrifice or inconvenience (i.e., harming self-interest)
(Kanungo & Mendonca).
Nair (1994) further observed a strong connection between service and
leadership. Service is an important component of leadership, which has been
acknowledged and practiced for many years. For instance, the ancient monarchs
acknowledged that they were in the service of their country and their people.
Today’s modern coronation ceremonies and inaugurations of heads of state also
acknowledge their service to God, country, and the people. Taninecz (2002)
observed that history’s greatest leaders (e.g., Jesus Christ, Confucius, Gandhi,
and Buddha) have been servant leaders. Such leaders treated and inspired their
followers by serving them. Thus, the success of future corporate leaders will not
be measured by the market share, profit, and increased shareholding alone, but
by their effectiveness as missionaries, stewards, and custodians of the human
spirit.
According to Fuller (2000), Confucius believed one who leads must be
able to discern the characteristics of the group (i.e., what it can or cannot do) and
also honor God, for such a tradition encourages self-discipline and self-
overcoming behavior, which are paramount requirements for a good leader.
19
While this is true of Confucius, Thomas Aquinas saw a Christian leader (like
Jesus) as a servant of the people in detachment from the trappings of worldly
success that go with ruling positions. We are also by nature members of
communities and thus responsible to and for each other. T’Shaka (1990) noted
that in ancient West Africa, the king was the servant and shepherd of the people.
In other words, his main and most important function was to serve the people.
This shows that African democracy was collective, communal, and rooted in the
will of the people contrary to the notion that indigenous African political tradition
was dictatorial (only a few despotic leaders existed). Prior to colonialism in South
Africa, a number of tribal regimes based on patriarchy and ascriptive norms
existed. Each tribe, as is still today, had a traditional leader, who did not exercise
as an autonomous individual but in collaboration with a tribal council that
represented the people. People saw him not only as a spiritual, cultural, and
judicial leader, but also as the custodian of the values of his community. His
leadership role was a bonding factor as he was responsible for the common good
(“A draft,” 2000).
Similarly, Murray (1997) posited that leadership is one of the highest
forms of service and it is best exercised when it freely motivates others to a
decision that is really theirs–-but which may never have been reached without
the leader’s beneficial influence. Likewise, Bradley (1999) stated, “Service is the
reason for leadership” (p. 49), it is not seen merely as a qualification for
leadership but an end of leadership. Though she acknowledged servant
leadership as having made its mark in the leadership literature, Bradley offered a
20
critique of the concept by looking at its origins, the Biblical interpretations to it,
and the benefit for leadership practice in educational organizations. Bradley
found the idea of serving others as a fine attitude for all humans to adopt, in
whatever role that they might be cast. Bass (1995) said that enlightened
leadership is service and not selfishness. The leader grows more and lasts
longer by placing the well being of others above one’s own. As per Bennis and
Nanus (1985), leaders must understand that one of their primary functions as
leaders is to serve the needs of their constituents. While talking about the new
leader, Bennis and Nanus observed the leadership of service as the pivotal force
behind successful organizations. If this is true, then this study will find that
Kenyan leaders and managers understand and apply the construct of service in
organizational settings throughout Kenya.
Servant Leadership Theory
Sarkus (1996) observed that much of the current literature that supports
serving and valuing people has been presaged by the work of Greenleaf (servant
leadership). The emphasis on servant leadership is to humbly serve without
expectation to be served by those who follow. The model establishes service as
the gift that attracts followers who in turn pass along this same gift. Though
Greenleaf (1977) is the one most responsible for popularizing the theory of
servant leadership for the last 30 years, the theory has been practiced for
centuries upon centuries throughout all cultures (Nyabadza, 2003). Greenleaf
popularized the concept of servant leadership through an essay titled The
Servant as Leader, and a later book incorporating that essay Servant
21
Leadership: A Journey Into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness.
Greenleaf credited Herman Hesse’s Journey to the East (1956) as the source of
his idea of the servant leader. Greenleaf coined the concept in 1970 (Spears,
1996) in order to bring to the forefront the perspective that leaders are those that
are servants first. He proposed, “The great leader is seen as servant first, and
that simple fact is the key to his greatness” (Greenleaf, p. 21). For Greenleaf,
servant leadership:
Begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then
conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply
different from one who is leader first. The difference manifests itself in the
care taken by the servant—first to make sure that other people’s highest
priority needs are being served. (p. 27)
Greenleaf, argued that the best test of servant leadership is
Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become
healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to
become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in
society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived? (p. 27)
Two key notions underlie the various definitions servant leadership:
service and other-centered (Greenleaf, 1977). Farling et al. (1999) posited that
service is the core of servant leadership. In other words, servant leaders know
they are servants first. In their study, which presented a theoretical model of
servant leadership that assimilates the literature-based variables of vision,
credibility, trust, and service, Farling et al. argued that service is and should be a
22
primary function of leadership, and that it should not be based on one’s own
interests, but rather on the interests and welfare of others. Russell and Stone
(2002) concurred that service is the core of servant leadership and that this
service is a choice over self-interest. In their study, which presented values and
attributes (i.e., vision, honesty, integrity, truth, modeling, pioneering, appreciation
of others, empowerment, and service) as the starting point of a practical model of
servant leadership, Russell and Stone proffered that service and concern for the
welfare of others are central aspects of the model. To Wis (2002), the servant
leader is called to serve and he or she sees life in totality as a mission of service.
While reiterating Greenleaf’s philosophy, Lee and Zemko (1993) observed that
leaders exist only to serve their followers and they earn their followers’ trust only
by virtue of their selfless natures. Servant leadership emphasizes service to
others as a holistic approach to work, personal development, and shared
decision making. Such characteristics are in the mainstream of conventional talk
about empowerment, total quality, and participative management.
By looking at all of Greenleaf’s works, Spears (1995, 1998) discussed
servant leadership as a model that puts serving others–-including employees,
customers, and community–-as the number one priority. Servant leadership
emphasizes increased service to others, a holistic approach to work, the
promotion of a sense of community, and a deepening understanding of the spirit
in the workplace. Further, servant leaders are known to deeply commit
themselves to the personal, professional, and spiritual growth of those in their
sphere of influence (Spears, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2002). In other words, servant
23
leaders serve out of compassion and concern for people, and out of a desire to
promote and celebrate every individual within their circle of influence. And better
than other leadership models, servant leadership promotes opportunities for
corporate success because people work and live best in a community where they
genuinely serve each other’s needs (Melrose, 1995).
While talking about his new book, Leadership by the Book: Tools to
Transform your Workplace, Blanchard (2000) pointed us to two kinds of leaders:
those who are leaders first and those who are servants first. While those who are
leaders first tend to be controlling in terms of decision making and giving of
orders, those who are servants first only assume leadership if they see it as an
opportunity to serve. Instead of being driven, servant leaders are called to lead
because they naturally want to be helpful. Perhaps, the notion of a deep desire in
our society today for leaders, who humbly serve without expectation to be served
by those who follow (Sarkus, 1996) and who can be trusted to serve the needs of
the many rather than the few (Spears, 1998), makes great sense. Moreover,
leaders who become aware of servant leadership know they serve more than the
company, more than markets or products, and more than even vision or values.
Such leaders turn business around by putting emphasis on serving others (Lubin,
2001). Thus, Tatum (1995) is somewhat right in saying that servant leadership is
not the special domain of any one religious group or any one profit or nonprofit
group but rather the domain of those caught up in the spirit of service.
Servant leadership is other-centered. According to Greenleaf (1977),
servant leaders are concerned with the less privileged in society and strive to
24
help others grow as persons. They want to help those they serve become
“healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, and more likely themselves to become
leaders” (Greenleaf, p. 27). Laub (1999) viewed servant leadership in the context
of promoting, valuing, and developing others, which calls for the building of
community and sharing of power and status for the common good of each
individual, the total organization, and those served by the organization. While
developing an instrument for assessing organizational leadership, Laub
advocated the use of workgroups or teams that are small enough to allow group
members to become a community, with strong collaborative relationships. This is
in line with servant leadership, which is inclusive rather than exclusive.
According to Joseph (1997), servant leadership is about “careacting”–-that
is devoting serious attention to doing things in the service of others. Joseph
further observed that at the core of servant leadership are collectivist
assumptions: one must submit one’s individualistic will to the collective good in
order to be a servant leader. Pollard (1997) saw the need for love and care for
the led if a sense of community is to be built. Servant leadership promotes a
more open and cooperative working environment (Melrose, 1995), where the
task is to serve the team needs as well as organizational needs. When talking
about the basis of servant leadership, Fairholm (1997) saw our task as to serve
self, the team needs, and our fellow workers with all our heart and our mind and
to do so unreservedly. Serving the team and organizational needs calls for
leaders who recognize the importance of the metaphor of community. Fortune
500 executive, Jim Autry (1991), observed that the workplace is becoming
25
today’s neighborhood or community. Leaders who recognize the importance of
the metaphor of community energize people to take actions that support higher
organizational purposes rather than self-interests. Such leaders also emphasize
consensus in decision making (Kouzes & Posner, 1993). Stone et al. (2003)
show in their study that servant leadership differs from transformational
leadership (perhaps the most popular concept in the leadership field today)
primarily because of a leader focus on others. The servant leader’s focus is on
the followers, and achievement of organizational objectives is a subordinate
outcome. Thus, the focus on others is the distinguishing feature of servant
leadership.
According to Saunders (1993), servant leadership is also about supporting
others in their growth and development. A supporting system for others demands
that we have the courage to brush our egos aside in order to care enough about
them so as to facilitate their success. As part of supporting others, Blanchard
(1997) posited that servant leaders listen to their people, praise them, and
redirect them when they deviate from goals. In other words, servant leaders are
constantly trying to find out what their followers’ needs are in order to help them
succeed. This is due to the fact that they have genuine interests in making a
difference in their lives. Similarly, in echoing the work of Greenleaf, Yukl (2002)
said servant leaders must attend to the needs of their followers and help them
become healthier, wiser, and more willing to accept their responsibilities. It is only
by understanding followers that the servant leader can determine best how to
serve their needs. Thus, listening to followers, learning about their needs and
26
aspirations, and being willing to share in their plan and frustration is mandatory
for servant leaders.
According to Covey (2002), service is the reason why servant leaders
naturally seek to listen and understand others. The characteristics (including
service) that both Blanchard (1997) and Yukl (2002) highlighted fall in the list of
the characteristics that appear to be central to the development of servant
leaders: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization,
foresight, commitment to the growth of people, and building community (Spears,
1995, 1996, 1998, 2002). All these have been drawn from Greenleaf’s writing.
Thus, the emergence of service and servant leadership is likely to meet the deep
desire in our society for a world where people are believed to have an intrinsic
value beyond their tangible contributions as workers (Spears & Lawrence, 2002).
Also, where people truly care for one another, where workers and customers are
treated fairly, and where leaders can be trusted to serve the needs of their
followers rather than their own (Spears, 1998). If this is true, then this study will
find that Kenyan leaders and managers care and serve the needs of their
followers rather than their own needs.
Patterson’s (2003) Definition of Servant Leadership Theory
To help create a platform for more specific research on servant
leadership, Patterson (2003) developed a working theory of servant leadership.
According to Patterson:
Servant leaders signify those who lead an organization by focusing on
their followers, such that the followers are the primary concern and the
27
organizational concerns are peripheral. Servant leaders lead and serve
with (a) altruism, (b) empower followers, (c) act with humility, (d) exhibit
love, (e) lead with service, (f) are trusting, and (g) are visionary to their
followers. (p. 5)
According to Patterson (2003), servant leadership theory provides a
marked contrast with that of transformational leadership theory. While
transformational leaders strive to align their personal interests (i.e.,
organizational interests and the interests of the followers) with the interests of the
group, organization, or society, the primary focus of the leaders in servant
leadership theory is on serving their followers individually. Once again, this very
idea of service is at the heart of servant leadership theory and it occurs as the
leader serves others, mainly his or her followers (Arjoon, 2000).
Based on a paper presented at Indiana State University on servant
leadership, Spears (1996) argued that servant leadership crosses all boundaries
and is being applied by a wide variety of people working for a myriad of
organizations (i.e., both non-profit and for-profit). Individuals within such
organizations have adopted servant leadership as a guiding corporate philosophy
and as a foundation for their mission. While this assertion is true, the theory is
mainly concentrated in North American organizations.
For instance, TDI Industries, a Dallas-based mechanical contractor, has
one of the industry’s most intensive leadership programs. While searching for the
traits that make a good manager-leader, Rubin et al. (2002) pointed to servant
leadership. For over 30 years, TD Industries has advocated and executed the
28
“servant as leader” philosophy developed by management consultant, Robert
Greenleaf. Galvin’s (2001) list of the top 50 training corporations has TD
Industries among others. In conducting the research and interviews that went into
their 2001 top 50 training organizations, TD Industries came across individuals
and companies (e.g., SAS Institute and Synovus Financial) that piqued their
interest though admittedly happy in their current jobs. According to McLaughlin
(2001), servant leadership is practiced at TD Industries through the cultivation of
employees by serving the employees and meeting their needs. To keep servant
leadership central to TD Industries’ corporate culture, new employees go through
servant leadership training. And though many companies profess, “people are
our most important asset” TD Industries (ranked number 27) backs up the
statement with an employee retention track record that would make any company
envious. No wonder Ben Houston, TD Industries managing director, said, “To be
a leader, you need to be a servant leader and get business results” and that “part
of being a servant leader is getting people to improve” (as cited in Rubin et al., p.
3). Houston further stated that the mission is so serious at TD Industries that “if
you just get business results without the servant relationship, you cannot stay
here” (Rubin et al., p. 4). Perhaps that is the reason behind TD Industries being
consistently rated among the best companies to work for in America by Fortune
Magazine (Spears, 1996).
Along with TD Industries, Synovus Financial, SAS Institute, and
Southwest Airlines are also included in the list of the top 100 organizations to
29
work for in America. For instance, Galvin (2001) observed Genie Mize, director of
the Center for People Development (CPD) at Synovus Financial, saying that:
Regardless of the program, the concept of servant leadership–-or leading
by serving the needs of others–-lies at the heart of each initiative. We
make sure we look at the whole person and in doing so we truly believe
that they are going to be producing at a level that benefits not only
themselves, but also the business. We say it, we write it, and we really
practice it. (p. 81)
While commending on the list of the best 100 companies to work for in
America, Bradley (1999) said that though swimming pools and surging pay may
give employees a lift, continual training and humane treatment is really what gets
the best ones to stick around. On the basis of the Fortune survey, Levering and
Moskowitz (2000) contended that servant leadership has been practiced and
advocated in some best companies to work for in America, namely Southwest
Airlines (#2 in 2000, #4 in 1999, and #1 in 1998), TD Industries (#4 in 2000, #2 in
1999, and #5 in 1998), and Synovus Financial (#5 in 2000 and #1 in 1999).
Fortune 2001 annual survey of top employees ranked Southwest Airlines, TD
Industries, and Synovus Financial number four, six, and eight respectively
(Levering & Moskowitz, 2001). All these organizations are servant-led and they
espouse that servant leadership contributes to their success.
As per Jack Lowe (1998), CEO and chairman of TD Industries, servant
leadership provides a means for companies to value their people and be
successful. Lowe further asserted that when people become grounded in servant
30
leadership, trust grows and the foundation for organizational excellence is
established. Similarly, in a study, which attempted to determine whether or not
service quality programs are implemented successfully in South African market,
Fletcher (1999) observed effective internal communication, leadership, and
employee issues as of cardinal importance to any organization.
A number of other organizations, not necessarily in the list of top 100
organizations to work for, also practice servant leadership. William Pollard
(1997), former CEO of ServiceMaster had this to say in his keynote address at
the Strategic Leadership Forum’s International Conference, “Regardless of the
situation, the real leader is not the person with the most distinguishable title, the
highest pay, or the longest tenure–-but rather the real leader is the servant, who
promotes others as opposed to promoting himself” (p. 2). Pollard further
observed that:
The measure of his success as a leader at ServiceMaster is not only in the
value of shares or the profit they produce, but more importantly, it relates
to the people with whom he works with. His job at ServiceMaster is to train
and motivate people to serve so they will do more effective job, be more
productive in their work, and become better people. (p. 3)
Servant leaders, according to Pollard (1997), believe in the people they
lead, make themselves available, have the commitment, and love and care for
the people they lead. Similarly, James Autry (2001), former CEO of Meredith
Corporation, said in his recent book, The Servant Leader: How to Build a
Creative Team, Develop Great Morale, and Improve Bottom-line Performance,
31
that “service to others” is the most efficient and effective way to lead. His focal
point of success is on developing an engaging community of followers, who
periodically assume leadership roles by serving others. Douglas (2003) saw this
as a deviation from the teaching philosophy of traditional leadership, which
emphasizes individualism and unilateral decision making. While arguing for the
characteristics of a good leader-manager, Rubin et al. (2002) observed Ralph
Peterson, CEO of CH2M Hills Cos., saying that: “I have found that real
leadership is about others and not about the individual” (p. 5). “The bottom line is
that every person in the industry has tremendous potential just waiting to be
developed” (p. 5).
Likewise, Lance Secretan, CEO and founder of the Secretan Center, a
worldwide consulting organization in Ontario (Canada), said that servant leaders
must treat followers as customers and inspire them. Secretan, who encouraged
anyone and everyone to believe in a world in which love can conquer all, was
honored in 1999 with the International Care Award from the Caring Institute,
joining the company of Jane Goodall and Mother Teresa as recipients (Taninecz,
2002). Perhaps Spears and Lawrence (2002) are somewhat right in their
insistence that servant leadership is one model that can turn traditional notions of
leadership and organizational structure upside-down. Business leaders who
become aware of the servant leadership model know that they serve more than
the company, more than markets or products, and more than even vision and
values. They turn business around by putting emphasis on serving others. If this
32
is true, then this proposed study would find that Kenyan leaders and managers
value and serve their followers more than their organizations.
Leadership and Service in the African Context
A study by Nelson (2003), which explored Patterson’s (2003) servant
leadership theory (i.e., all constructs: altruism, empowerment, humility, love,
service, trust, and vision) among black leaders in South African organizations
found service to be the primary function of leadership. Service was not based on
the leaders’ own interests but rather on the interests and welfare of their
employees. In other words, participants expressed a desire to put others first—
that is a willingness to look after others’ welfare. Their perception of service was
expressed as “serving and supporting the people who serve the customers”
(Nelson, p. 72). This is not a strange outcome, given that Nelson capitalized on
the prevalent African values like the ubuntu philosophy, which focuses on the
person not living for himself or herself, but rather living for others. Ubuntu serves
as metaphor embodying group solidarity in many traditional African societies
(Mibigi & Maree, 1995). In other words, it focuses on the person and stresses
communal support, group significance, and cooperation. It acts like a public
philosophy that ties people together as a strong, united community (“An affro-
centric,” 2001).
While discussing development and cultural values in sub-saharan Africa,
Mamadou (1991) observed that the main concern for every leader or grouping
was to maintain social balance and equity within the groups, rather than
individual economic achievements. In such a case, the interest of the local
33
communities takes precedence over whatever the government, organizations, or
leaders may declare as national interests. While Mazrui (1986), for instance,
goes ahead to mention other African concepts in his book, The Africans: A Triple
Heritage, that are similar to ubuntu (e.g., muntu, ungamtu, mgamtu, and abantu),
all meaning “You do not live for yourself, you live for others” (p. 295), Mbiti’s
(1969) often quoted line—“I am because we are: and since we are, therefore I
am” (p.10)—from his widely read book, African Religions and Philosophy, comes
into mind. It is perhaps worth quoting the fuller text of Mbiti’s remark:
The individual owes his existence to other people. He is simply part of the
whole. Whatever happens to the individual happens to the whole group
and whatever happens to the whole group happens to the individual. The
individual can only say: “I am, because we are; and since we are therefore
I am.” (p. 10)
This is the cardinal point in the understanding of the African view of man.
Most of the values and philosophies propagated by Mazrui (1986) and
Mbiti (1969) are widely shared across African communities. According to Wright
(1984), the African view of man denies that persons can be defined by focusing
on the physical or psychological characteristics of the lone individual. Rather,
man is defined by the preference to the envisioning community. Mazrui talked of
muntu, which is an indigenous word meaning person. The word is at times
applied in the generic sense of humankind. It is the theme of humanism in
Africa’s philosophical and political experience, involving a major transition in
perception across the centuries. Thus, the notion by Mbiti that, “I am because we
34
are, and since we are, therefore I am” (p. 10) stands strongly emulated
throughout most African societies.
Tradition places social achievement above personal achievement in most
African communities. Common phrases usually exist that signal social
disapproval of the individual who places himself or herself above fellow human
being (“An affro-centric,” 2001). Dia (1994) said that individual achievements are
much less valued than are interpersonal relations. In agreement is Mamadou
(1991), who said that a higher value is placed on interpersonal relations and the
timely execution of certain social and religious activities than on individual
achievements. The value of economic acts, for instance, is measured in terms of
their capacity to reinforce the bonds of the group. Thus, efficient indigenous
management practices, where shareholding is democratized and cultural values
and traditions serve as a means of stimulating productivity, can be used in
today’s organizations.
According to Ayittey (1992), the traditional African leadership from time
immemorial has always placed the community’s interest (service) ahead of its
own. For instance, the chief did not rule, but rather served and only led by
consensus. In situations where the council (governing body) failed to reach a
consensus, the chief would call a village assembly (representatives) to put the
issues before the people for debate. This signifies the importance of service to
the people. Similarly, Mamadou (1991) observed that the traditional judge in
black Africa is more intent on reaching a consensus than litigating by the book. In
legal as well as in political matters, African leaders tend to seek unanimity and
35
are generally prepared to engage in seemingly interminable discussions.
Perhaps this explains why self-reliance and self-interest tend to take a back seat
to group or community loyalty. According to Mersha (2000), studies based on
African organizations indicate that decisions based on a consensus still have
greater acceptability in African societies. Specifically, a study based on Kenyan
industries showed that both workers and managers preferred a modern
democratic style of leadership to build consensus and trust.
According to Gakuru (1998), service has come to be identified with the
African concept of interdependence, which was most famously articulated by
Nigerian novelist, Chinua Achebe, who wrote: “Whereas an animal scratches
itself against a tree, a human being has a kinsman to scratch it for him” (Gakuru,
para. 11). There is a very strong belief in the African communities that the
welfare of an individual means the welfare of the entire community. Many local
dialects have a word for the concept of mutual responsibility and joint effort.
According to Bell (2002), Africans do not think of themselves as “discrete
individuals” but rather understand themselves as part of a “community”
(sometimes referred to as “African communalism”—or “communitarianism”).
Whereas life’s means are relatively minimal and natural resources are scarce,
the individual person must depend on his or her community. One obvious
conclusion to be drawn from this dictum is that, as far as Africans are concern,
people regard each other as brothers and sisters, and the interest of the local
communities takes precedence over those in government, organizations or
leadership in general (Wright, 1984).
36
The strong and ancient value of mutual assistance has always been
brought to life in African societies through network and associations. The
voluntary spirit in Africa predates modern governments and western influence.
Before the advent of colonialism, African people had structures that catered to
the needy among them (Gakuru, 1998). The idea and practice of giving a hand to
others, whether one acts individually or through organization, is as old as Africa.
Voluntary individual and communal activities retain deep roots among Africans.
One helps and works with neighbors and fellow villagers as the need arises and
dictates (Waiguchu et al., 1999). The main concern for every leader or grouping
was to maintain social balance and equity within the groups, rather than
individual economic achievements. In other words, the interest of the local and
ethnic communities takes precedence over whatever the leadership or
government may declare as national interests (Mamadou, 1991). If this is true,
then the proposed study will find that Kenyan leaders and managers practice
decisions based on consensus, and with a sense of community and collective
good in mind.
The Kenyan Philosophy of Harambee
According to Chieni (1997), harambee, which is a Bantu (a major grouping
in Africa) word, has its origins in the word halambee, which literary means, “let us
all pull together” (para. 3). While tracing the origins of harambee, Yassin (2004)
noted the alternative linguistic interpretation of harambee is derived from the twin
words halahala and mbee. While halahala is a Swahili word for doing things
quickly and collectively, mbee is Swahili for forward. Halahala/mbee would thus
37
signify “doing things quickly and collectively with a forward connotation” (Yassin,
para. 7). However, the phrase has since been simplified, given official
recognition, and coined as harambee. Mbithi and Rasmusson (1977) perceived
harambee as the collective and cooperative participation of a community in an
attempt to fill perceived needs through utilization of its own resources. The notion
of self-help that the term harambee seems to refer to is solidly grounded in the
indigenous cultures of most Kenyan communities, where different names for joint
efforts (e.g., clearing the bushes and building structures) can be found. Every
tribe in Kenya has a name for it. For instance, the Luo call it konyir kende, the
Luhya call it obwasio, the Kikuyu call it ngwatio, and the Maasai call it
ematonyok. Perhaps that is the reason why Chieni says harambee is variously
described as a way of life in Kenya and a traditional custom of Kenyans. Each
tribe had self-help or cooperative work groups by which groups of women on the
one hand and men on the other organized common work parties (to cultivate or
build houses for each other, clear bushes, or do harvesting). The security and
prosperity of the group was dependent upon the persons being mindful of each
other’s welfare.
According to Hill (1991), the harambee philosophy is based on African
traditions of community cooperation and mutual aid. This may refer to the
institutions of work parties, which embrace a variety of forms of cooperative labor
assistance. It is often the major institutional form through which heavy and
onerous tasks or a series of such tasks are regularly carried out–-including work
at certain stages of the agricultural cycle, and building and construction tasks.
38
While commending on the glamour for banning of harambee because of political
abuses, Kenya’s vice-president was recently quoted saying that the harambee
spirit is deeply entrenched in the Kenyan culture. In other words, it is the
backbone of most development efforts and thus, may not be simply brushed
aside (Yassin, 2004). Harambee encourages Kenyans along with their leaders to
give in order to complete any task at hand for community development and
advancement. Thus, for the most part, the term embodies mutual assistance,
joint effort, mutual social responsibility, and community self-reliance (Chieni,
1997).
Though harambee was adopted as a political slogan (after independence)
to symbolize the unity of man to help achieve a worthy end (Chieni, 1997), it is a
traditional principle that has always existed in every society in Kenya. Harambee
has been a marked feature of both rural and national society. Its equivalent in
other Kenyan languages is the term for “community cooperation,” meaning,
“helping each other.” To some people, harambee may appropriately be called a
movement since it developed rapidly throughout Kenya after independence
(1963) in response to people’s actions and inspirations rather than simply as a
creation of the government (Hill, 1991). Chieni consented to the fact that the
harambee philosophy gained prominence at independence when the founding
president, Jomo Kenyatta, placed the destiny of Kenyans in the hands of other
Kenyans, especially their leaders. To achieve this noble task, Kenyatta rallied
black, white, and brown Kenyans (both people and their leaders) to launch the
country into the 20th century by adopting the philosophy of harambee. In the next
39
decade, Kenyans of all races got a fair share of the economic pie even though a
contained corruption still existed (Versely, 1997). Thus, Kenyatta popularized the
harambee philosophy as a unity call that brings people together for communal
services (Shikuku, 2000).
To Kenyatta, it was only out of everybody’s efforts and toil that a new and
better Kenya could be built. He stressed a continued close collaboration between
the people throughout their self-help efforts, the government and the leaders
when he said: “But you must know that Kenyatta alone cannot give you
everything. All things we must do together to develop our country, to get
education for our children, to have doctors, to build roads, to improve or provide
all day-to-day essentials” (Chieni, 1997, para. 5). Hill (1991) said that it is
important to note that the harambee philosophy developed rapidly throughout
Kenya in response to people’s actions and aspirations rather than simply as a
creation of the government and its leadership. Thus, the spirit of harambee (i.e.,
we must all pull together) symbolizes the Kenyan peoples’ attitude and effort in
working together to build and strengthen themselves and their nation as a whole
(Wilson, 1992).
According to Ngau (1987), harambee projects are broadly classified into
social development and economic development types. The former include
education, health, social welfare and recreation, and domestic projects, while the
letter includes water supply, transport and communication facilities, and
agricultural ventures. Chieni (1997) noted that when Kenyatta realized that social
development–-the process by which the standards and conditions of living of the
40
majority of the people in a community are improved–-cannot be accomplished
without a firm cultural foundation plus the involvement of the majority of the
people themselves. He stressed a continued close collaboration between the
people through their self-help efforts and the government through the provision of
necessary services. According to Wilson (1992), the harambee philosophy has
come to mean the provision of goods–-usually social infrastructure through the
voluntary cooperation of members of the community, including their leaders. The
philosophy is utilized in community self-help programs to build roads, schools,
medical facilities, and daycares. The shift of harambee to social amenity
development emanates from the fact that the basic means of production (e.g.,
farming, industry, and mining) have come under private, family, and company or
organization ownership. To most people, collective effort is aimed at above all,
schools, health facilities, roads, and churches rather than development of farms
or business (Ngau). Through harambee, the efforts of the people, Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and the government have come together
in a cooperative endeavor to speed up development (Chieni). In his book, The
Two Faces of Civil Society: NGOs and Politics in Africa, Ndegwa (1996)
observed that besides relative political stability and a well developed
communication network, the harambee philosophy has contributed to the highest
number of both international and local NGOs in Kenya in the whole of sub-
saharan Africa. In areas where the state has been unable to fully provide
adequate services such as healthcare, education, and agricultural and credit
41
extension, the NGOs have entered these fields and become indispensable
partners in service provision through the harambee philosophy.
According to Bailey (1993), harambee is not just a theoretical fancy
concept—it has achieved tangible results. Harambee has specifically brought
about near miracles in the entire nation of Kenya. Aided by the government and
its leaders, harambee self-help projects have been responsible for the building of
over 200 schools, 40 health centers, 60 dispensaries, 260 nursery centers, 42
bridges, and 500 kilometers of rural access roads throughout the country.
Leaders with the help of their communities usually spearhead projects of this
nature. Shikuku (2000) said that though harambee never had immediate
monetary implications, it has come to have a new meaning: fundraising. It is now
used everywhere to raise funds for churches, weddings, students’ fees, hospitals
bills, and generally in programs aimed at supporting the needy in society.
According to Ngau (1987), a typical harambee today consists of fundraising,
where the invited guests, government officers, and the general public make
contributions on a voluntary basis, ranging from cash and materials to pledges
for labor. The key participants are the local people, but government officials,
elected politicians, and church leaders also participate. Further, local and foreign
business firms, foreign agencies and governments, foundations, and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) also get involved and make contributions to
harambee projects. According to Chieni (1997), the whole undertaking of
harambee is usually guided by certain fundamental principles: (a) active
participation of the people at every level of development, (b) participation guided
42
by the principles of collective good rather than individual gain (the end product
benefits the public as opposed to an individual), and (c) the choice of the project
is usually guided by the felt needs of the majority. The impact harambee has in
one way or another improved the quality of life for different people and
communities in Kenya. If this is true, then this proposed study will find Kenyan
leaders and managers being guided by the principles of service to others and
collective good rather than individual or organizational gains.
Summary and Hypotheses
One of the primary motivations of leadership should be serving others.
Much of the current literature that supports serving and valuing of people has
been presaged by Greenleaf (1977), where emphasis is placed on leaders being
servant leaders who humbly serve their followers without expectation to be
served by them. According to Patterson (2003), servant leaders signify those
who lead an organization by focusing on their followers, such that the followers
are the primary concern and the organizational concerns are peripheral. Thus,
the primary focus of the leaders in servant leadership theory is on serving their
followers individually.
The African traditional leadership appears to focus on service as
espoused in Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory. African tradition
places the community’s interest ahead of that of the leader, where social
achievement is placed above personal achievement, and where leaders
generally did not rule but rather serve and lead by consensus. Most of these
values and traditions are widely shared across the African communities.
43
Similarly, the Kenyan harambee philosophy, which is based on African traditions
of community cooperation, joint effort, community reliance, and mutual aid,
appears to focus on service as well. The late president, Kenyatta, capitalized on
harambee as a unity call to bring people together along with their leaders for
communal services. The philosophy has continued to stress close collaboration
between the people, the government, and the leaders in working together to
strengthen each other and the country as a whole in terms of development
initiatives. If the African traditions and the Kenyan harambee philosophy promote
and embed service, then this proposed study should find that the Kenyan leaders
and managers accept and apply the construct of service in their cultural
organizational settings. The null hypothesis states that Kenyan leaders and
managers will neither accept nor apply the construct of service in Patterson’s
servant leadership theory. If this is true, then this proposed study should find that
the construct of service has a cultural constraint.
44
Chapter Three: Method and Procedure
The fundamental objective of this study was to examine Patterson’s
(2003) servant leadership theory’s construct of service in the context of Kenyan
leaders and managers. According to Patterson, servant leaders signify those who
lead an organization by focusing on their followers, such that the followers are
the primary concern and the organizational concerns are peripheral. In other
words, the primary focus of the leaders in servant leadership theory is on serving
their followers individually. The African traditional leadership as well as the
Kenyan harambee philosophy appears to focus on service as espoused in
Patterson’s servant leadership theory. The hypothesis for this study states that
Kenyan leaders and managers of varied organizational settings will accept and
apply Patterson’s servant leadership theory’s construct of service. The null
hypothesis states that Kenyan leaders and managers of varied organizational
settings will neither accept nor apply Patterson’s servant leadership theory’s
construct of service.
The following sections of the chapter provide a description of research
design, reliability and validity, research participants, instrumentation, data
collection, discussion regarding data analysis and interpretation, data limitation,
and summary.
Description of Research Design
This research is a qualitative study. Because qualitative research is
concerned with process rather than outcomes and is more descriptive in nature
45
than other approaches (Creswell, 1994), the paradigm best fits the research
problem as this study attempts to enhance existing literature on servant
leadership through revelation of details not captured in quantitative inquiry.
Further, although the theory of servant leadership and the construct of service is
perceived to have been in existence for many years (Greenleaf, 1977; Nyabadza,
2003), not much research has been done, especially in varied cultural settings
(Patterson, 2003). According to Creswell, nascent phenomena of this type may
be appropriately addressed through qualitative methods. This is in line with
Merriam’s (1998) assertion that “the interest in a qualitative study is in process
rather than outcome” (p. 20). This, however, does not mean that qualitative
research is unconcerned with outcomes, but rather it does emphasize that
qualitative research is concerned in getting the processes that led to these
outcomes–-processes that experimental and survey research are often poor at
identifying. Qualitative studies are usually associated with certain strengths as
observed by Miles and Huberman (1996):
1. They focus on naturally occurring, ordinary events in natural settings,
so that there is a strong handle on what “real life” is like.
2. Another feature of qualitative studies is their richness and holism, with
strong potential for revealing complexity. Such data provide “thick
descriptions” that are vivid, nested in a real context, and have a ring of
truth that has strong impact on the reader.
3. Qualitative studies have often been advocated as the best strategy for
discovery, exploring a new area, and developing hypotheses.
46
4. Qualitative studies are useful when one needs to supplement, validate,
explain, illuminate, or reinterpret quantitative data gathered from the
same setting. (p. 10)
From an ontological perspective, this research lends itself to qualitative
inquiry because the researcher seeks reality (through interviews) as seen by the
participants in the study. In others words, this research seeks to understand the
meaning of events, situations, and actions for the participants in the study (i.e.,
getting the participants’ perspective on the construct of service), plus their
particular context within which they act and the influence that this context has on
their actions (Maxwell, 1996). This is essential as questions involved relate to
self-perceptions that can only be evinced through the voices of the participants.
Merriam (1998) posited that qualitative inquiry assumes that the people
individually interpret the world around them. That is to say that the world is a
function of personal perception–-“a highly subjective phenomenon in need of
interpreting rather than measuring” (p. 17). From this perspective, the method
selected provides for the collection of descriptive narratives that carry details that
might otherwise be winnowed away in quantitative research. Such pearls of
wisdom tell a story richer than mere statistical analysis allows. This is particularly
meaningful in the context of this study as qualitative exposition can complement
the existing research around servant leadership theory and the construct of
service. Together they can provide insight that contemporary findings have not
reported.
47
Specifically, this research study employed a qualitative in-depth
interviewing technique. An in-depth interviewing method (also called qualitative
interviewing) is a type of interview which researchers use to elicit information in
order to achieve a holistic understanding of the participant’s point of view. It
involves asking participants standardized open-ended questions and probing
wherever necessary to obtain data deemed useful by the researcher (Huberman
& Miles, 2002). According to Mason (2002), in-depth interviewing operates from
the perspective that knowledge is situated and contextual, and the job of the
interviewer is to ensure that the relevant contexts are brought into focus so that
situated knowledge can be produced. This suggests that knowledge is
constructed rather than straightforwardly excavated. Thus, in-depth interviewing
provides depth, complexity, and roundedness in the data. According to Rubin
and Rubin (1995), in-depth interviewing is both an academic and a practical tool
that allows us to share the world of others in order to find out what is going on
(e.g., why people do what they do and how they understand their worlds).
Researchers using in-depth interviewing are able to put together the information
to form explanations and theories that are grounded in details, evidence, and
examples of the interviews. Thus, the results from in-depth interviewing are deep,
detailed, vivid, and nuanced.
Reliability and Validity
According to Mason (2002), reliability involves the accuracy of research
methods and techniques—in other words, how reliably and accurately they
produce data. Yin (1994) posited that the goal of reliability is to ensure that the
48
same study can be replicated and achieve the same results. Reliability in this
study is addressed through Merriam’s (1998) recommendation that all data be
documented and an audit trail maintained. That way, verification strategies can
be implemented. Thus, detailed records and organization remains a high priority.
According to Creswell (1996), validity refers to the correctness or
credibility of a description, conclusion, explanation, or interpretation of account.
Creswell, as well as Huberman and Miles (2002), offered four types of validity
applicable to qualitative study (e.g., in-depth interviewing):
1. Theoretical validity. It has to do with not collecting or paying attention
to discrepant data, not considering alternative explanations, or
understandings of phenomenon being studied. By using probes and
follow-up questions, the researcher went beyond concrete description
and interpretation, and explicitly addressed the theoretical
constructions that may develop during the study.
2. Internal validity. Refers to generalizing within the community, group, or
institution studied to persons, events, and settings that were not
directly observed or interviewed. Generalization in qualitative research
usually takes place through the development of a theory that not only
makes sense of the particular persons or situations studied, but also
shows how the same process, in different situations, can lead to
different results. So that the findings may be generalized, the
researcher (through his expert judgment) attempted to establish the
typicality of the participants in the study.
49
3. Descriptive validity. Refers to the factual accuracy of the researcher’s
account. In other words, researchers are not making up or distorting
the things they saw and heard. The main threat to valid description, in
the sense of describing what was seen and heard, is the inaccuracy or
incompleteness of the data. The audio recording and verbatim
transcription of the interviews largely solved this problem.
4. Interpretive validity. Refers to what the objects, events, and behaviors
in the setting studied mean (i.e., to the participants). The main threat to
valid interpretation is imposing one’s own framework or meaning,
rather than understanding the perspective of the people studied and
the meanings they attach to their words and actions. To solve this
problem, the researcher seriously and systematically attempted to
learn how the participants in the study made sense of what was going
on (by being objective), rather than pigeonholing their words and
actions in his framework.
According to Walsh (2003), an important goal of qualitative research is to
demonstrate the trustworthiness of the findings. To build credibility for this study,
the researcher addressed the four types of validity (i.e., theoretical, internal,
descriptive, and interpretive) previously mentioned. In so doing, he made the
data collection methods and analyses detailed and explicit. Further, because
cross-participants analysis was used and because predetermined procedures for
interviewing and coding data were implemented, validity and reliability was
generally protected (Merriam, 1998).
50
Research Participants
Many qualitative researchers utilize theoretical or purposive sampling.
Theoretical sampling means selecting groups or categories to study on the basis
of their relevance to the research questions, theoretical position, and analytical
framework (Bryman & Burgess, 1999; Mason, 2002). Because qualitative inquiry
typically focuses in-depth on relatively small samples selected purposefully, the
logic lies in selecting information-rich cases for study in-depth (Patton, 2002).
The selection of interview participants was the result of theory-based
sampling, one of the strategies for purposefully (or theoretically) selecting
information-rich cases. Theory-based strategy allows the researcher to sample
people on the basis of their potential manifestation or representation of important
theoretical constructs (Patton, 2002). The sample population was selected based
on the theory-derived criteria for being a servant leader—in other words, leaders
and managers who seemed to espouse Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership
theory’s construct of service and the Kenyan harambee philosophy.
The individual leaders and managers (or participants) were drawn from
the executive and upper management units that are charged with instituting and
directing organizational vision/mission and policies. Such individual leaders and
managers represent corporate organizations, governmental organizations, non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), and institutions of higher learning (e.g.,
universities and colleges) all of which were perceived to practice servant
leadership as stipulated in their mission/vision statements. For instance, while
the institutions of higher learning strive to provide training opportunities for
51
exemplary leaders (who will be of service to their communities), corporate,
governmental and non-governmental organizations, on the other hand, strive for
excellence and good customer service. Such organizing principles and values
are analogous to those espoused in Patterson’s servant leadership theory’s
construct of service and the Kenyan harambee philosophy.
Determining the exact number of interview participants is a difficult issue
that qualitative researchers have to deal with. According to Seidman (1998),
saturation of information (i.e., verification or replication of data) plays a significant
determining factor in the exact number of organizational members interviewed.
Writers in the field of qualitative research discuss a point until they begin to hear
the same information repeated. In other words, they stop learning anything new.
To provide the breadth that Seidman discussed (i.e., saturation of information),
the researcher interviewed a total of 25 leaders and managers from Kenyan
organizations. This number was considered significant to identify themes and
patterns that are meaningful theoretically and empirically (Bryman & Burgess,
1999; Mason, 2002), even though they may not be generalizable to a larger
universe (Yin, 1994). With the figure of 25 leaders and managers from the
executive and upper management, the researcher looked for indicators of
saturation in order to stop interviewing (Morse & Richards, 2002). In other words,
the sample provided access to enough data and with the right focus for it to be
sufficient (Mason). Such sample illustrated differences and/or comparisons (as
per the research question) between the different backgrounds.
52
Instrumentation
In qualitative research, the researcher is the primary instrument for
gathering and analyzing data. As such, the researcher in this study responded to
the situation by maximizing opportunities for collecting and producing meaningful
information. This method calls for the researcher to have enormous tolerance for
ambiguity, be highly sensitive to the information gathered, and practice good
communication skills in order to establish rapport with respondents (Merriam,
1998). As per Patton (2002), data was collected via face-to-face interview as this
method allows for direct focus on the subject of discussion. This calls for
standardized open-ended interview protocol, with the same questions being
asked to each participant in order to maximize response consistency and to
develop a holistic depiction of the participants’ responses. The researcher
included questions (probes) designed to elicit a variety of information covering
the totality of the phenomenon under investigation (i.e., the construct of service).
As per Rubin and Rubin (1995), the researcher needed to listen carefully and
intently to pick up on key words and ideas, and to hear the meanings,
interpretations, and understandings that give shape to the world of interviews.
Data Collection
Because the study encompasses in-depth interviewing, which involves
asking informants open-ended questions to begin with, and then probing them
further in order to obtain data deemed useful by the researcher, a standardized
open-ended interview protocol was followed (Huberman & Miles, 2002).
53
Standardized Open-ended Interview
The standardized open-ended interview involves preparing a set of open-
ended questions, which are carefully worded and arranged for the purpose of
minimizing variation in the questions posed to the informants. Though it may be
viewed as providing less flexibility for questions, truly open-ended questions do
not pre-determine the answers and allow room for the informants to respond in
their own terms. Probing is also still possible with this approach (Huberman &
Miles, 2002).
According to Patton (2002), the much smaller sample of open-ended
interviews adds depth, detail, and meaning at a very personal level of
experience. Open-ended responses enable the researcher to understand and
capture the informants’ points of view without predetermining those points of view
through prior selection of questionnaire category. Patton further offered four
major reasons for using standardized open-ended interviews:
1. The exact instrument used in the evaluation is available for inspection
by those using the findings of the study.
2. Variation among researchers can be minimized if a number of different
researchers must be used.
3. The interview is highly focused so that the informant time is efficiently
used.
4. Analysis is facilitated by making responses easy to find and compare.
54
Interview Procedure
As per Rubin and Rubin (1995), the researcher predetermined the (main)
questions, which are customized to what the researcher thinks the informant
might know about servant leadership theory’s construct of service. The questions
are open enough to encourage informants to express their own opinions and
experiences, but narrow enough to keep them from wandering too far off from the
subject at hand. The questions are as follows:
1. Like the harambee philosophy, which is guided by the principle of
collective good rather than individual gain, consider service as putting
others’ welfare (e.g., employees, customers, and community) and
interest first. Service is caring for others enough to facilitate their
growth, development, and success without expecting any reward. In
light of this description, what is your own understanding of service?
What do you see as the role of service in your organization?
2. Leadership being the process whereby the leader (one who acts for
the benefit of others) exerts influence over others (e.g., employees) in
the organization; do you see service as the primary function of
leadership? Why? Why not?
3. Do leaders in this organization understand that serving others is most
important? For instance, do they reflect an overarching helping
concern for others (e.g., employees) without any regard for self-
interest, even when such concern involves considerable sacrifice or
inconvenience (i.e., harming self-interest) on their part? Are they the
55
type of leaders that would rather give more than take (e.g., resources
and time), and serve others’ needs rather than their own? In other
words, do they view employees as the most important resource of the
organization and as having an intrinsic value that goes beyond their
tangible contributions as workers?
4. Service occurs when we naturally and authentically claim and
champion someone else’s excellence, success, and fulfillment. In light
of this, how do leaders in this organization feel about serving or helping
others (their followers)? Do they have the spontaneity, the commitment
and the appreciation for what it takes to perform beyond self-imposed
limitations?
5. Service may be demonstrated in many different ways: by role modeling
(leading by example), through humility, showing respect for others
(acknowledging one’s self-worth), and listening, praising, supporting,
and redirecting them when they deviate from goals. In light of this, how
do leaders in this organization demonstrate service to their followers?
6. Some organizations may observe service through collective-problem
solving based on consensus, seeking involvement in decision making,
and creating a sense of community whereby people are bound by a
fellowship of endeavor (social interactions) rather than coercion,
genuine concern rather than instrumental manipulation, and
commitment to mutual goals. Can you comment on this?
56
7. An increasing number of organizations have adopted service as part of
their corporate philosophy. They recognize the importance of service to
others that is to be felt, understood, believed and practiced. In light of
this, do you think that the construct of service is good? Why? Do you
think that your organization would adopt it, and how?
Entry to participants was achieved through personal and professional
contacts. Once the initial contacts were made (by either email or telephone)
requesting their participation, the researcher then asked for appointments with
each participant at a mutually agreed location. It is premised that a mutually
agreed location will allow free flow of information.
The interviews began with the researcher explaining to the informants the
interview process, which included signing a Participant Agreement Form (see
Appendix A); the anticipated length or duration of the interview; taking hand-
written notes along with audiotape recording of the interview; the subsequent
transcription of the audiotape by the researcher; and the possibility for follow-up if
the researcher deem necessary, to ensure accuracy and consistency.
The researcher then conducted all the interviews (in English). It was
anticipated that every informant would be interviewed for the length of a 60-
minute tape, but it appeared that some were actually interviewed for less than 60
minutes. All the interviews were transcribed verbatim and an audit trail was
maintained (Merriam, 1988). The researcher had a small tape recorder filtered
with batteries in case of difficulty with electrical connections. To ensure accuracy
57
and consistency (by double-checking) of data, hand-written notes were also
taken by the researcher in lieu of taped conversations.
As per Rubin and Rubin (1995), the researcher used probes to help
specify the level of depth he wanted, to ask the informants to wind up their
current answer, or to return the discussion to the main concerns if they wondered
off. In tandem to this, the researcher commented occasionally to check or verify
the informants’ understanding of ethnocentristic or cross-cultural reading of
concepts like harambee. But basically the words were mainly those of the
informants. Further, as per Miles and Huberman (1994), the researcher noted
subtleties—such as body language—any personal impressions that emerged as
rapport is built. This revealed some notions that the informants may not have
talked about.
At the conclusion of the interviews, the researcher thanked the informants
for their participation and also reminded them of the possibility for follow-up if the
researcher deemed necessary. According to Rubin and Rubin (1995), follow-up
questions get the depth that is a hallmark of in-depth interviewing by pursuing
themes discovered and elaborating the context of answers.
Data Analysis
According to Huberman and Miles (2002), qualitative data analysis is
essentially about detection, and the tasks of defining, categorizing, theorizing,
explaining, exploring, and mapping are fundamental to the analyst’s role. Rubin
and Rubin (1995) saw the goal of analysis as finding themes that both explain
the research arena and fit together in a way that a reader can understand. While
58
this is true, Walsh (2003) poignantly pointed out that the goal of qualitative
analysis, which is usually complex and arduous, is to move from summarizing the
data to identifying related themes and patterns, to discovering relationships
among the themes and patterns (i.e., coding), and to developing explanations for
these relationships (i.e., interpretations).
Summarizing Data
After every interview, the researcher had the interview results (i.e., a
combination of audiotaped and handwritten notes) transcribed for qualitative data
analysis. Using audiotaped interviews, a long with handwritten notes ensured
accuracy and consistency of data.
After transcription of the audiotaped and handwritten interviews, the
researcher read the interview results, paragraph-by-paragraph and word-by-
word, marking off the main ideas, issues, concepts, or themes mentioned during
the contact (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). By transcribing or writing out the data, the
researcher was attempting to make sense of the data in a time-consuming
process called content analysis (Walsh, 2003).
Coding Data
The researcher used NUD*IST, a computer program that provides for non-
numerical unstructured data indexing, searching, and theory-building. Though the
job of coding or slicing the data can be done manually, it was better facilitated by
the use of NUD*IST. The program allowed for the coding of the transcribed data.
In other words, the researcher was able to sort data into categories based on
59
informant emphasis and frequent use of concepts, terms, or key words that are
indicative of servant leadership and the construct of service. As per Walsh
(2003), the researcher iteratively reviewed all categories many times, and some
were collapsed into a common category (i.e., dominant themes) while others
were discarded as inappropriate. Thus, the researcher coded the text according
to observed references to servant leadership theory’s construct of service
components.
Interpreting Data
Once coding was completed, a cross-interview analysis (Patton, 2002)
was conducted to group data into categories that allowed the researcher to
compare what different leaders said, what themes were discussed, and how
concepts were understood. This involved comparing the material within the
categories to look for variations and nuances in the meaning of servant
leadership theory’s construct of service, as well as across the categories in order
to discover connections between themes (Rubin & Rubin, 1995).
Juxtaposing the categories against each other ensures that they are
conceptually distinct. Consequently, the categories that result are used to create
overarching themes that guide the development of a theoretical model of servant
leadership theory’s construct of service, in which the researcher presented a
“logical chain of evidence” (Walsh, 2003, p. 69), and eventually offered the
implications for the study (Rubin & Rubin).
60
Limitations of the Study
This study has several important limitations that should be addressed.
First, like many qualitative studies, which utilize a version of theoretical (or
purposive) sampling (Mason, 2002) this study limits generalization by focusing on
only a few leaders from the fields of business, government, non-governmental,
and educational institutions (universities) in Kenya. Thus, though the results are
meaningful theoretically and empirically, they are not generalizable to a larger
universe (Yin, 1994).
Because the researcher is usually in the presence of the informants only
briefly, and must draw inference from what happened during that brief period to
the rest of the informants’ life (including actions and perspectives), interviewing
poses some special problems for internal generalizability. The account based on
interviews may be valid (descriptively, interpretively, and theoretically) as an
account of the informants’ actions and perspective, but may miss other aspects
of the informants’ perspectives not expressed in the interview, and can lead to
false inferences about their actions outside the interview (Huberman & Miles,
2002).
In addition, the resources (e.g., time and money) available in this study
limited the researcher to a particular geographical region, Kenya, as well as to
just a handful of organizations. Although the results are generalizable to
theoretical propositions (Yin, 1994), a more diverse sampling would evince
greater clarity. Further, the results found in this study may have potentially been
somewhat idiosyncratic of the sample.
61
Finally, as with most qualitative methods of inquiry, the researcher is the
primary instrument for gathering and analyzing data. As human instrument, the
researcher is limited by being human. In other words, mistakes are made,
opportunities are missed, and personal biases interfere (Merriam, 1998). The
researcher is not neutral, distant, or emotionally uninvolved (Rubin & Rubin,
1995). Therefore, complete objectivity is not feasible. The researcher will bring
personal experience into the study, which may transcend interpretation and
influence data analysis.
Summary
This research, which utilized a qualitative method, focuses on making in-
roads into the primary postulate of this study: The acceptance and applicability of
Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory’s construct of service in the context
of Kenyan leaders and managers of varied organizational backgrounds. The
study was accomplished through in-depth interviews of leaders and managers
from Kenyan organizations that espouse servant leadership. Since the cardinal
purpose of the study was to capture the self-perceptions of the informants (i.e.,
their perspective) on servant leadership theory’s construct of service, in-depth
interviewing—which allows researchers to elicit information in order to achieve a
holistic understanding of the informants’ point of view—seemed suitable and
appropriate (Huberman & Miles, 2002; Mason, 2002; Maxwell, 1996). In-depth
interviewing involved the use of standardized open-ended interviews of Kenyan
leaders and managers of varied organizational settings. The questions involved
related to self-perceptions that can only be evinced through the voices of the
62
informants. Thus, in-depth interviewing provided depth, complexity, and
roundedness in the data.
63
Chapter Four: Findings
The fundamental objective of this study was to examine Patterson’s
(2003) servant leadership theory’s construct of service in the context of Kenyan
leaders and managers. According to Patterson, servant leaders signify those who
lead an organization by focusing on their followers, such that the followers are
the primary concern and the organizational concerns are peripheral. The study
focused on leaders and managers from four different sectors—Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGOs), institutions of higher learning (e.g.,
universities and colleges), corporate organizations, and governmental
organizations—to see if they understand and apply Patterson’s servant
leadership theory’s construct of service.
Description of the Research Participants
The researcher spent three and a half months in Kenya interviewing 25
leaders and managers in four organizational sectors: NGOs, institutions of higher
learning, corporate organizations, and governmental organizations. All of the
leaders and managers interviewed in this study hold college degrees and most of
them hold advanced degrees (e.g., masters and doctorates) in addition to being
in positions of leadership for a number of years in their current organizations. In
total, 9 (36%) CEOs, 3 (12%) deputy CEOs, and 13 (52%) division heads were
interviewed from NGOs, government, business corporations, and academic
institutions (see Table 1 for specific classification). There were 22 (88%) males
and 3 (12%) females interviewed (see Table 2). The demographic profile of the
64
leaders and managers interviewed, including age, length of time as a leader in
the organization, and highest degree received, was also taken into account (see
Table 3).
Table 1
Participants by Organizational Sectors
Government Business
Corporations
Academic
Institutions
Non-
Governmental
Organizations
CEO 2 3
1 3
Deputy CEO 1 0
1 1
Division Head 6
3 4 0
65
Table 2
Participants by Gender
Government Business
Corporations
Academic
Institutions
Non-
Governmental
Organizations
Male CEO 1 3
1 3
Female CEO 1 0
0 0
Male Deputy
CEO
1 0 0 1
Female
Deputy CEO
0 0 1 0
Male Division
Head
5 3 4 0
Female
Division Head
1 0 0 0
66
Table 3
Demographic Profile of Participants
Age Length of Time in Organization Highest Degree
Under 30 = 0 2 – 5 years = 8 Bachelors = 8
30 – 40 = 5 5 – 8 years = 4 Masters = 7
40 – 50 = 4 8 – 10 years = 2 Doctoral = 10
50 – 60 = 16 10 – 15 years = 2
Over 20 years = 9
For this study, each leader and manager was asked seven questions
using a standardized open-ended interview format that explored Patterson’s
(2003) servant leadership theory’s construct of service. The average length of the
interviews was about 45 minutes. Consequently, once the interviews had been
transcribed, there was a great deal of text to be handled and analyzed.
NUD*IST (Non-numerical, Unstructured, Data: Indexing, Searching and
Theorizing) facilitated analysis of the data. The data, which had been divided into
four documents as per the four categories of leaders and managers, was
imported into NUD*IST as raw files. For this project, it was decided that each
interview would carry the respondent’s name. Similarly, each text unit in every
document would be made up of interviewer’s questions, which were used as the
headings and marked with an asterisk. Since NUD*IST organizes data in a
system of nodes grouped together in a tree structure, the interviewer’s questions
or the headings from each document were used as the main categories or nodal
67
titles. The respondents’ responses on that particular question were used as sub-
categories (also nodes). Thus, at the end of the coding or indexing process, four
levels of data, where parent nodes had been split into sub-categories to facilitate
easier management of data, had been created. By the end of the coding or
indexing process, there were 143 nodes, all storing data relevant to answering
the research question: whether Kenyan leaders and managers understand and
apply Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory’s construct of service.
NUD*IST also facilitated a quick search for words, sentences, and
phrases related to the research question. Using a text search the researcher was
able to quickly pull together all material from the imported documents containing
a reference to a word or group of words, phrases, or patterns of characters
related to the construct of service. All the finds were saved as nodes and placed
in the text search area. The researcher used memos to record his thoughts and
comments about the node. At this point, the data set was ready to be used for
final analyses and write-up. The analysis of the responses resulted in seven
categories (a) role modeling, (b) sacrificing for others, (c) meeting the needs of
others (employees) and developing them, (d) service as a primary function of
leadership, (e) recognizing and rewarding employees, (f) treating employees with
respect (humility), and (g) involving others (employees) in decision making.
Role Modeling
The participants stated that the primary way they demonstrated service to
their followers was by role modeling or leading by example. They said that they
expect leadership to be the best example in any situation, whereby others can
68
see what is required and how it is done. The participants asserted that one of
their responsibilities as leaders and managers is to influence others through their
own actions. They insisted that they like leading by example because if one
wants things to be done in a specific manner, they should be the first person to
do it that way. Table 4 presents the participants’ comments on role modeling.
Table 4
Participants’ Comments on Role Modeling
Role modeling
signals to
others what is
important or
required
Role modeling
is the best
way to
influence
others
Leaders
should not
preach water
and then drink
wine
Service is
delivered
through role
modeling
CEO
2 4 1 1
Deputy CEO
1 0 1 0
Division Head
4 1 3 1
Total 7 5 5 2
A total of 19 (76%) out of the 25 participants interviewed indicated that
they demonstrate service to their followers through role modeling. Seven of the
19 participants indicated that role modeling signals to others (employees) what
the leader perceives to be important. For instance, Stanley Manduku, legal
69
advisor at Daima Bank, expressed that whatever he does triggers a sense of
importance and direction as far as the employees are concerned. He stated, “We
like leading by example; we realize that if you want things to be done in a specific
manner you be the first person to do it” (personal communication, November 2,
2004). Dr. Phillip Kitui, dean of the faculty of arts at Daystar University alluded to
this by saying:
If we say that this particular activity is a required activity then I should be
the first one to be there, in that activity. For instance, if I emphasize
training of staff as an important aspect of human resource development
then I cannot afford to tell them to go for the training and just sit back in
my office. (personal communication, November 3, 2004)
Another example of what leaders do to demonstrate service by
emphasizing what is important was expressed by Joseph Mpaa, general
manager of Serena Lodges. He stated, “My major way that I demonstrate service
is by doing sometimes what I want them to do by showing what they do is
important” (personal communication, October 7, 2004). Similarly, according to Dr.
Sarune Sena, director of Compassion International, the fundamental values
(including servant leadership, excellence, integrity, and cherishing family) that
their organization emphasizes are modeled first by the leaders. He explained,
“We cannot point them to employees without pointing them to ourselves. So role
modeling is our own beliefs of the leaders that we have here” (personal
communication, August 3, 2004).
70
Professor Peter Kibas, director of School of Management at the Kenya
Institute of Management, stressed that it is important for leaders to be conscious
of their actions before their followers. Though whatever they do may not have
meaning to them, it may carry a lot of meaning to the staff who are observing. He
stated:
Going back to probably the definition of what leadership is we talk of a
person who is in the forefront in terms of leading the way and getting the
subordinates and other workers see the best example. So we expect
leadership to be the best example in any situation whereby others can see
what is required and how it is done. (personal communication, August 30,
2004)
Five of the 19 participants stated that role modeling is the best way to
influence others. Dr. B. Waruinge, principal consultant at Sarowaki Management
Consultants LTD, believes that he influences others primarily through his
behavior. He stated, “A leader leads by example. It is how I treat customers here;
it is how I treat other people that have more influence than what I tell them. It is
more what I do, not what I say” (personal communication, September 25, 2004).
Joyce Kebathi, director of the department of adult education at the Ministry of
Gender, Sports/Culture, and Social Services echoed the same comments. She
stated:
You have to set an example because you have to lead by example and
the people who work with me I would influence the way they work. So if I
am unable to go beyond the call of duty then they will also be looking at
71
their watches that they come at 8 AM and leave at 5 PM. But if they see
that I am able to pursue the work that I have to do beyond the official
hours then they are also able to do the same. (personal communication,
September 24, 2004)
The idea of influencing others through role modeling also resonated from
Professor Godfrey Nguru, the vice-chancellor of Daystar University. He stated:
People bring into an organization various needs and as leaders our
responsibility is to influence, more so through what we do, the examples
and here service is very important because as you serve them so will they
be willing to follow and even serve others. (personal communication,
September 6, 2004)
Five of the 19 participants expressed that leaders should “walk the talk.” In
other words, they should not “preach water and then drink wine.” When asked to
comment on how she demonstrates service, Ann Lengerded, supervisor of
customer service at Telkom Kenya, explained:
I think through being a role model because even in work set up you don’t
have to take wine and preach water. So you are an example and by that
then you expect your employees to also emulate you in any set up, even
in the family. (personal communication, October 11, 2004)
Dr. Joshua Okumbe, deputy CEO at the Center for Corporate Governance,
stressed that their organization is known for modeling what they believe (the
fundamental value of integrity). He stated:
72
I think we have to a high degree espoused highest degrees of integrity
and the people we talk to not only want to believe they know what we do
but also know from the way we do things that we walk the talk and talk the
walk. So they know we are living by example. (personal communication,
September 13, 2004)
According to Kangethe Wagathigi, director of Biselex Kenya Limited,
leaders need to be extra careful because the kind of leadership or service that
they show to their employees is what they will copy. He stated:
If your leadership is bad, if it is crooked, your staff will be crooked. If you
tell them I want us to follow these strict ethical and moral standards and
you yourself you don’t, don’t preach water and you wallow in wine. You
preach water and then drink water. (personal communication, October 8,
2004)
Professor Godfrey Nguru stated that leaders should avoid a situation of double-
personality. In stead, they should lead by example. He stated:
In this country we are now telling people you lead from the front, not from
the back and that is role modeling so that if we say that we want quality
then your leadership too should be quality leadership—whether it is the
issue of time, whether it is the issue of hard work, whether it is the issue of
integrity, whether it is the issue of fulfilling the promises. All those traits
you should show them by example, not to preach water and then drink
wine. (personal communication, September 6, 2004)
73
Two of the 19 participants expressed that the leader must be an example
of good service to others. John Lelaono, general manager of Keekorok &
Samburu Lodges, explained:
The leader must ensure that he/she is an example of good service to the
guests or to the general public then from there the workers, who are under
him/her will follow the suit and take a good example from him or her.
(personal communication, October 18, 2004)
The following excerpt from an interview with Dr. Isaac Bekalu, director of
International Rural for Reconstruction, expressed his idea of service being
delivered through role modeling:
It is not like you are delivering goods to somebody’s door, but through
modeling, through examples, through your own abilities or your own
approach, you are delivering service because the staff in your organization
learn from you and look at you as a model. (personal communication,
September 24, 2004)
Summary
The participants believed that service is about role modeling. They
expressed that service is best demonstrated through role modeling and by
examples because the staff in the organization learn primarily from the leader,
looking to them as a model. If a leader leads by example, they set the standard,
which the employees or the staff is likely to emulate. Thus, leaders are better
understood when they lead with an example.
74
Sacrificing for Others
The participants’ view of sacrificing for others is embedded in the way they
give their time, resources, and even themselves for the work of others. The
participants indicated that they have accepted low pay on many occasions in
order to serve others. The idea of sacrificing for others also borders on the
Kenyan harambee philosophy. Table 5 presents the participants’ short
statements on sacrificing for others.
Table 5
Participants’ Statements on Sacrificing for Others
Service calls
for sacrifice in
terms of time,
resources and
self
Service as an
act of sacrifice
due to
inadequate
working
resources
Service has
meant going
for low pay
Service
borders on the
Kenyan
harambee
philosophy
CEO 2 1 3 1
Deputy CEO 1 0 0 0
Division Head 4 2 0 3
Total 7 2 3 4
A total of 16 (64%) out of the 25 participants interviewed indicated that
they sacrifice in order to serve others, mainly their followers. Seven of the 16
participants strongly expressed a desire to sacrifice their time, resources, and
75
self in order to serve others. J.K. Gikuumah, officer in charge of registry at the
Ministry of Lands, stated that she used to put in extra time in order to clear the
backlog, all without an extra pay. She explained, “So I used to stay over time yet
I was never paid a single penny for the time that I worked over time” (personal
communication, October 22, 2004). According to Ann Lengerded, a leader should
sacrifice his or her time for both the employees and even the customers. She
stated:
Manpower in any given organization, in any given set up is actually the
prime move. It is the biggest asset that an organization can have and one
as a leader, you can always go a step ahead even to sacrifice your own
time, to counsel those who have got needs. And for customers, even to go
ahead and explain whatever kinds of products you have and to give all the
assistance that even goes beyond your job description. (personal
communication, October 11, 2004)
Dr. Chweya Ludeki, chairman of the Department of History and
Government at the University of Nairobi, expressed that he spent extra time
coaching and helping students for which he is not paid. He explained with an
example:
Take for example, last night I had to come to this office at 7.30 PM
because that was the only time I had to attend to a masters student, who
had a thesis that was supervised by one lecturer, who has since then
departed and I had to substitute. I could not see the student for two days
because of meetings, but I told him to come at 7.30 PM; we sat here until
76
midnight. And you see that time I should have been home relaxing with my
little boys; I felt sorry for them. (personal communication, November 4,
2004)
The participants also viewed service in terms of selflessness. For
instance, Dr. Joshua Okumbe explained that:
Anybody who occupies any position of leadership must know on the very
onset that their very function as they occupy those positions is to serve, to
be selfless. I mean, if you want to define leadership in terms of
selflessness that is what it means—to be out there to provide, to avail your
skills and potentials for the benefit of mankind. (personal communication,
September 13, 2004)
In the words of Dr. Saruni Sena, a leader also forfeits himself or herself for the
benefit of others. He stated, “Unless you give your time to others you are not
really giving yourself. What other things do we forfeit: you forfeit yourself”
(personal communication, August 3, 2004).
According to Dr. Chweya Ludeki, leaders should even go to the extent of
spending personal resources for the welfare of the people they are leading. He
explained:
There are some ways you spend your own money to make sure that the
group you are leading or the unit you are leading actually succeeds. So to
the extent that a leader even spends one’s own money, personal
resources in it suggests that the leader does not treat the job from a purely
official standpoint but treats it at the personal level as well, and sees
77
personal stake in the matter. (personal communication, November 4,
2004)
Two participants, both from government, expressed that working for the
government has been an act of sacrifice due to lack of necessary resources.
According to Joseph Nkadayo, principal superintending engineer of roads at the
Ministry of Roads and Public Works, working for the government calls for
endurance and great sacrifice. He explained:
I have personally worked for twenty years and have served in many areas.
But I have to be honest with you that we have so many limitations (e.g.,
equipment). However, in spite of the limitations we try to keep our
motivation and commitment high. (personal communication, October 26,
2004)
Joyce Kebathi alluded to the same comments. She stated:
Actually we will go beyond what is expected of us as a government
because when we started this program in the early 1980s, we used to
have a lot of resources from the government in terms of teachers, in terms
of materials but these days things are not the same, and sometimes we go
beyond ourselves in even buying materials for the students. (personal
communication, September 24, 2004)
Three of the 16 participants stated that their current jobs have been a
matter of sacrifice. In other words, their pay is not commensurate with their
training and what they do. Godwin Mzenge, executive director of Family
78
Planning Association of Kenya, believed that he has sacrificed a lot in order to
give the necessary leadership in the organization. He stated:
May be for a long time I was one of the lowest paid executives in the
world. I could have easily threatened and resigned, but I had a feeling that
I needed to give good leadership to this organization in order to grow. It is
only last October when there was an international assessment of this
organization and that they raised the issue of compensation for the chief
executive because one of the standards is that the chief executive should
be well compensated. (personal communication, September 23, 2004)
Chris Kuto, director general of Kenya Civil Aviation Authority, strongly felt that his
profession could have taken him far if he had chosen not to sacrifice for others.
He explained:
I want to believe that my being here has been because I have sacrificed to
be here. Technically, my profession could have taken me elsewhere for
better pay if that is what I wanted. First and foremost, I saw myself
contributing to the growth of the industry in this country at various levels
as I grew up in the system. I went to the extent of sacrificing, rather going
for low salary for job satisfaction. You know public service in this country is
not well paying and I have been around without what I think I am worth.
(personal communication, November 3, 2004)
Similarly, for professor Godfrey Nguru, change of jobs has meant sacrificing a lot.
He stated:
79
When I came to Daystar first, I sacrificed my job at Kenyatta University,
which had all the potential. At that time Daystar was a very small
organization. My coming second time has meant sacrificing a very stable
position at St. Pauls Theological Seminary for an institution that may not
be doing very well financially at this point. It has all meant sacrifice. And
that is what leadership, servant leadership is all about; it is to sacrifice
yourself for others. (personal communication, September 6, 2004)
Four of the 16 participants expressed that service borders on the Kenyan
harambee philosophy, which calls for sacrificing for the benefit of others. The
following excerpt from an interview with Dr. Chweya Ludeki expressed his idea of
the connection between service (sacrifice) and harambee:
You see there are two ways in which you can look or understand service.
One, of course, you can look at the standpoint of the harambee
philosophy, which is serving by sacrificing for the interests of others. So
that is one, which borders on something like voluntary, probably sacrifice,
dedication of your time and profession to the service of others. (personal
communication, November 4, 2004)
According to Mohez Kamarli, director of Concorde Car Hire, the harambee
spirit has been an excellent way of meeting the needs that people face. He
stated:
I think the harambee spirit has been a tremendous Kenyan way of having
to sort of attend to the needs of our individual relatives or people, and I
think it is the spirit that has tremendous or a very a good place in our
80
society here. When we put our resources together, obviously we can help
one another and with that in mind, we can alleviate lots of difficulties
people have faced having to sort of go through problems by themselves.
(personal communication, August 24, 2004)
The following excerpt from Dr. James Kombo, dean of faculty of post-
graduate studies at Daystar University, puts emphasis on people combining their
meager resources in order to help others:
Harambee as you know, is the political motto that the founders of this
nation rallied around that term to pull the meager resources that the
country had and still has in order for them to be able to push forward
beyond the budgetary allocations to provide the necessary services. There
was an understanding that there would be the budgetary allocations but
that wouldn’t be enough. So people will go an extra mile on their own and
then be in a position to give. (personal communication, November 5,
2004)
81
Summary
The participants believed that it is almost impossible to serve people
(others) without sacrifice. In situations, where others were affected, leaders were
willing to sacrifice a lot. In other words, the participants were willing to work
beyond their job descriptions with no extra pay, to hold low paying jobs that may
not be commensurate with their training and expertise in order to turn around
institutions for the benefit of others, and to even go to the extent of spending their
own resources in order to help others come out of strenuous circumstances. The
participants who worked for the government have had to sacrifice a lot more due
to lack of necessary resources. All these border on the Kenyan harambee
philosophy, which centers on leaders making a great sacrifice for the service of
others. The harambee spirit has been a tremendous way of alleviating the
problems that people have had to face.
Meeting the Needs of Others (Employees) and Developing Them
The participants expressed that it is important for a leader to sufficiently
remunerate their employees where they can adequately meet all their needs.
These include competitive salaries or wages, medical coverage, travel bonuses,
and even loan schemes. As a way of making employees comfortable, the
participants insisted that they are mandated to ensure that a conducive-working
environment exists for the employees in terms of equipment and other materials,
where they have the tools to enhance their skills and talents. The participants
also believed in guiding their followers in order to identify their personal and
professional goals so as to develop them to their full potential. This means
82
helping them to identify and maximize their strengths while minimizing their
weaknesses. Further, the participants said that they have an obligation to
develop the staff under them through training. In other words, they aspire to
encourage the people that work with them to keep improving and bettering
themselves by updating their skills. All these are indicators that the participants
view the employees as the greatest assets that any functional organization can
have. Table 6 presents the participants’ statements on meeting the needs of
others and also developing them.
Table 6
Participants’ statements on meeting the needs of others and developing them
People
only follow
those who
are ready
to meet
their needs
Providing a
conducive
working
environment
Helping
others to
achieve
their goals
and
objectives
Developing
others
through
training
The staff
as an
important
element or
asset
CEO 3 1 3 2 1
Deputy
CEO
0 0 0 0 2
Division
Head
5 4 3 2 5
Total 8 5 6 4 8
83
A total of 21 (84%) out of the 25 participants interviewed provided strong
views that are reminiscent of leaders and managers that care about meeting the
physical as well as the developmental needs of their employees. Eight of the 21
participants proffered that people only follow leaders who are ready to meet their
needs. This was the case with Professor Godfrey Nguru, who said:
You can only lead if there are followers and people are likely to follow if
they can see that their interests are being taken care of. They are more
easily to follow if they can identify the one they are supposed to follow and
people are identified best if they see a person who is ready to listen to
them and to respond to their needs. (personal communication, September
6, 2004)
Dr. Chweya Ludeki echoed Professor Nguru by saying that at times leaders go to
the extent of investing personal resources for the welfare of the people that they
lead. He proffered, “There are some ways you spend your own money to make
sure that the group you are leading or the unit you are leading actually succeeds”
(personal communication, November 4, 2004). Joseph Mpaa was even more
candid and cogent about taking care of employees’ needs. He stated, “I always
make sure that the staff are comfortable. We do this in line of their
accommodation; we take care of their accommodation in terms of their food, in
terms of the working environment and respect” (personal communication,
October 7, 2004).
According to Stanley Manduku, banks have developed a comprehensive
package for their employees. He condescendingly explained:
84
What banks have done, they try as much as possible to ensure they give
various packages, which will include full medical cover, which is so that in
the event that you are sick you can immediately get medical attention.
They also try to give you house loans depending on whether you satisfy
the criteria. (personal communication, November 2, 2004)
Mohez Kamarli expressed that though his workers are not remunerated
where they can adequately pay for all their needs in terms of rent, transportation,
and family requirements, he has at least tried to put them above the minimum
wage. He stated:
In my own organization I have had to look certainly beyond the particulars
or guidelines of salaries or wages set by the government. Here we have
medical, travel bonuses and our own kind of salaries are higher than the
basics that are stipulated in the wage schedules. (personal
communication, August 24, 2004)
Dr. Phillip Kitui expressed that students constitute his purpose for being at
the university and that their learning (students) is first and foremost their
(teachers) main responsibility. He went on to explain:
It is our responsibility to plan for it, it is our responsibility to devote our
energies and resources to it, it is our responsibility to give more time even
outside class to mentor them and to guide them in their learning,
especially to win them or help transition from being people who are
dependent on the lecturers for their learning to people who are probably
85
interdependent with each other and ultimately independent of each other.
(personal communication, November 3, 2004)
Five of the 21 participants said that providing a conducive-working
environment for the workers has always been a core agenda for them. Joseph
Mpaa expressed that giving employees the priorities they deserve will cause
them to take good care of the company’s clients. He stated, “As the general
manager, I personally and I have seen it work give every effort to make sure that
the staff have a working tool and that the environment for the staff to produce is
enabling” (personal communication, October 7, 2004). Ole Ndere, finance
director of Ewuaso Ngiro South Development Authority, gave a similar idea. He
stated, “As a leader, one has an obligation to develop the staff under him or her.
So definitely the kind of the working environment you create as a leader matters
and it has a direct bearing on the output of the employees” (personal
communication, October 17, 2004). Professor Peter Kibas said that his role is
that of a coach. He further explained, “I help employees under me to achieve the
objectives by assisting them in the area they need help by providing the
necessary environment in terms of the equipment and any other material they
may need” (personal communication, August 30, 2004).
In the words of Professor Godfrey Nguru, the university exists to provide a
conducive-environment for learning and teaching for the students. He went on to
explain:
To do this will require the staff and the staff too have got their own
individual needs and individual interests, which must be taken care of if
86
they are going to realize their full potential, and if they are going to give
their best. And so it is my responsibility also to ensure that the staff, who
work in this institution, both teaching staff and support staff are also
enabled materially, intellectually, and even emotionally to do their best, to
realize their potential. (personal communication, September 6, 2004)
Similarly, as pertaining to faculty and staff, Dr. James Kombo stated:
We ensure that we put measures and systems in place to affirm them and
make their work not a lot more easier, but a lot more productive to enable
them to be able to do what they ought to do in a manner that takes into
consideration their self worth as people. (personal communication,
November 5, 2004)
Six of the 21 participants indicated that they are attuned to helping others
to achieve their goals and objectives. Professor Godfrey Nguru said that for
people to grow and realize their full potential, they must be helped. He stated, “In
addition to achieving the objectives of an organization, you also want to achieve
the objectives of the people you are working with because they too have goals,
personal goals, and sometimes professional goals” (personal communication,
September 6, 2004). In the words of Dr. B. Waruinge, evaluating employees’
strengths and weaknesses is a crucial undertaking if they are to grow. He
stressed, “I think the role of a leader is to evaluate those that he or she works
with, to know their strengths and their weaknesses and encourage them to build
their strengths” (personal communication, September 25, 2004).
87
For Joseph Nkadayo, though the environment is unfavorable at times, he
tries to guide and encourage the employees. He stated:
I always prefer guiding and encouraging people in doing the right thing.
What I do in most cases is that I try to identify their capabilities and then
build on those strengths. In other words, I try to minimize their
weaknesses. (personal communication, October 26, 2004)
Dr. Phillip Kitui also commended on the idea of helping employees to capitalize
on their strengths while overcoming their weaknesses:
I recognize that everybody has a talent that is different from that of other
people and the main goal for me is to identify the talent or the strengths of
each individual and to help them to use these areas of strength to excel in
what they do and possibly help them to overcome some of their
weaknesses so that they can be better performers, they can achieve
greater success and possibly excellence in what they do. (personal
communication, November 3, 2004)
Four of the 21 participants said that they put emphasis on developing their
followers through training. Chris Kuto expressed that for the employees to be
able to provide an efficient service they need to be trained in the areas of those
services. He went on to explain, “They should have customer care in their
portfolio. It means you have to train them to be able to appreciate the customer,
they have to appreciate that they are providing a very essential service”
(personal communication, November 3, 2004). For Ann Lengerded, training helps
employees stay longer in the organization because it creates a sense of
88
ownership of it. She stated, “I think what I have done about it is really
encouraging them to take training; they need to keep updating their skills as
years go by and really feel like they own the organization” (personal
communication, October 11, 2004). Joseph Mpaa sees training in a similar
manner. He expressed, “We also want to help them realize that they have a
future in us by enabling and encouraging training on the job and allowing those
who are lucky sometimes to have opportunities to go for further studies”
(personal communication, October 7, 2004).
According to Joyce Kebathi, training becomes even handier during times
of succession. She explained, “One thing I have tried to do as much as possible
is to train the younger officers so that they will be able to take over after most of
us, who have been here many years have left” (personal communication,
September 24, 2004).
Eight of the 21 participants all made comments suggesting that employees
are the most valuable assets they have in their organizations. Joshua Okumbe
acknowledged this fact when he said, “Our employees as few as they are we
must recognize that they are the most important resource that this organization
has” (personal communication, September 13, 2004). In her own words,
Professor Mary Jones, deputy vice-chancellor of Africa Nazarene University,
said, “I am not all I would say but I try and show genuine and caring concern, that
I regard people as people and not as just objects” (personal communication,
September 7, 2004).
89
The following excerpt from an interview with Kangethe Wagathigi
expressed his idea of valuing employees:
The most important asset any company has are the employees. You might
have a very good product, a fantastic product, but if you do not have the
loyalty of your staff, you are doomed. You should have a bonding with
your people. And for us, these are not employees; they are assets
because without them you cannot move on. (personal communication,
October 8, 2004)
John Lelaono views the employees as the performers, stating that the
success of any management is gauged by the kind of employees that
management has. He stressed, “The employees are a very important resource
because without the employees, management cannot do the work that the
employees do” (personal communication, October 18, 2004). According to Ole
Ndere, since the employees are desperately needed in every organization they
must be satisfied. He stated, “Employees are the most important resource in any
organization since they have the potential to either mismanage other resources
or the potential to also make sure the other resources available to the
organization are utilized both efficiently and effectively” (personal communication,
October 17 2004). Similarly, Ann Lengerded shared, “Manpower in any
organization, in any given set up is actually the prime move. It is the biggest
asset that an organization can have” (personal communication, October 11,
2004). Professor Peter Kibas expressed that the world is moving towards valuing
others, valuing subordinates, and inculcating in them the attitude of service. He
90
went on to explain, “I want to say that we at Kenya Institute of Management have
continued to inculcate that appropriate leadership, whereby leadership means
taking others to be key. In other words being able to value others and their
contributions” (personal communication, August 30, 2004).
Summary
The participants were very ebullient about leaders and managers pursuing
the physical and the developmental needs of their followers. To meet the
physical needs of the followers, the participants must pursue comprehensive and
competitive remuneration packages (e.g., salaries and wages, medical coverage,
and loan schemes). Leaders may also be forced from time to time to invest their
own time, energies, and personal resources for the benefit of the employees.
Similarly, a conducive-working environment (e.g., tools and equipment) is also
crucial. Further, the participants expressed the cardinal importance of training as
a way of helping employees to achieve their own personal and professional
goals, leading to growth and development. Training ensures that they stay with
the organization longer and at the same time prepares them to assume
monumental functions and responsibilities.
Service as a Primary Function of Leadership
The participants did not find a dichotomy between service and leadership.
They said that the two concepts are so intertwined that they can be used
interchangeably. They expressed that leadership is about providing a service. In
other words, a leader is supposed to serve and be selfless, not to be served. The
91
participants observed that in the absence of service there is no leadership
because leaders should do things for others. They also expressed that service
delivery is only possible through leaders who model. That is, service is
something that is observed by others, a service that is emulated. Further, service
calls for strict adherence to certain key leadership principles, including integrity
and excellence. These are the utmost qualities of a leader. Table 7 presents the
various comments about what the participants said concerning service as the
primary function of leadership.
Table 7
Participants’ Comments on Service as a Primary Function of Leadership
Leadership is
first service
There is no
leadership
without
service
Service is
delivered by
leaders who
model
Service calls
for adherence
to certain key
leadership
principles
CEO 2 1 3 2
Deputy CEO 2 0 0 1
Division Head 3 4 3 1
Total 7 5 6 4
A total of 18 (72%) out of the 25 participants interviewed offered
incendiary views of service as the primary function of leadership. Seven of the 18
92
participants perceived leadership as first service. In the words of Dr. Saruni
Sena, a leader is intent on giving service, “You are a leader, who provides
service and the first service you give is yourself so that they too give themselves
to you” (personal communication, August 3, 2004). Professor Godfrey Nguru
sees service as being a critical in terms of leadership as an element. He stated:
You can only lead if there are followers and people are likely to follow if
they can see that their interests are being taken care of. They are more
easily to follow if they can identify the one they are supposed to follow and
people who are identified best if they see a person who is ready, one, to
listen to them and two, to respond to their needs. And that is what service
is all about. (G. Nguru, personal communication, September 6, 2004)
In the words of Dr. Joshua Okumbe, service is the main function of
leadership. He explained, “A leader is out there to serve, not to be served.
Anybody who occupies any position of leadership must know on the very onset
that their very function as they occupy those positions is to serve, to be selfless”
(personal communication, September 13, 2004). While alluding to the fact that
service is the primary function of leadership, Joseph Nkadayo indicated that
service gives the leader an opportunity to bring their best capabilities to work for
the welfare of others. He stated, “Service helps those being led to access the
capabilities of the leader. Service calls for the leader to give his or her time and
resources to the development of other people” (personal communication,
October 26, 2004).
93
Dr. Chweya Ludeki expressed that at times leaders spend personal
resources to serve others and ensure their success. He noted that what matters
to every leader is seeing people succeed in all they do, a fact he described as
the litmus test of leadership. He further explained, “There are some ways you
spend your own money to make sure that the group you are leading or the unit
you are leading actually succeeds” (personal communication, November 4,
2004).
Five of the 18 participants expressed that leadership is futile and
meaningless if service is not there. According to John Lelaono, service is
determined by the kind of leadership that is inherent in the organization. He
stated, “For the employees to be able to perform to their best, for them to be able
to serve the guests to the best of their abilities, they must be given good
leadership” (personal communication, October 18, 2004). In the words of J.
Gikuumah, premises officer at the National Bank of Kenya, “If you don’t give
proper leadership, service is going to be poor. If you got a very sound leadership,
there will be progress” (personal communication, October 22, 2004). As per Ann
Lengerded, service is paramount for a leader. She stated:
Service is really vital in any leadership position because as a leader
service has to be from bottom-up and from up to bottom because at the
end of it all the mission and vision of an organization is actually defined
also along the service lines. (personal communication, October 11, 2004)
The following excerpt from Godwin Mzenge emphasizes the fact that leadership
and service cannot be divorced from one another:
94
In the absence of service or poor quality service, then leadership has no
meaning. In our case, for example, if it transpires that the services we are
offering in our clinics and the field offices are not meeting the expectations
of the communities out there that have a reflection directly to the
leadership of the organization. If we are able to anticipate properly,
correctly the needs of the community members, the poor people out there
and satisfy that need through offering our services that has a reflection on
leadership. (personal communication, September 23, 2004)
Six of the 18 participants expressed that service is best delivered when it
is modeled. Stanley Manduku believed modeling is important if a service is to be
given. He explained, “In fact, technically for you to offer the requisite service, first
of all you must be above reproach, whereby you must be a good example”
(personal communication, November 2, 2004). Dr. Isaac Bekalu expressed that
service is usually observed and emulated by others (e.g., employees). He
explained:
Leadership is actually about providing service. It is not like you are
delivering goods to somebody’s door, but through modeling, through
examples, through your own abilities or your own approach, you are
delivering service because the staff in your organization learn from you
and look at you as a model, and that is a service that you are providing.
(personal communication, September 24, 2004)
Dr. B. Waruinge strongly believed that leading by example has more
influence in terms of service delivery than just talking or telling. It is how he treats
95
customers and employees that matters most, not what he tells them. He further
explained, “My influence is through my behavior. And if I tell them that I want
them to give good service, I have to live my example. I think that is really what I
believe; it is how I treat others” (personal communication, September 25, 2004).
Kangethe Wagathigi asserted that modeling keeps a leader from accumulating
extra work because his or her employees look at him or her as a role model and
emulate his or her behavior. He stated, “So in your provision of your services to
the customers, the kind of leadership you show to your employees is what they
will copy. If your leadership is bad, if it is crooked, your staff will be crooked”
(personal communication, October 8, 2004).
Four of the 18 participants indicated they identify service with certain
fundamental leadership principles. These include integrity and excellence, which
are described as the utmost qualities of a leader. Dr. Saruni Sena mentioned
these principles while discussing service and leadership. He stated, “One of them
is servant leadership, another one is excellence, another one is integrity, and
another one is cherishing family” (personal communication, August 3, 2004). In
reference to service, Professor Peter Kibas talked of continuous improvement
(excellence), which is being able to do better everyday. He continued, “So in this
case then it means striving towards excellence and encouraging every member
in this organization to strive towards excellence by doing better, by improving, by
being more efficient and by emulating good practices” (personal communication,
August 30, 2004).
96
According to Dr. B. Waruinge, honesty and integrity are very important in
service delivery. He stressed that being firm and principled on what you believe
is very important. Using an example of his employees he further explained, “One
of the problems we had was customers would leave and forget their things and
they would disappear. And so we figured who was doing this and started talking
to them about honesty and integrity” (personal communication, September 25,
2004). Similarly, Dr. Joshua Okumbe attributed the growth of their organization
(Center for Corporate Governance) to excellence. He explained, “It has grown
this big generally because we believe in excellence at work. It is because of this
commitment towards excellence at work that we have been able to do what we
have done” (personal communication, September 13, 2004).
97
Summary
The participants said that leadership and service are intertwined. They
expressed that leadership is about providing service. In other words, a leader is
simply out to serve others selflessly. They serve by giving their time and
resources for the development and betterment of others. In the absence of
service, leadership becomes murky and meaningless. This is because leaders
primarily do things for others. Service is determined by the kind of leadership that
is inherent in the organization, and for the employees to perform maximally they
must be given good leadership. Service is delivered through modeling. Service
also calls for adherence to certain fundamental leadership principles, including
integrity and excellence. Leaders and employees who walk and practice
excellence and integrity are able to grow and improve their organizations.
Recognizing and Rewarding Employees
The participants said that recognizing and rewarding employees takes
center stage in their organizations. They believed that when employees’ efforts
are recognized and rewarded, they become committed to excellence in whatever
they do. In other words, people work better when they know that their
contribution is being recognized and appreciated. The participants expressed
that they put measures and systems in place to affirm, including training; they
capitalize on both verbal and written messages when addressing their
employees; they host parties and get-togethers to appreciate and acknowledge
employees’ performance; and they promote and encourage divergent views as
98
part of being accommodating and as a means of legitimizing the work
environment as a learning process. Table 8 presents the various comments
about what the participants said concerning recognizing and rewarding
employees.
Table 8
Participants’ Comments on Recognizing and Rewarding Employees
Measures and
systems are in
place to affirm
Verbal and
written
messages
Parting and
celebrating
together
Encouraging
divergent
views
CEO 0 5 1 1
Deputy CEO 0 0 0 1
Division Head 4 2 1 2
Total 4 7 2 4
A total of 16 (64%) out of the 25 participants interviewed offered the
necessary buttress to recognizing and rewarding employees. Four of the 16
leaders and managers said that they already have some measures and systems
in place to affirm the employees in the organization. These measures and
systems provide a way of granting awards and promotions to the outstanding
workers while putting pressure on the perfidious employees. Ole Ndere
expressed that performance appraisal is used as a means of praising and
promoting employees. He stated:
99
I also make sure that the employee appraisal, performance appraisal is
done fairly and I make a proposal for both training and also for promotion,
where I feel an employee has done so well and he/she needs to be
promoted so he/she gets some sort of motivation. (personal
communication, October 17, 2004)
To Saoli Nkanae, vice-chairman of Service Commission, appraising employees is
also an acceptable surrogate. He explained:
Those who do their job perfectly, you appraise them; we have an appraisal
form by the way. Every year we discuss it and we use it as a basis for
promotion. The employee and the head of department must meet once in
a while and discuss about their performance if they are meeting our
strategy. (personal communication, October 22, 2004)
John Lelaono strongly believed that there must be definite criteria to
reward outstanding performances. He said that if someone’s performance is
good, that is the criteria they are going to use. He further explained:
We have things like gold stars, which are awards given every month to the
outstanding employees. So if you are the outstanding performer in the
month of January, for instance, you get a gold star, and it goes like that.
Then per quarter we have the employee of the quarter and at the end of
the year, we have employee of the year, which is very prominently
displayed so that everybody’s guests and staff alike can be able to see
and know that this was the person most outstanding in the organization in
this particular year. (personal communication, October 18, 2004)
100
According to Joseph Mpaa, it is vitally important for a leader to create an
enabling environment for the employees as part of appreciating and rewarding
them. This way, employees will be motivated and elated to accelerate their
performance. He stated:
I personally and I have seen it work give every effort to make sure that the
staff have a working tool and that the environment for the staff to produce
is enabling, that the staff feel appreciated and recognized and fairly
rewarded for the efforts done. (personal communication, October 7, 2004)
Seven of the 16 participants said that they emphasize both verbal and
written messages as part of recognizing and appreciating their employees for
excellent performance. Professor Godfrey Nguru expressed that a leader needs
to affirm their followers because people work better when they are being
appreciated and when their contribution is being recognized. He further
explained:
Just to meet with a member of staff and say, I liked what you did last time,
you did a good job and I have known that to be very important to many
people. Believe it or not all like to be appreciated; we all like to be told well
done at one point in our life and that I make it a point of doing. I do that
through special notes, I do that through even SMS (short messages
system) these days. After the installation ceremony, I sent SMS to many
of the people just to say thank you for making the day; your contribution
was useful and some of them replied. (personal communication,
September 6, 2004)
101
Dr. Isaac Bekalu believes that people get even more energized when they
are appreciated in public, something not many leaders do. He stated:
I also try to appreciate people, praising them in front of others,
acknowledging that this was done by so and so; I think it was an excellent
job. Occasionally, I send them a note to appreciate that they have done a
good job. (personal communication, September 24, 2004)
Similarly, John Lelaono said that they show formal appreciation for outstanding
performances. He stressed, “If a person goes out of his or her way and does
something beyond what is expected of him or her, we show appreciation. We
show formal appreciation by giving letters of appreciation” (personal
communication, October 18, 2004). Dr. B. Waruinge also said he praises his
employees in public. He explained with an example:
There is a lot of work involved in laying these walls. It is done by one of
my waiters who is the least educated but I noticed that he had a talent for
stonework and so he has become my stone expert and I would praise him
in front of leaders as the architect of Olepolos. (personal communication,
September 25, 2004)
Joyce Kebathi acknowledged appreciating the employees that work for her. She
stated:
I like acknowledging each and every employee. For instance, I always feel
that each of us have a very great role to play in the smooth running of this
department and even the lady, who cleans my office, I make her feel that
102
she is very important because if she never dust my table and make sure
that the office is clean then I will not be working in a conducive
environment. (personal communication, September 24, 2004)
Godwin Mzenge reiterated the idea of appreciating employees. He said
that whenever people talk well of their services, he is always sure to pass the
praise on to the employees. He explained:
Occasionally I would meet somebody out there and I introduce myself as I
work for Family Planning Association of Kenya and the person says you
have a wonderful maternity clinic. And in the morning when I come in
before I take the stairs I would go to the clinic and tell the nurses I met
somebody yesterday, who spoke highly of your service, congratulations.
(personal communication, September 23, 2004)
Two of the 16 participants indicated that partying, get-togethers, and
common celebrations act as a precursor to recognizing and rewarding
employees. According to Dr. Saruni Sena, employees are rewarded and
recognized through various celebrations. He stated:
Everybody’s birthday is celebrated in this office. Also, every now and then
we come together for parties just to say thank you to the employees. Our
leaders truly appreciate the employees and the employees reciprocate by
giving excellent topnotch service (personal communication, August 3,
2004).
103
The following excerpt from Godwin Mzenge puts emphasis on partying or
celebrating as part of recognizing and rewarding employees:
This organization was awarded the UN population award in 2003 and I
had to go to New York to the United Nations to receive it from the
Secretary General. So when I came back I decided let us celebrate and
the best way to celebrate is to look back in our history and see those who
have given outstanding contributions to this organization and award them
recognition certificates or something like that. (personal communication,
September 23, 2004)
Four of the 16 participants stated that they promote divergent views from
their employees in order to encourage and motivate them. They believe that
divergent views take people out of their myopic thinking and place them in a
position to accommodate the views of others. Stanley Manduku stressed that
even when a divergent view is not taken, the approach should be such that it is
accommodating. He stated:
We have divergent views that are productive despite the fact that they will
be against what you think but at the end of the day you appreciate the fact
that that view can be productive. Those ones when you are dealing with
them even if you have to say no, you will have to do in such a manner that
it is quite accommodating. (personal communication, November 2, 2004)
Mohez Kamarli expressed that divergent views are not necessarily negative. He
further elaborated, “In my mind it is positive because then you can look at the
whole spectrum of what problems you may have; shutting out those with
104
divergent views is shutting out the treasure of solutions that lay ahead of you”
(personal communication, August 24, 2004).
Dr. Phillip Kitui believed that divergent views could be productive if people
take them as part of learning. He explained:
What I find is that people tend to listen to their peers in that case when it
comes to opposing views, rather than the person in authority. And so I
would want to invite those different views at that level so that people also
learn what their peers are thinking about. (personal communication,
November 3, 2004)
Summary
According to the participants, recognizing and rewarding employees takes
center stage. For instance, certain measures and systems, including
performance appraisal, which provide the criteria for awards granting and
promotion to the outstanding employees, have been put in place. The
participants put emphasis on both verbal and written messages as part of
appreciating and recognizing excellent performance. They also indicated that
parties, get-togethers, and common celebrations are events that motivate
employees a great deal. Such events are used to thank the employees, award
recognition certificates, or even at times just to celebrate their birthdays. The
participants further said that they encourage divergent views from their
employees. They strongly believed that divergent views jettison people out of
their myopic thinking in order to accommodate a wide spectrum of others’ views.
105
Treating Employees with Respect (Humility)
The participants believed that those leaders who have adopted humility
exercise great respect for others. They said that humility is crucial because
everybody’s self-worth and inner citadel must be allowed to show. As a result,
the participants expressed that they see and regard everybody as equal and
important, that they take the time to listen to others (open door policy), and they
handle corrections and criticisms in a manner that does not destroy the individual
but that builds up the individual. Table 9 presents the various statements and
comments that the participants expressed concerning their treatment and
showing respect while interacting with others (employees).
Table 9
Participants’ Statements and Comments on treating and showing Respect for
Others
Seeing everybody
equal and
important
Open-door policy
(listening to
others)
Corrections and
criticisms done in
a humble manner
CEO 5 3 3
Deputy CEO 1 1 0
Division Head 6 5 1
Total 12 9 4
A total of 17 (68%) out of the 25 participants interviewed gave splendid
and detailed support to treating others with respect as a sign of humility. They
106
saw humility as a way of connecting with others and respecting them. Twelve of
the 17 leaders and managers showed renditions of valuing all and seeing them
as equal and important. According to Professor Mary Jones, people need to be
regarded as people in every organization. She stated, “I try and show genuine
and caring concern, that I regard people as people and not as just objects. And
all of this is to mean that each person does mean something to the organization”
(personal communication, September 7, 2004). Dr. Saruni Sena stressed that
power distance is a thing of the past in their organization. He stated, “It is
absolutely, completely clear that if you stayed here two, three hours you may not
know who is a director except perhaps for the gray hair. That tells you we joke a
lot and play with each other” (personal communication, August 3, 2004). In the
words of Dr. Isaac Bekalu, though people play different roles and functions, there
is need to regard them equally. He explained:
I would like to see everybody as a person who is created equally. To me, it
does not matter if it is my deputy or a janitor; they have got the same
value, they are human beings and I try to treat them equally. They do
different jobs, they have different roles, but they have a human value that
is equal. (personal communication, September 13, 2004)
Similarly, J.K. Gikuumah insisted that regarding all employees as equal is an
important leader’s obligation. She observed, “Though they are given different
responsibilities, you value each one of them according to the nature of the work
that you have given to them” (personal communication, October 22, 2004).
107
In the words of Kangethe Wagathigi, employees should never be
categorized or placed in a gallery of some sort. He stated, “Do not classify your
employees that this is a watchman, this is a sweeper, this is an accountant, this
is a sales manager, this is a track driver, no. Treat them as equals” (personal
communication, October 8, 2004). John Lelaono believed that every leader
should emphasize the importance of each individual in the organization. He
explained, “We tell them that everyone is important, from the grounds to the
office. The most important place should not just be the manager’s office. The
most important place should be everybody’s working place” (personal
communication, October 18, 2004). Dr. Phillip Kitui said he finds humility
important when it comes to connecting with everybody in the organization. He
stated, “Humility is important because everybody’s self-worth must be allowed to
show, he or she must be allowed to know that they are actually important”
(personal communication, November 3, 2004).
Dr. B. Waruingi, who runs a country club, said that his desire for a society
that is less stratified has made him ameliorate the gap between the “high” in
society and the “low.” He believed that it is important to respect all people and
show them that one is very serious when it comes to humility. He continued:
As you can see that my customers are big people in Kenya, but I tell them
to forget their offices out there. You come here you are just customer one,
two, three, four, and they will be a minister and so on, but it really does not
matter. (personal communication, September 25, 2004)
108
When asked by the researcher what they do when employees deviate or
fail to meet their goals, the participants expressed that they redirect them with
humility. According to Dr. Joshua Okumbe, humility and treating employees fairly
go hand in hand. He stated, “We have demonstrated high levels of humility. I will
tell you, interestingly some of the people are very intelligent and some of them
are not as intelligent as others. But we treat all of them as equals” (personal
communication, September 13, 2004). As per Professor Peter Kibas, inculcating
an attitude and a culture, whereby people are valued along with their
contributions is a necessary undertaking. He stated:
We value every individual beginning from the sweeper, the cleaner. This is
what I personally try to do, by showing, and by encouraging my colleagues
and my juniors and other workers that everybody has something to
contribute in any organization, whether they are in the very low office or
very high office like the CEO, all of us. My chief executive has also that
attitude, where we value everybody in terms of his or her contributions.
(personal communication, August 30, 2004)
Alluding to this was Joyce Kebathi, who stressed that she likes acknowledging
each and every employee. She further explained:
I always feel that each of us have a very great role to play in the smooth
running of this department and even the lady, who cleans my office, I
make her feel that she is very important because if she never dust my
table and make sure that the office is clean then I will not be working in a
conducive environment. (personal communication, September 24, 2004)
109
Nine of the 17 participants stated that they take the open door policy as a
very cardinal element of leadership. They stressed that they leave their doors
opened wide so that their employees and customers can access them without
much difficulty. Kangethe Wagathigi indicated that they operate more or less in
an open system. He explained, “This door is permanently opened, anybody can
walk in; there is nobody from the lowest to the highest, who will say they need an
appointment to see the boss, they just walk in” (communication, October 8,
2004). According to Dr. Isaac Bekalu, attempts have been made to make sure
that everybody has a right and a voice. He stated, “People can walk to my office
and tell me whatever they feel in their heart and I think that open door policy is
itself an element of leadership” (personal communication, September 24, 2004).
Saoli Nkanae said he does the same. He stated, “One thing I know about myself
is that my office is opened to all, whatever juniors, so long as I have time”
(personal communication, October 22, 2004). Dr. B. Waruinge said he preferred
sitting in a strategic place so that all can see him. He explained, “They feel free to
talk to me any time and where you saw me sitting is really my outside office,
where people can come with any problems, can come and have a discussion
with me” (personal communication, September 25, 2004). Professor Mary Jones
also observes the open door policy. She stated:
I take time and I try to make sure that I have a good time and my door is
opened, but I keep it closed but when people need to see me I see. Once
in a while I put someone off for a day or so but I would do whatever I can
110
to accommodate someone to see them. (personal communication,
September 7, 2004)
According to Dr. B. Waruingi, employees can proffer so much in terms of
ideas if they get listened to. He explained, “I try to tell people that I have no
monopoly of ideas. And whatever little project we are doing I listen to them and
some of the great ideas have come from employees and they are very many”
(personal communication, September 25, 2004). Dr. Phillip Kitui expressed that
he opens his doors to both his students and to those who are reporting to him so
as to sit down with them and listen to them. He stated, “When I have the time I
like to meet them and listen because I find that it is only in listening that I can get
to help them the best way I can” (personal communication, November 3, 2004).
Similarly, Dr. Isaac Bekalu puts emphasis on listening to his subordinates. He
stated, “I take time to listen to anyone who would want to talk, it could be angry,
could be anything. I would sit down here calmly and listen for as long as it takes
to listen” (personal communication, September 24, 2004).
Joseph Nkadayo acknowledged that leaders who have adopted humility
and respect for others, and listen to others have been very successful in
influencing and getting the support of their workers. He, however, made a
confession that it is difficult to be humble in government, where orders must be
followed to the letter. He explained:
We are a hard industry, whereby when orders are given they must be
followed to the latter. You see government operate by orders and
directives, some of which do not necessarily require humility. But I always
111
endeavor to communicate and I always try to put a human face and touch.
(personal communication, October 26, 2004)
Ole Ndere offered similar remarks. He stated that humility is important but
government traditions encumber it. He further explained:
Like in the public sector, there has been a tradition of trying to elevate the
boss above everybody else in terms of—of course, he/she has the
authority but the employees have kind of been conditioned to kind of not to
feel free in front of the boss; they call him sir and the like. And what I have
been trying to do where I work is that I try to make them feel comfortable
and I discourage them from referring to me as sir when they are
addressing me. We are on first name basis. (personal communication,
October 17, 2004)
Four of the 17 participants indicated that humility calls for leaders who are
ready and willing to correct and criticize others in a manner that does not destroy
them but that builds them up. Dr. B. Waruinge said that he never allows for his
employees to be reprimanded publicly. He stated:
Because I treat them and I listen to them and I have time for them and
nobody is allowed, even my supervisors to reprimand anybody in public. I
tell them to take them aside and tell them slowly, quietly what they have
done wrong. (personal communication, September 25, 2004)
112
In the words of Professor Godfrey Nguru, corrections are healthy and are
part of life, but they need to be done in a manner that does not destroy the
individual but that builds the individual up. He further explained:
There are times when people have to be corrected and in correction what
you really need to do is to do it with humility and not condemning and
assuring them that really they do not measure up but they are capable of
doing better, and with encouragement they can do better. (personal
communication, September 6, 2004)
J. K. Gikuumah believes that people should not be harassed when they make
mistakes—instead they should be warned humbly. She stated, “I used to listen to
my employees and I used to praise them when they do well, but when they do
bad I used to question them, perhaps with a humble warning letter or talk to
them” (personal communication, October 22, 2004).
Summary
The participants showed renditions of valuing each individual and seeing
them as equal and important. In other words, people have the same human
value—whether sweeper, watchman or manager—but they perform different
functions and responsibilities. This is the function of humility, which allows
everybody’s self-worth to show. The participants indicated that they leave their
doors wide open (open door policy) to allow their employees and customers to
have access to them without much difficulty. Leaders in government, however,
acknowledged that strict adherence to orders and elevation of the boss above
everyone else hampers humility. Further, the participants noted that humility calls
113
for leaders who are ready and willing to correct and criticize others in a manner
that does not destroy them but that builds them up.
Involving Others (Employees) in Decision Making
The participants strongly believed that they have no monopoly of ideas
and experiences and that there is a need to always bring others on board when a
decision needs to be made. They expressed that collective responsibility is now
the way forward for every organization unlike in the past when it was the pro
forma for a leader to get into their office and then make a solitary decision. The
participants indicated that they consult with their staff—in form of departmental
meetings—before taking any action on nearly all decisions. Unlike in the past,
where leadership was more or less by intimidation, people are now receiving
training on teamwork and team basis. They also noted that in consensus
building, people’s ideas and suggestions are solicited and then people agree to
accept and respect other people’s opinions as long as their own opinions are not
the popular opinions. The participants further expressed that when decisions are
reached by consensus, people get motivated and they will ensure that the
decisions or solutions arrived at are fully implemented. Table 10 presents the
various statements and comments that the participants expressed concerning
involving others in decision making.
114
Table 10
Participants’ Comments and Statements on Involving Others in Decision-making
Hold
consultation
meetings
Adopt
teamwork
Accept and
respect
others’
opinions
Consensus
has a
motivating
impact
CEO 4 1 1 2
Deputy CEO 1 0 1 1
Division Head 6 2 3 3
Total 11 3 5 6
A total of 22 (88%) out of the 25 participants interviewed offered a
paragon of support to involving others in decision making. They saw collective
decision making as a necessary precursor for healthy functioning of modern
organizations. Eleven of the 22 participants said they consult with their deputies
and other staff members before taking most of their decisions. Joyce Kebathi
believes she has no monopoly of knowledge or experience and as such she has
to involve others. She explained, “I have tried as much as possible to involve my
deputies and other senior staff. We have a consultation every Monday morning
so that we can look at the work that is ahead of us” (personal communication,
September 24, 2004). For Stanley Manduku, a collective talk is usually inevitable
whenever a problem arises. He stated:
115
The first option we normally give is that if there is a general problem that
has come up, the best thing is to have a collective talk. We call people
down and discuss it with a view to solving it. (personal communication,
November 2, 2004)
Similarly, Joseph Nkadayo said they usually build consensus before taking
collective decisions on many issues. He stated:
One of the most common ways of building consensus in our organization
is to meet as heads of branches to discuss various problems affecting the
organization. This way we are able to take collective decisions on issues
dealing with description, service and ability to meet goals, and generally to
plan and assess completed projects. (personal communication, October
26, 2004)
According to Professor Godfrey Nguru, the best method for making
decisions is when people understand where you are coming from, which is more
of participation and consultative. He explained:
There are those who think that meetings take too long or they waste so
much time, but at the end of it all you let people express themselves, let
people talk rather than saying this must be done and they will go and do it
and tomorrow they won’t do it because you forced it. (personal
communication, September 6, 2004)
Five participants indicated that they usually meet as heads of departments
before making key decisions. Joseph Mpaa stressed that he seeks individual
116
views and then matches them together in order to get the best way for managing
a particular problem or challenge. He stated, “We do it in the perspective of
meetings of key heads of departments, where we all, the general manager, the
heads of departments will come together and say what problems, what
challenges” (personal communication, October 7, 2004). Dr. James Kombo also
puts emphasis on departmental meetings. He stated, “We have department
heads and those department heads are supposed to represent the teachers and
in some cases staff from their departments. What the department head says is in
some sense representative of the department” (personal communication,
November 5, 2004). For Dr. Chweya Ludeki, it is in the departmental meetings
where key decisions for the department are made. He explained, “We meet as a
department and agree on the course allocations and then we give them
(students) as many electives as we can afford to give. And then we do a
timetable that is suitable for the students” (personal communication, November 4,
2004). Ann Lengerded also put emphasis on departmental meetings. She stated,
“What we do is we get all the departments and try to get to a consensus on how
we can move forward” (personal communication, October 11, 2004). Saoli
Nkanae stressed that even for employee appraisal to be implemented these
days, it must be discussed and agreed by the employee and the head of
department. He explained, “It is no longer the pro forma, where somebody goes
to his office and then assesses the person; they must be there together and
he/she is told you are not performing or you are performing” (personal
communication, October 22, 2004).
117
Three of the 22 participants said they have adopted the principle of
teamwork in their organizations. They argued that unlike in the past, where
leadership was more or less by intimidation, employees are now receiving
training on team spirit. Ole Pere, head of supervisory division at the Central Bank
of Kenya, indicated that his organization is inculcating the culture of teamwork in
its employees. He stated, “What they are trying to do the last two years is train
people on team basis, teamwork and I believe that is the direction that the
organization wants things to go” (personal communication, August 21, 2004).
Teamwork and team spirit is highly cherished where Dr. Saruni Sena works. He
explained, “What we emphasize here is teamwork and participation and
consensus rather than coercion, punishment and those things that do not guide
team spirit” (personal communication, August 3, 2004). According to Joseph
Mpaa, teamwork yields better returns. He stated, “We put a lot of emphasis on
teamwork and team spirit. And working together as a team is always more
fulfilling, more rewarding and even the output is higher than working on individual
level” (personal communication, October 7, 2004).
Five of the 22 participants proffered that they always take into account the
opinions of others whenever they make decisions. They said that soliciting
people’s ideas and suggestions and then agreeing to accept and respect the
popular views is reminiscent of good leadership. The following excerpt from Dr.
James Kombo shows the pinnacle of this idea:
In meetings, the procedures are: you bring your views, I bring my views,
and we all bring our views. And we see them and the way consensus is
118
often built is people first agree when they go to those meetings that they
will accept and respect other people’s opinions even if their own opinions
are not the popular opinions. (personal communication, November 5,
2004)
John Lelaono alluded to this by saying that their organization is very much
attuned to the idea of brainstorming. He explained, “We think and we brainstorm,
everybody. It is not a dictatorial kind of meeting, whereby it is a free for all; you
give your views, it is discounted or it is taken, that is how it goes” (personal
communication, October 18, 2004).
Professor Mary Jones indicated that whenever they have meetings they
usually go around and make sure everyone is spoken on the issue. And in the
final analysis when people bring their views together, the decision they make
becomes “their decision.” She stated:
When I meet with people we sit in the room and I would state my feelings,
my views, whatever I feel I need to share to help in the decision making
process. So when I leave, whatever the decision was, it is our decision. I
don’t say well, I thought we should have done this and that. (personal
communication, September 7, 2004)
Chris Kuto also believes in seeking the opinions of others. He stated:
Many times because I have been here for so long I may believe that I
know it all, but I always let people bring their views. Even if I think I know I
make sure I send it out and get commends from my managers and then
119
consolidate. Many at times I find may be I have to modify my original
thinking. (personal communication, November 3, 2004)
The following excerpt from Professor Peter Kibas shows a practical
example of soliciting the views of others:
We have two campuses and we want to buy a bus for our students. What
we have done is we have asked the managers and their officers to give us
their views—what sort of bus they want to buy. Of course, we have given
the parameters in terms of the money available, the budget, and we said
we involve them to make a decision. (personal communication, August 30,
2004)
Six of the 22 participants expressed that consensus has a motivating
impact. They said that when decisions are reached by consensus, people get
highly motivated and they will make sure that the decisions or solutions reached
are fully implemented. Dr. Joshua Okumbe stated:
What we are noticing is that through consensus-building, through
participation and through a review of different view points, then we are
likely to build the consensus and the most important thing about
consensus-building is that it has a motivating impact when everybody
feels they participated in the decisions then they buy in the momentum
with which they will implement it and see to it that it is not the portion of
the greater. (personal communication, September 13, 2004)
Ole Ndere offered a similar explanation. He stated:
120
Whenever there is a problem to be addressed I call a meeting and
encourage everybody to speak up his/her mind without necessarily having
to control or direct him or her to a certain direction. Then after that we
could reach a consensus and once we reach a consensus it becomes very
easy to rally all the employees behind the consensus reached to make
sure that it is implemented. (personal communication, October 17, 2004)
The following excerpt from Dr. Phillip Kitui points to the fact that consensual
decisions birth commitment and ownership on the part of all the participants:
I like collective decision making process because once people come
together and they reason together about decisions and the need for them
and they make the decisions on the way forward, I find that they get more
committed to the decisions that they make that way together. And in the
process, of course, they will determine their roles in implementing these
particular decisions. (personal communication, November 3, 2004)
Another excerpt from Stanley Manduku shows that chances of solving problems
through consensus are much higher than in solitary situations:
Ordinarily when a problem arises that affects generally the environment
we work in, the first thing is that we try as much as possible to look at it
collectively because we understand the fact that if there is a problem and
it has faced us it is collective and the fact that there are more of you giving
a thought to one specific problem, chances of solving it becomes much
easier. (personal communication, November 2, 2004)
121
Summary
The participants strongly believed in consensus building. They expressed
that they usually get in collective talks with others whenever problems or issues
arise; they especially meet as heads of departments before making any key
decisions. They indicated that organizations are now inculcating a culture of
teamwork and team spirit, and many of their people are receiving training in such
areas. It has been noted that teamwork yields better returns. In consensus
building, the participants solicit people’s ideas and suggestions and then people
agree to accept and respect the opinions of others as long as it is the popular
opinion. The participants further expressed that when decisions are reached by
consensus, people get highly motivated and they make sure that the decisions or
solutions reached are fully implemented.
Chapter Summary
The data from the standardized open-ended interviews provided a myriad
of general insights into Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory’s construct
of service as viewed by the 25 participants in this study. Using NUD*IST software
tool, the researcher searched for words, sentences, and phrases or patterns of
characters related to the research question (i.e., the construct of service). The
participants’ responses related to the research question were retrieved and
analyzed. Based on the respondents’ emphasis and frequent use of concepts,
terms, or key words that are indicative of the construct of service, the researcher
was then able to sort and dichotomize the data into seven general categories,
namely (a) role modeling, (b) sacrificing for others, (c) meeting the needs of
122
others (employees) and developing them, (d) service as a primary function of
leadership, (e) recognizing and rewarding employees, (f) treating employees with
respect (humility), and (g) involving others in decision making. Table 11 shows
participants’ responses—in form of comments and statements—that created
each construct of service’s category (also called overriding themes). The seven
questions presented to the participants on the construct of service provided the
framework upon which the researcher was able to make connections between
the various categories and how they relate with the acceptability and applicability
of Patterson’s servant leadership theory’s construct of service in the context of
Kenyan leaders and managers.
123
Table 11
Participants’ Responses and Frequency leading to the 7 Categories (Overriding
Themes)
Category (overriding
theme)
Comments and
statements made about
the overriding theme
Frequency
Role modeling
Signals what is important
Best way to influence
Don’t preach water and
drink wine
Service delivered through
modeling
19
Sacrificing for others
Sacrificing time and
resources
Working with inadequate
resources
Going for low pay
Borders on harambee
16
Meeting the needs of
others and developing
them
People follow those who
meet their needs
Providing a conducive
working environment
21
124
Helping others achieve
goals and objectives
Developing others
through training
Staff as important asset
Service as a primary
function of leadership
Leadership is first service
No leadership without
service
Service delivered by
leaders who model
Service calls for
adherence to certain
leadership principles
18
Recognizing and
rewarding employees
Measures and systems in
place to affirm
Verbal and written
messages
Parting and celebrating
Encouraging divergent
views
16
Treating employees with
respect
Seeing everybody equal
and important
Open door policy
17
125
Corrections and
criticisms done humbly
Involving others in
decision making
Hold consultation
meetings
Adopt teamwork
Accept and respect
others’ opinions
Consensus has a
motivating impact
22
126
Chapter Five: Discussion
The previous chapters have built on the fundamental objective of the
study, which is to examine Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory’s
construct of service in the context of Kenyan leaders and managers. By
summarizing and discussing the results of the study, this chapter is set out to
cogently describe the extent to which Patterson’s servant leadership theory’s
construct of service is acceptable and applicable among Kenyan leaders and
managers of varied organizational backgrounds. To comprehensively and
exhaustively address this undertaking, this chapter covers four areas:
1. Leadership and service in the African context.
2. The Kenyan philosophy of harambee.
3. Commentary on the findings.
4. Recommendations for future research.
Leadership and Service in the African Context
The leaders and managers in this study, who mostly occupy gregarious
and influential positions in government, business corporations, NGOs, and
academic institutions, indicated service as a fundamental goal in their careers.
As a matter of fact, they did not find a dichotomy between leadership and
service. They expressed that leadership is all about providing a service. In other
words, a leader is simply out there to serve and be selfless. For instance, in the
words of Dr. Joshua Okumbe, “A leader is out there to serve, not to be served.
Anybody who occupies any position of leadership must know on the very onset
that their very function as they occupy those positions is to serve, to be selfless”
127
(personal communication, September 13, 2004). Such exuberance and
enthusiasm about service is not a strange viewpoint, given that some of the
prevalent African values (e.g., ubuntu) put emphasis on the person not living for
themselves but rather living for others (Mibigi & Maree, 1995). Similar emphasis
is found in Mbiti’s (1969) often-quoted line: “I am because we are: and since we
are, therefore I am” (p. 10) from his widely read book, African Religions and
Philosophy.
The participants expressed leadership as being futile and meaningless in
the absence of service since leaders primarily do things for others. They
perceived leadership as service first. In the words of Dr. Sarune Sena, “You are a
leader, who provides service and the first service you give is yourself so that they
too give themselves to you” (personal communication, August 3, 2004). Further,
the participants argued that leaders at times succumb to spending personal
resources in pursuits to serving others. Dr. Chweya Ludeki stated, “There are
some ways you spend your own money to make sure that the group you are
leading or the unit you are leading actually succeeds” (personal communication,
November 4, 2004). The outcome of this study is in line with a recent study by
Nelson (2003), which explored Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory (all
constructs: altruism, empowerment, humility, love, service, trust, and vision)
among black leaders in South African organizations. By capitalizing on ubuntu
philosophy, Nelson found service to be the primary function of leadership. In
other words, service was not based on the leader’s own interests but rather on
128
the interests and welfare of their employees. Thus, service is a critical aspect of
African leadership.
The participants indicated that they have no monopoly of ideas and
experiences and as a result they are adherents of consensus building. They said
that collective responsibility and plurality decisions take precedence as compared
to solitary decisions. According to Joseph Mpaa, individual views are sorted and
then matched together in order to find the best way for managing a particular
problem or challenge. He stated, “We do it in the perspective of meetings of key
heads of departments, where we all, the general manager, the heads of
departments will come together and say what problems, what challenges”
(personal communication, October 7, 2004). Plurality decisions extrapolate a
crucial pattern of traditional African leadership, which inexorably puts the
community’s interest (service) ahead of its own. For instance, the chief did not
rule but rather served and led by consensus (Ayittey, 1992). Also, the traditional
judge in black Africa is more intent on reaching consensus rather than litigating
by the book (Mamadou, 1991). Similarly, while studies based on African
organizations indicate that decisions based on consensus still have greater
acceptability in most African societies, a study based on Kenyan industries
showed that both workers and managers preferred a modern democratic style of
leadership to build consensus and trust (Mersha, 2000). Thus, the fact that
leaders and managers in this study are attuned to the idea of consensus building
means that plurality decisions and service for that matter remains an agile part of
African leadership.
129
The Kenyan Philosophy of Harambee
The participants in this study expressed strong feelings about sacrificing
for the sake of others. Their view of sacrificing is embedded in the way they give
their time, their resources, and even themselves for the work of others. According
to Dr. Chweya Ludeki, at times leaders go to the extent of spending personal
resources for the sake of those that they are leading. He explained, “There are
some ways you spend your own money to make sure that the group you are
leading or the unit you are leading actually succeeds” (personal communication,
November 4, 2004). The idea of sacrificing for others borders on the Kenyan
harambee philosophy, which is guided by the principle of collective good rather
than individual gain. The harambee philosophy for the most part embodies
mutual assistance, joint effort, mutual social responsibility, and community
reliance. In other words, the end product benefits the public as opposed to an
individual (Chieni, 1997).
The following excerpt from Dr. Chweya Ludeki shows how the harambee
philosophy helped him understand service. He explained:
You see there are two ways in which you can look or understand service.
One, of course, you can look at the standpoint of the harambee
philosophy, which is serving by sacrificing for the interests of others. So
that is one, which borders on something like voluntary, probably sacrifice,
dedication of your time and profession to the service of others. (personal
communication, November 4, 2004)
130
Such a description is in line with Gakuru’s (1998) concept of African
interdependence, which is most famously articulated by Nigerian novelist, Chinua
Achebe, who wrote: “Whereas an animal scratches itself against a tree, a human
being has a kinsman to scratch it for him” (para. 4). In other words, there is a
very strong belief in the African communities that the welfare of an individual
means the welfare of the entire community. According to Hill (1991), it is such
African traditions of community cooperation and mutual aid that spiral the
harambee philosophy.
The participants (e.g., Mohez Kamali) applauded the harambee spirit as
an excellent way of meeting the needs that people face both in organizations and
in their own individual lives. The harambee spirit calls for people to put their
resources together in order to help one another and as a result alleviates a lot of
suffering or difficulties people have faced by themselves. This whole idea and
practice of giving a hand to others, whether one acts individually or through
organization, is as old as Africa. Voluntary individual and communal activities
retain deep roots among Africans. One helps and works with neighbors and
fellow villagers as the need arises and dictates (Waiguchu et al., 1999). The
perception of harambee—which is solidly grounded in the indigenous cultures of
most Kenyan communities—as the collective and cooperative participation of a
community, was an attempt to fill the perceived needs of others through
utilization of available meager resources (Mbithi & Rasmusson, 1977).
It is the pugnacious attitude about sacrificing for others, which the
participants in this study strongly expressed, that have sustained the harambee
131
spirit, even though a contained corruption still existed (Versely, 1997). Hence, the
fact that leaders are able to go beyond what is expected of them and even use
personal resources in order to help others means that Kenyan leaders and
managers are indeed guided by the principles of service to others and collective
good rather than individual gains. In other words, they are adhering to the
traditional Kenyan philosophy of being mindful of each other’s welfare.
Commentary on the Findings
The leaders and managers who participated in this study gave statements
and comments that led to the emergence of themes reminiscent to Patterson’s
(2003) servant leadership theory’s construct of service and the Kenyan
harambee philosophy. According to the participants, the construct of service
comprises of: (a) role modeling, (b) sacrificing for others, (c) meeting the needs
of others (employees) and developing them, (d) service as a primary function of
leadership, (e) recognizing and rewarding employees, (f) treating employees with
respect (humility), and (g) involving others in decision making. For the most part,
the participants were plausible as far as their understanding of the construct of
service is concerned, and in fact, they expressed incendiary views about serving
others (e.g., their employees). However, some participants, especially those who
work for the government, felt that their environment is at times a hindrance to
practicing service.
132
Role Modeling
The participants in this study stated that one of their major ways of
demonstrating and practicing service is by modeling their behavior and actions.
They said that role modeling signals to their followers what is important and
expected of them. The Kenyan harambee philosophy became a success
because the leaders lived it. It is the leaders, along with the help of their
communities who spearheaded harambee as an undertaking for collective good
(Bailey, 1993).
Leaders who lead by the example are able to establish a standard which
their employees are likely to adopt and emulate. The leaders in this study
asserted that the best way for a leader to impact and influence others is by being
the best example in every situation. This is in line with the servant leadership
model which establishes service as the gift that attracts followers, who in turn
pass along the same gift through example (Sarkus, 1996). Influence through
example seems to play a cardinal role in leadership, which is one of the highest
forms of service (Murray, 1997). Kenyan leaders and managers seem to adopt
role modeling as a way of giving service to their followers.
Recommendations
The participants embraced role modeling as a good way of influencing and
impacting others. Given Africa’s current leadership problem, this is a very
important virtue that should be given prime promotion in every organization. The
researcher further recommends that leaders continue to emphasize “walking the
133
talk” and “talking the walk.” It is the only way to bring meaningful change among
the employees and subsequently among the nation.
Sacrificing for Others
The participants in this study indicated sacrifice as being inexorable when
it comes to serving others. They asserted that it is almost impossible to serve
people without sacrifice because situations will present themselves where a
leader is left with no choice but to sacrifice. This borders on the Kenyan
harambee philosophy, which calls for leaders to make a great sacrifice for the
service of others. Leaders are to give their time and their resources in order to
provide goods, education, health services, passable roads, and even day-to-day
essentials for others (Chieni, 1997).
The participants expressed a willingness to work beyond their job
descriptions with no extra pay, a willingness to hold low paying jobs that may not
be commensurate with their training and expertise in order to turn around
institutions for the benefit of others, and a willingness to go to the extent of
spending their own personal resources in order to help others come out of
strenuous circumstances. The participants working for the government strongly
stated that circumstances (e.g., inadequate resources like equipment) force them
to sacrifice a great deal. No wonder, as reiterated by Lee and Zemko (1993),
Greenleaf insisted that leaders earn their followers’ trust only by virtue of their
selfless natures. The proponents of the harambee philosophy participate in an
attempt to fill the perceived needs of others by utilizing their own meager
134
resources (Mbithi & Rasmusson, 1977), which in many cases call for
considerable personal sacrifice or inconvenience.
Recommendations
The researcher recommends that leaders, especially those who work for
the government, learn to sacrifice for others even when circumstances are not
forcing them to do so. It is important that their actions and behaviors reflect an
overarching helping concern for others at all times and in all situations.
Meeting the Needs of Others (Employees) and Developing Them
Servant leaders are known to deeply commit themselves to the personal,
professional, and spiritual growth of those in their sphere of influence (Spears,
1995, 1996, 1998, 2002). Pursuing both the physical and the developmental
needs of the followers was a core agenda for the participants in this study. They
indicated the urgency for competitive and comprehensive remuneration
packages, including salaries and wages, medical coverage, and loan schemes.
Similarly, like the proponents of the harambee philosophy, the participants
indicated a willingness to invest their own time, energies, and personal resources
for the benefit of the employees. Again, as far as “African communalism” goes,
life’s means are relatively minimal and natural resources are scarce, and every
individual must depend on his or her community (Wright, 1984).
The participants indicated training as a way of guiding their followers in
order to identify and develop their personal as well as professional goals. To the
participants, unless employees are trained to be competent in the areas of the
135
services they provide, they will not be efficient and effective. The harambee
philosophy encourages a close collaboration between the leaders and their
people in order to be successful in their self-help efforts (services). In other
words, the leaders are to take the lead as the other people follow (Chieni, 1997).
Recommendation
Though the harambee philosophy seems to embody more of collective
effort for the entire community (communal aspect), it is still driven by the spirit of
service to others as espoused by Patterson (2003). It is, however, recommended
that the participants continue to inculcate the same spirit among their followers,
not only to benefit them as individuals but the nation as a whole. The harambee
spirit is that of the entire nation and not only for the individuals in corporations.
Service as a Primary Function of Leadership
The harambee philosophy calls on Kenyan leaders to serve their
constituents by being a part of the self-help projects that are aimed at promoting
the common good of everyone (Chieni, 1997). In this study, the participants did
not find a dichotomy between service and leadership. They expressed that
leadership is about providing service. In other words, a leader is out there to
serve others selflessly (e.g., by giving their time and resources for the
development and betterment of their followers). And because leaders primarily
do things for others, leadership becomes meaningless in the absence of service.
This is in line with Farling et al.’s (1999) views of service as being a primary
function of leadership. To them, service should not be based on one’s own
136
interests, but rather on the interests and welfare of others. Similarly, Bennis and
Nanus (1985) posited that leaders must understand that one of their primary
functions as leaders is to serve the needs of their constituents.
The participants’ view of service as being a primary function of leadership
resembles the traditional African view of leadership, which places the
community’s interests (service) ahead of its own (Ayittey, 1992). Thus, the
participants understand and apply the construct of service.
Recommendations
Though there seems to be a perfect match between what the participants
purport to know and do and what harambee and traditional African leadership
seem to suggest about service and leadership, there is a need for the leaders to
continue teaching and promoting this relationship in their organizations. Perhaps
more training in the area of service is needed.
Recognizing and Rewarding Employees
Servant leaders constantly try to find out what the needs of their followers
are in order to help them succeed. In doing this, they listen to them, praise them
and redirect them when they deviate from goals (Blanchard, 1997). According to
the participants in this study, recognizing and rewarding employees, takes center
stage. The participants have put certain measures and systems in place (e.g.,
performance appraisal), which provide the criteria for promotion and awards
granting. They use both verbal and written messages to appreciate and
137
recognize excellent performance. Divergent views are also promoted as part of
encouraging and motivating them.
Since individual achievements are much less valued than are
interpersonal relations in African traditions (Dia, 1994), not much emphasis is
given in terms of recognition or rewarding for those who do well. It is rather taken
as an obligation that has to be fulfilled. Furthermore, Africans see themselves as
part of a “community” and not as “discrete individuals” (Bell, 2002). Thus, even
those who take part in harambee efforts are seen as fulfilling what society
requires and expects of them and not anything special or extraordinary. This is
not to say that recognizing and rewarding those who do well is unheard of in
African values and traditions, it is just that it is not overemphasized. It is more
implicit than explicit.
Recommendation
Recognizing and rewarding those who excel and do well is a good virtue
that should be emphasized in organizational settings. The leaders should
continue to be explicit about recognizing and rewarding their employees. This will
continue to encourage and motivate employees from all levels of the
organization.
Treating Employees with Respect (Humility)
Humility, which allows everybody’s self-worth to show, is rooted in the
harambee philosophy, which encourages mutual sharing of resources (mutual
social responsibility) for the benefit of others. It calls for people to be mindful of
138
each other’s welfare—whether rich or poor, whether black or white (Chieni,
1997). According to the participants in this study, every employee has a right, a
voice, and the same human value even though each performs different functions
and responsibilities. They indicated that they adopt an open door policy so that
their employees and customers can access them without much difficulty.
Corrections and criticisms are also handled in a manner that builds the individual
up instead of destroying them. This is in line with servant leadership, which calls
for leaders to listen to their people, praise them, and redirect them when they
deviate from goals (Blanchard, 1997).
However, leaders in government acknowledged that strict adherence to
orders and the public service tradition of elevating the boss above everybody
else hamper humility. They indicated that the government still operates by orders
and directives, some of which do not necessarily require humility. This is not a
strange occurrence since government officials still tend to adopt the colonial
mentality of controlling employees and intimidating them instead of being
humble. However, since the harambee philosophy is a product of government
legislation, we should see more government officials embrace humility in their
dealings with others.
Recommendation
To mollify government leaders into being adherents of humility, the
researcher recommends more training in the area of service (servant leadership)
sensitivity. This type of training will hopefully help the government leaders come
139
out of the colonial mentality (similar to scientific management) of controlling and
intimidating employees.
Involving Others in Decision Making
Like the harambee philosophy, which calls for leaders and their people to
pull their resources together in order to build and strengthen themselves and
their nation at large (Chieni, 1997; Wilson, 1992), the participants in this study
strongly believed in consensus building in nearly all their decisions. They
indicated that they usually get in collective talks as heads of departments before
making any key decisions. The participants stated that organizations are now
inculcating a culture of teamwork and team spirit, and many of their people are
receiving training in such areas. This is in line with servant leadership, which is
inclusive rather than exclusive. Laub (1999) advocated for the use of workgroups
or teams that are small enough to allow group members to become a community,
with strong collaborative relationships.
The participants further expressed that when decisions are reached by
consensus, people get highly motivated and they make sure that the decisions or
solutions reached are fully implemented. Perhaps that is why they also believed
in teamwork yielding better returns. Similarly, this could be the same reason why
Jomo Kenyatta (founding president) stressed a continued collaboration between
the people throughout their self-help efforts, the government, and the leaders
(Chieni, 1997). Even the traditional chief and judge in black Africa were more
intent on reaching consensus (Mamadou, 1991). Furthermore, a study based on
140
Kenyan industries showed that both workers and managers preferred a modern
democratic style of leadership to build consensus and trust.
Recommendations
The participants embraced consensus building in decision making. To
help them to continue initiating teamwork and team spirit, the researcher highly
recommends that leaders involve everybody in the organization in decision
making and not only those who represent the various departments. There is need
for consultation at every level of the organization. Also, the on-going training on
teamwork should be extended to all. This is the only way people could become
effective team players.
Recommendations for Future Research
The study showed that Kenyan leaders and managers for the most part
understand and apply Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership theory’s construct of
service. However, it raises several issues that need to be explored in future
research:
1. While being interviewed on the construct of service, most of the
leaders and managers indicated that the researcher should also talk to
their subordinates on the same issues in order to ascertain and solidify
their discussions. Future studies should, therefore, interview the
leaders’ subordinates as another way of especially gauging if they truly
practice and apply the construct of service.
141
2. This study found that humility caused government leaders some
challenges. So because government leaders struggled with humility,
future studies should ascertain the candid reason for this.
3. This study focused on 25 leaders and managers from government,
business, NGOs, and academic institutions, meaning that
generalization is limited to the few that were interviewed. In order to
evince more implications of the construct of service, future studies
should enlarge the sample size.
4. The study focused mostly on the top stratum of the organizations.
Therefore, it is recommended that future studies should target even
those who hold non-management positions to see if they will offer a
different perspective.
5. The literature supporting the harambee philosophy emanates from the
broader literature on traditional African leadership and communalism.
Therefore, future studies should target the existing traditional chiefs
and kings to see if their view will be different.
Conclusion
The fundamental objective of this study was to examine Patterson’s
(2003) servant leadership theory’s construct of service in the context of Kenyan
leaders and managers. In other words, to see if Kenyan leaders and managers of
varied organizational settings understand and apply the construct of service. It
emerged that (a) role modeling, (b) sacrificing for others, (c) meeting the needs
of others (employees) and developing them, (d) service as a primary function of
142
leadership, (e) recognizing and rewarding employees, (f) treating employees with
respect (humility), and (g) involving others in decision making were prevalent
themes reminiscent to Patterson’s construct of service. These characteristics
help leaders to serve their employees. Thus, for the most part, this study found
that Patterson’s construct of service has understandability and applicability
among Kenyan leaders and managers of varied organizational backgrounds,
namely government, business corporations, NGOs, and academic institutions.
143
References
A draft discussion document towards a white paper on traditional leadership and
institutions. (2000, April 26). Retrieved April 16, 2004, from
http://www.polity.org.za/html/govdocs/discuss/draft-traditional1.html
An affro-centric alliance: Indigenizing organizational change—localization
in Tanzania and Malawi. (2001). Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(1)
59-78.
Arjoon, S. (2000). Virtue theory as a dynamic theory of business. Journal of
Business Ethics, 28, 159.
Autry, J. A. (1991). Love and profit: The art of caring leadership. New York: Avon
Books.
Autry, J. A. (2001). The servant leader: How to build a creative team, develop
great morale, and improve bottom-line performance. USA: Prima
Publishing.
Ayittey, G. B. N. (1992). Africa betrayed. New York: A Cato Institute Book.
Bailey, J. (1993). Kenya: The nation epic. Nairobi, Kenya: Kenway Publications.
Bass, B. M. (1995). Concepts of leadership: The beginnings. In J. T. Wren
(Ed.), The leader’s companion: Insights on leadership through the ages
(pp. 50-69). New York: The Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of
Leadership Studies, 7, 18.
Bell, R. H. (2002). Understanding African philosophy: A cross-cultural approach
to classical and contemporary issues. New York: Routledge.
144
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New
York: Harper and Row.
Blanchard, K. (1997). Situational leadership. In K. Shelton (Ed.), A new
paradigm of leadership: Visions of excellence for 21st century
organizations (pp.149-153). USA: Executive Excellence Publishing.
Blanchard, K. (2000, March). Leadership by the book. Executive Excellence,
17(13), 4-6.
Bradley, Y. (1999, September). Servant leadership: A critique of Robert
Greenleaf’s concept of leadership. Journal of Christian Education, 42(2),
44-53.
Branch, S. (1999). The 100 best companies to work for in America. Fortune,
139, 118.
Bryman, A., & Burgess, R. G. (Eds.) (1999). Qualitative research. Thousands
Oak, CA: Sage Publications.
Chieni, S. N. (1997). The harambee movement in Kenya: The role played by
Kenyans and the government in the provision of education and other
social services. Retrieved July 17, 2003, from
http://boleswa97.tripod.com/chieni.htm
Cohen, P. S. (2003). Value leadership: The 7 principles that drive corporate
value in any economy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Covey, S. (2002). Servant-Leadership and community leadership in the twenty-
145
first century. In L. Spears (Ed.), Focus on leadership: Servant-leadership
for the 21st century. (pp. 27-34). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Creswell, J. A. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dia, M. (1994). Indigenous management practices: Lessons for Africa's
management in the '90s. In I. Serageldin & J. Taboroff (Eds.), Culture
and development in Africa (pp. 165-191). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Douglas, M. E. (2003, February). Servant leadership: An emerging supervisory
model. Supervision, 64(2), 6-9. Retrieved June 11, 2003, from ABI Inform
Global Database.
Ellsworth, R. R. (2002). Leading with purpose: The new corporate realities.
Standford, CA: Standford University Press.
Fairholm, G. W. (1997). Capturing the heart of leadership: Spirituality and
community in the new American workplace. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Farling, M. L., Stone, A. G., & Winston, B. (1999). Servant leadership: Setting
the stage for empirical research. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1/2), 49-
72.
Fletcher, M. (1999). The effects of internal communication, leadership and team
performance on successful service quality implementation A South African
perspective. Team Performance Management, 5, 150.
Fuller, T. (Ed.). (2000). Leading & leadership. Notre Dame, IN: University
146
of Notre Dame.
Gakuru, O. (1998, First Quarter). Lean on me. Orbit, 68. Retrieved July 7, 2003,
from http://www.oneworld.org/vso/pubs/orbit/68/volunt.htm
Galvin, T. (2001). A culture of the heart. Training, 38(3), 80-81.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of
legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Hill, M. J. D. (1991). The harambee movement in Kenya: Self-help, development
and education among the Kamba of Kitui District. Atlantic Highlands, NJ:
The Athlone Press.
Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (2002). The qualitative researcher’s companion.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Joseph, J. A. (1997, December 15). The idea of African renaissance: Myth or
reality? Vital Speeches of the Day, 64(5), 133-135. Retrieved July 6, 2003,
from ABI/Inform Global Database.
Kanungo, R. N., & Conger, J. A. (1993). Promoting altruism as a corporate goal.
Academy of Management Executive, 7(3), 37-48.
Kanungo, R. N., & Mendonca, M. (1996). Ethical dimensions of leadership.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it,
why people demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the
organizational leadership assessment (OLA) instrument. Dissertation
Abstracts Online. Retrieved October, 2003.
147
Lee, C., & Zemke, R. (1993). The search for spirit in the workplace. Training,
30(6), 21-35. Retrieved May 28, 2003, from ABI Inform Global Database.
Levering, R., & Moskowitz, M. (2000). The 100 best companies to work for in
America. Portland, OR: Plume.
Levering, R., & Moskowitz, M. (2001, February 4). The 100 best companies to
work for in America. Fortune, 143(3), 60-61.
Lloyd, B. (1996). New approach to leadership. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 17(7), 29-32.
Lopez, I. O. (1995). Becoming a servant leader: The personal development path.
In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on leadership: How Robert K.
Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadership influenced today’s top
management thinkers (pp.149-160). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Lowe, J. (1998). Trust: The invaluable asset. In Spears, L. C. (Ed.), Insights on
Leadership (pp. 69-76). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Lubin, K. A. (2001). Visionary leader behaviors and their congruency with servant
leadership characteristics. Dissertation Abstracts Online. Retrieved
January 15, 2004.
Mamadou, D. (1991, December). Development and cultural values in Sub-
Saharan Africa. Finance & Development, 28(4), 10. Retrieved July 6,
2003, from ABI/Inform Global Database.
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.
148
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mazrui, A. A. (1986). The Africans: A triple heritage. USA: Little Brown &
Company.
Mbithi, P., & Rasmusson, R. (1977). Self-reliance in Kenya: The case of
harambee. Uppsala: Scandinavian Institute of African Studies.
Mbiti, J. (1969). African religions and philosophies. London, Heinemann.
McLaughlin, K. (2001, March). A strong foundation. Training, 38(3), 84.
Melrose, K. (1995). Making the grass greener on your side: A CEO’s journey to
leading by service. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Mersha, T. (2000). Quality, competitiveness in Sub-Saharan Africa. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 100(3). Retrieved June 11, 2003, from ABI
Inform Global Database.
Meyer, A. G., Brown, T., & Browne, S. J. M. N. (1998, November). Do we really
want more leaders in business? Journal of Business Ethics, 17(15), 1727-
1736.
Mibigi, L., & Maree, J. (1995). Ubuntu: The spirit of African transformation
management. Johanesburg: Knowledge Resources.
Miles, M. G., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
149
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1996). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
source book (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Morse, J. M., & Richards, L. (2002). Read me first for a user’s guide to qualitative
methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Murray, M. (1997, October/November). Philanthropy: No better arena for
servants and leaders. Executive Speeches, 12(2), 27-30.
Nair, K. (1994). A higher standard of leadership: Lessons from the life of
Gandhi. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Ndegwa, S. N. (1996). The two faces of civil society: NGOs and politics in Africa.
West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, Inc.
Nelson, L. (2003). An exploratory study of the application and acceptance of
servant-leadership theory among black leaders in South Africa. Regent
University: Digital Dissertations. (UMI No. 3086676)
Ngau, P. M. (1987, April). Tensions in empowerment: The experience of the
harambee (self-help) movement in Kenya. Economic Development and
Cultural Change, 35(3). Retrieved April 17, 2004, from ABI/Inform Global.
Noonan, S. J. (2003). The elements of leadership: What you should know.
Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.
Nyabadza, G. W. (2003, February 7). Leadership at the peak—the 10th trait of
effective leaders: Servant Leadership [Electronic version]. Zimbabwe
Independent – AAGM. Retrieved January 20, 2004, from LexisNexis.
Patterson, K. (2003). Servant leadership theory: A theoretical definition and a
150
presentation of the virtues of the servant leader including love, humility,
altruism, vision, trust, empowerment and service. Regent University:
Digital Dissertations. (UMI No. 3082719)
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pollard, W. C. (1997, September/October). The leader who serves. Strategy and
Leadership, 25(5), 49-51. Retrieved May 27, 2003, from ABI Inform Global
Database.
Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the 21st century. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Rowe, R. (2003, February). Leaders as servants. New Zealand Management,
50(1), 24-25.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing
data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rubin, D. K., Powers, M. B., Tulacz, G., Winston, S., & Krizan, W. G. (2002,
December 2). Leaders come in all shapes and sizes but the great ones
focus on people construction demands new skill sets from rising stars.
ENR, 249(23), 34-36. Retrieved May 28, 2003, from ABI Inform Global
Database.
Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes:
Developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 23(3), 145-157.
Sarkus, D. J. (1996, June). Servant-leadership in safety: Advancing the cause
and practice. Professional Safety, 41(6).
151
Saunders, V. R. (1993, February). A few good leaders. Training & Development,
47(2).
Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers
in education and the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Shikuku, W. (2000, October 24). Why “harambee” spirit is dying. Daily Nation.
Retrieved July 17, 2003, from
http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/24102000/Letters/Letters4.
html
Snyder, N. H., Dowd, J. J., Jr., & Houghton, D. M. (1994). Vision, values and
courage: Leadership for quality management. New York: Free Press.
Spears, L. C. (1995). Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s
theory of servant-leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Spears, L. (1996). Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant-leadership.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17(7), 33-35.
Spears, L. C. (Ed.) (1998). The power of servant leadership: Essays by Robert
K. Greenleaf. San Francisco, CA: Berrtt-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Spears, L. C. (2002). Tracing the past, present, and future of servant-leadership.
In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Focus on leadership: Servant-leadership for the
twenty-first century (pp. 1-16). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Spears, L.C., & Lawrence, M. (2002). Focus on leadership: Servant leadership
for the twenty-first century. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
152
Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. A. (2003, October). Transformational
versus servant leadership: A difference in leader focus. Paper presented
at the Servant Leadership Roundtable, Regent University, Virginia Beach,
VA.
T’Shaka, O. (1990). The art of leadership. Richmond, CA: Pan Afrikan
Publications.
Taninecz, G. (2002, Summer). Healing the corporate soul. Chief Executive, 8-11.
Tatum, J. (1995). Meditations on servant leadership. In Spears, L. C. (Ed.).
(1998), In reflection on servant leadership (p. 308). New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Versely, M. (1997, December). Kenya's watershed elections. African Business,
227, 18-21. Retrieved July 6, 2003, from ABI/Inform Global Database.
Waddock, S. (2002). Leading corporate citizens: Vision, values, values added.
USA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Waiguchu, J. M., Tiagha, E., & Mwaura, M. (1999). Management of organizations
in Africa: A handbook and reference. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Walsh, K. (2003, April). Qualitative research: Advancing the science and practice
of hospitality. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
44(2), 66-74.
Weinstein, B. (1998). I hate my boss. USA: McGraw-Hill.
William, C. (1994). Creating quality work environment. Security Management.
Retrieved October 25, 2002, from ABI/Inform Global Database.
Wilson, L. S. (1992, June). The “Harambee” movement and efficient public good
153
provision in Kenya. Journal of Public Economics, 48(1), 19.
Wilson, R. T. (1998). Servant leadership. Physician Executive, 24(5), 6-13.
Wis, R.M. (2002). The conductor as servant leader. Music Educators Journal,
89(17).
Wright, R. A. (Ed.). (1984). African philosophy: An introduction (3rd ed.).
New York: University Press of America.
Yassin, A. (2004, November 23). Rethink new law that restricts participation in
harambee. Sunday Nation. Retrieved April 17, 2004, from
http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/23112003/Letters/Letters23
1120039.html
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
154
Appendix A Participant Consent Form
Jeremiah Koshal/Researcher
Regent University
This is a qualitative study undertaken by Jeremiah Ole Koshal, a Ph.D. student at Regent University (School of Leadership Studies) in Virginia Beach, VA, U.S.A. The study examines Servant Leadership’s construct of service in the context of Kenyan leaders and managers. You are requested to participate in the study, and with your consent, the interview will be audiotaped. The researcher may also take shorthand notes while the interview is going on. Your participation in the study is voluntary and there will be no monetary benefit for participating. You are free to stop participating in the study at any point. By the end of the interview, the researcher will give you a copy of this consent form to keep. You will also be given a summary of the findings of the study when the research has been completed. The researcher (Jeremiah Ole Koshal) can be contacted at 757-424-1056 (phone) or by email (jerekos@regent.edu) I have read the above information and I consent to participate in the study without any financial expectation. Signature of Participant ________________________ Date ________________ Signature of Researcher _______________________ Date ________________
Recommended