397_002.pdf

Leadership

Copyright © 2007 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Singapore)Vol 3(4): 397–417 DOI: 10.1177/1742715007082964 http://lea.sagepub.com

Exploring Servant Leadership acrossCultures: A Study of Followers in Ghanaand the USAJeff R. Hale and Dail L. Fields, Bible League, Chicago, USA and Regent University, USA

Abstract In the shadow of corporate scandals such as Enron and Worldcom, anincrease in attention has been directed towards an approach termed ‘servant leader-ship’. To date, servant leadership has been discussed and described almost entirelyin the North American context (Farling et al., 1999; Spears, 1995). In the followingstudy, we explored the extent to which followers from Ghana and the USA haveexperienced three servant leadership dimensions in a work situation, and the extentto which these followers relate servant leadership dimensions to judgments aboutleadership effectiveness in each culture. After testing for measurement equivalenceand adjusting the item weights in each culture, we found that Ghanaians reportedexperiencing servant leadership behaviours significantly less than North Americans.We also found that vision had a significantly stronger relationship with leader effec-tiveness for Ghanaians in comparison to North Americans, but that both sub-samplesrelate service and humility with leader effectiveness similarly. We explored possibleexplanations and implications based on cultural differences.

Keywords cross-cultural; empirical study; Ghana and the USA; leadershipeffectiveness; servant leadership

IntroductionIn the shadow of corporate scandals such as Enron and Worldcom, a concept ofleadership that focuses on the welfare of followers rather than glorification of theleader, and that emphasizes social contribution, has proven to be very appealing.Consequently, increased attention has been directed at, and value placed on, anapproach termed ‘servant leadership’. Originally described by Greenleaf (1977),characterizations of servant leadership include an understanding and practice ofleadership that places the good of those led over the self-interest of the leader, empha-sizing leader behaviours that focus on follower development, and de-emphasizingglorification of the leader (Barbuto and Wheeler, 2006; Farling et al., 1999; Laub,2004). The servant approach to leadership also seems to be distinct from other

at Xi’an Jiaotong University on November 13, 2015lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://lea.sagepub.com/

approaches to describing patterns of leader behaviours, such as transformationalleadership, transactional leadership and dyadic linkages (Barbuto and Wheeler, 2006;Liden et al., 2005).

To date, servant leadership has been discussed and described almost entirely inthe American context (Farling et al., 1999; Spears, 1995). Unfortunately, there havebeen few efforts to examine the extent to which followers in the USA actually reporthaving experienced servant leadership while working in a leader–follower relation-ship. In addition, although Greenleaf Centres of Servant Leadership have beenestablished in Asia, Africa, and Latin America (Gonzaga University, 2005), there islittle empirical evidence concerning the applicability of servant leadership acrosscultures. While there are many aspects of servant leadership that are similar to leaderattributes that may be endorsed across cultures such as motive arousing, confidencebuilding, team building and foresight, some differences among cultures may limit theextent to which the servant leadership approach is viewed as effective (House et al.,2004). For example, servant leadership often focuses on follower development withthe intention of increasing follower capacity to exercise creative approaches and takeon greater responsibilities at work. However, these efforts may be viewed as effec-tive primarily in settings where the ability and willingness of followers to exerciseinitiative and direct their own activities is viewed as desirable (Fields et al., 2006;Hofstede, 2001). In more individualistic and lower power distance cultures such asthe USA, leaders who help equip followers to take initiative and undertake creativesolutions on their own tend to be viewed very positively (Liden et al., 2005).However, in higher power distance cultures, leaders whose followers take initiativeon their own without waiting for explicit direction may be seen as weak leaders(Hofstede, 2001). In cultures which are more collective, followers may be not feelcomfortable with leaders who emphasize follower individual initiative and creativitybecause these are viewed as being best accomplished through group discussion anddecisions.

Another key characteristic of servant leadership is a leader’s humility; that is,servant leaders are more concerned about followers receiving recognition for theirachievements than receiving accolades for his or her successes. Thus, a servantleader strives to build an environment in which followers have a voice. In somecases, a servant leader may make personal sacrifices to secure the involvement,well-being and achievements of their followers. In cultures characterized by lowerpower distance, followers tend to view leaders as similar to themselves but occu-pying a different role in a work setting. In such cultures, leader behaviour andorganizational procedures that emphasize recognition and rewards for followerachievements may be appreciated by followers and build high levels of trustbetween followers and their immediate leaders (Fields et al., 2000; Hofstede, 2001).However, in cultures with higher levels of power distance than the USA, followersmay view leaders as a different type of person, without whom achievements in anorganization might not be possible (Hofstede, 2001). In such cultures, leader behav-iours that emphasize recognition and rewards for follower achievements mayconfuse followers. (Fields et al., 2000). Consequently, followers may view theleader as being less effective.

Is servant leadership a North American concept that is of limited utility in otherparts of the world? Are the behaviours inherent to the practice of servant leadership

Leadership 3(4) Articles

398


Kassa Wondwossen

Underline

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight


endorsed as effective in other cultural settings? This study takes a small yet signifi-cant step forward in exploring the cross-cultural applicability of servant leadershipby not only comparing the extent to which working adults in Ghana and the USAreport having experienced servant leadership, but also the extent to which membersof each culture tend to associate servant leadership behaviours with leadershipeffectiveness.

Theoretical development

The nature of servant leadership

An examination of the variety of concepts used to describe servant leadership couldsuggest that what appears to be a relatively straight-forward concept is either quitecomplicated or lends itself to elaboration with a wide variety of terms. For example,scholars describe servant leadership as behaviours or leader characteristics includinghumility, relational power, service-orientation, follower development, encourage-ment of follower autonomy, altruistic calling, emotional healing, persuasivemapping, wisdom and organizational stewardship (Barbuto and Wheeler, 2006).Other formulations of servant leadership include the following aspects: moral love(also termed ‘agape’), altruism, vision, trust, service, humility and followerempowerment (Dennis and Bocarnea, 2005; Patterson, 2003); vision, influence,trust, service and credibility (Farling et al., 1999); voluntary subordination andauthentic self (humility); covenantal relationship (service to followers), responsiblemorality, transcendental spirituality and transforming influence (Senjaya, 2003);and emotional healing, creating value for the community, conceptual skills, empow-ering, helping subordinates grow and succeed, putting subordinates first andbehaving ethically (Liden et al., 2005). Despite the vast array of terms variousformulations of servant leadership have employed, three major descriptors origi-nally employed by Greenleaf (1977) are consistently cornerstones of servantleadership. These are:

� service – to followers, an organization or society. Based on the alternativedescriptions of servant leadership noted above, this dimension may includeservice-orientation, follower development, organizational stewardship,follower empowerment, covenantal relationship, responsible morality,helping subordinates grow and putting subordinates first.

� humility – putting the success of followers ahead of the leader’s personalgain. This dimension may include relational power, altruistic calling,emotional healing, moral love, altruism, credibility, voluntary subordination,authentic self, transcendental spirituality, emotional healing, and behavingethically from the various alternative servant leadership formulations above.

� vision – having foresight combined with the ability to communicate vision to,and influence followers in, developing a shared vision for an organization.This dimension includes wisdom, persuasive mapping, influence,transforming influence, credibility, creating value for the community, andconceptual skills from the various alternative servant leadership formulationsabove.

Leadership Exploring Servant Leadership Across Cultures Hale & Fields

399


Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight


Leadership in the African context

There is little scholarly literature available that specifically describes Ghanaianleadership. However, Sandbrook and Oelbaum (1997: 605) characterize contempor-ary Ghanaian national leadership as neo-patrimonial. Four practices are associatedwith neo-patrimonialism:

1. The use of governmental powers to reward political insiders.

2. The ruler’s acquiescence, if not active involvement in the misappropriation ofstate funds.

3. The distribution of state jobs by political patrons to followers, especially incombination with the tacit acceptance of bureaucratic corruption, fostersincompetence, indiscipline and unpredictability in civil services and state-owned enterprises.

4. Often threatens private property by the weakness or non-existence of the ruleof law.

Although Sandbrook and Oelbaum’s observations date from the late 1990’s, Ghana’scontemporary press continues to describe and decry the same state of leadership(Akosah-Sarpong, 2005; Danso, 2005). In more general terms, Okumo (2001) andSkinner (1998) use the term ‘afro-pessimism’ to describe the demoralizing ideaamong western observers and many Africans that African leaders are incapable ofcorrecting the sad state of African affairs. Some African scholars and commentatorsbelieve that the dismal failure of sub-Saharan nations following independence isdirectly related to their leaders’ decisions to ignore traditional styles of leadershipand to adopt western political and leadership paradigms (Kamara, 2003; Skinner,1998). Given the rich diversity of Sub-Saharan Africa, one must approach any gener-alization of cultural expressions with caution. However, some African scholarsmaintain that there are identifiable Sub-Saharan African cultural characteristics(Lassiter, 2000). Through his survey of numerous African thinkers, Lassiter (2000)organized these cultural characteristics into five broad categories:

(a) psychological characteristics

(b) society and the individual

(c) family and community

(d) worldview

(e) response to foreign influences.

Traditional Sub-Saharan African leadership centres on the concept of kingship.Masango (2003) points out that the hierarchy in African society is well defined,with the king at the top of the structure. However, kingship in pre-colonial timeswas not the autocratic dictatorship that appeared in the colonial and post colonialperiods (Banutu-Gomez, 2001; Masango, 2003; Williams, 2003). Rather, in earlierperiods, followers expected the king to function as a servant to the clan, tribe orcommunity (Williams, 2003). In essence, the kingdom was more important thanthe king. Historical examples document the removal of kings who became adetriment to the kingdom (Banutu-Gomez, 2001; Williams, 2003). The king usedinfluence to build consensus (Banutu-Gomez, 2001; Masango, 2003). Finally, the


400


Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight


king was the religious leader and guardian of the kingdom’s religious heritage(Rugege, 1994).

Contemporary Sub-Saharan Africans seem to want leaders who are strategy- andgoal-directed, especially if their strategic objectives address social and economicissues (Jones, 2002; Masango, 2003; Okumo, 2001, 2002; Sunwabe, 2004). Oneearns leadership through demonstrating good character, competency, compassion,justice and wholeness. Decision making should be participatory and leaders shouldprovide spiritual and moral guidance (Jones, 2002; Masango, 2003; Nyabadza, 2003;Okumo, 2002). In practice, it appears that both traditional and contemporary Sub-Saharan African leadership models include such characteristics as earning credibilitythrough competence, being visionary, using participatory decision-making, mentor-ing followers and building community through service.

Two previous studies have investigated the incidence and acceptability of servantleadership within cultural settings outside the USA. Nelson (2003) studied blackleaders in South Africa, using qualitative data from 27 leaders in the business andgovernment sectors, which was collected through open-ended interviews. The studyresults suggest that these South African leaders embraced the importance of humility,service and vision. However, female participants in the study perceived that socio-cultural constraints inhibit free expression of these behaviours. Participants alsoindicated regard for both love and trust within organizational settings, but indicatedthat trust was low in their organizations and doubted that love would be adoptedthroughout organizations (Nelson, 2003). Koshal (2005) also used qualitative inter-views to complete a study of 25 Kenyan leaders, focusing on the service aspect ofservant leadership, and found a strong understanding of the relationship betweenservice and leadership. Seven expressions of the service construct emerged throughthe interview process:

(a) role-modelling

(b) sacrificing for others

(c) meeting needs and development of others

(d) service as the primary function of leadership

(e) recognizing and rewarding employees

(f) treating employees with respect

(g) involving others in decision-making.

Cultural differences and leadership

While these previous studies suggest that the service, humility and visioncomponents inherent to the servant leadership approach may be well received inGhana, other results from the Global Leadership and Organizational BehaviourEffectiveness (GLOBE) Research Program (House et al., 2004) point to culturaldifferences that may limit the applicability of servant leadership in the Ghanaiancontext. The GLOBE project obtained information on both cultural practices (theway things are done now) and cultural values (the way things should be) in 62countries. Unfortunately, Ghana was not included in the study. However, a nearbyWest African country, Nigeria, was included. Other African countries included in the


401


Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight


GLOBE study were Zambia, Namibia and South Africa (white and black samples).The GLOBE researchers have grouped all of these countries together in a regionalgroup, labelled as Sub-Saharan Africa. However, Ghana and Nigeria are located inWest Africa, an area geographically distinct from more southern African countriessuch as Zambia, Namibia and South Africa. In addition, Ghana and Nigeria are linkedmore closely economically as over 15 per cent of Ghanaian trade occurs with Nigeria,compared to only 4 per cent with South Africa. In an earlier study, Hofstede (2001)suggested that West Africa, including Ghana, be considered a separate culturalregion. Table 1 presents estimates for West Africa and the USA cultural dimensions,as measured by the GLOBE project.

Based on the data presented in this figure, we expect that Ghanaian culture (aspractised today) differs from the USA primarily in the areas of power distance andin-group collectivism. That is, West African cultural practices emphasize in-groupcollectivism, and the distance between those with power and others, to a greaterextent than found in the USA. While there are some differences between the WestAfrican group and the USA in the other cultural dimensions measured by the GLOBEstudy (House et al., 2004), the differences in power distance and in-group collec-tivism are nearly twice as large as the differences in any other cultural aspect (referto Table 1). Although the cultural dimension scores were measured somewhatdifferently, the major differences between the United States and West Africa reportedearlier by Hofstede (2001) were also power distance and individualism/collectivism.

Power distance in a culture describes the extent to which there is separation, bothpractically and psychologically, between persons who have greater amounts of powerand those with less (House et al., 2004). For example, in a high power distanceculture, power is relatively stable, often based on family wealth or land holdings.There is limited upward mobility, power is seen as providing social stability, rela-tively few people have access to resources and human development is relatively low.In high power distance settings, those in positions of power are viewed as being


402

Table 1 GLOBE project estimates for West Africa and USA cultural dimensions

Society practices Society values

West Africa USA West Africa USA

Performance orientation 3.92 4.49 6.27 6.14Future orientation 4.09 4.15 6.04 5.31Gender egalitarianism 3.01 3.34 4.24 5.06Assertiveness 4.79 4.55 3.23 4.32Institutional collectivism 4.14 4.20 5.03 4.17In-group collectivism 5.55 4.25 5.48 5.77Power distance 5.80 4.88 2.69 2.85Humane orientation 4.10 4.17 6.09 5.53Uncertainty avoidance 4.29 4.15 5.60 4.00

Notes: Society practices are based on responses to questions about 'the ways things are at present'.Society values are based on responses to questions about 'the way things should be'. Scale values rangefrom 1 to 7.Source: House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (eds). (2004) Culture,Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.


Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight


different types of people from those who are not (Hofstede, 2001). As a result, servantleaders, described by Greenleaf as ‘first among equals’ (2002: 74), may not be accept-able or desirable in a relatively high power distance culture like Ghana.

In cultures with higher levels of in-group collectivism, individuals are integratedinto strong cohesive groups, such as families: group goals often take precedence overindividual goals; duties and obligations are strong determinants of behaviour; andpeople make larger distinctions between members of in-groups and others (House etal., 2004). Indeed, group membership is often the source of an individual’s identity.In-group members expect preferential treatment that is not available to out-groupmembers (Fields et al., 2000). Servant leadership emphasizes building community,and doing so begins with an acceptance of all those in the working unit, regardlessof other group affiliations (Greenleaf, 2002; Spears, 1995). Thus, the emphasis ofservant leadership to build community among followers who are also members ofdistinct in-groups may not be acceptable or viewed as effective within the relativelymore collective Ghanaian culture.

Study expectations/propositions

This is an exploratory study and the estimates of cultural dimensions for Ghana arebased on those for geographically and economically related countries. Consequently,it does not seem appropriate to propose study hypotheses. However, the areas ofcontrast between the two cultures suggest some differences in the extent to whichservant leadership may be experienced in each culture, as well as the extent to whichservant leadership is perceived as effective. Based on the higher power distance andgreater in-group collectivism in cultural practices of Ghana compared to the USA,we expect that servant leadership will be less consistent with perceptions of howGhanaian leaders should behave and therefore experienced to a lesser extent byfollowers in Ghana. On the other hand, because of traditional expectations thatGhanaian leaders should be concerned with general social well-being, and due tohigher power distance followers’ expectations that leaders should provide vision, weanticipate that the servant leadership dimensions of service and vision will contrib-ute more strongly to follower ratings of leader effectiveness in Ghana compared tothe USA.

Methods

Sample and procedure

The data for this project came from working adults who were also studying in twoChristian seminaries – one located in Ghana, and the other in the mid-Atlantic regionof the United States. The sub-sample from Ghana contained 60 people, 93 per centof whom were male, with an average age of 34.5 years. The Ghanaians in our samplehad an average work experience of 6.5 years. Of the Ghanaian sub-sample, 65 percent worked in churches or other religious organizations, 18 per cent worked inschools and 17 per cent worked in other types of organizations.

The sub-sample from the USA consisted of 97 people, 55 per cent of whom weremale, with an average age of 39 years. Members of the American sub-sample had an


403


Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight

Kassa Wondwossen

Highlight


average work experience of 13 years. Of the USA sub-sample, 62 per cent workedin churches, 5 per cent in schools and 33 per cent in other types of organizations.

The sub-samples were significantly different in mean age (t = 3.75, p < .01) andgender composition (t = 2.64, p < .05). On average, members of the US sub-samplewere older and more likely to be female than the members of the Ghanaiansub-sample.

Persons in Ghana completed the survey in paper and pencil form. From 70 peoplecontacted, we received 61 completed surveys, 60 of which were usable in this study.Subjects in the USA completed a web-based version of the survey. From 110 peoplecontacted, we received 97 completed surveys that were usable in this study. Recentstudies (e.g. Carlbring et al., 2005) comparing paper- and internet-based versions ofpsychological measures indicate that as long as item sequence and format areconsistent, psychometric properties of measures administered through both media areequivalent. Based on this information, we anticipated that differences between oursub-samples in level and relative weighting of the items used to measure theconstructs would more likely be attributable to differences in culture than differencesin the media used for collecting the data.

The instrument asked each respondent to think of a leader they had worked for inthe past five years. For Ghanaian respondents, the leader was described as a WestAfrican leader, defined in the survey form as one who (a) is ethnically West African,(b) has lived most of his or her life in Africa, and (c) the respondent’s leader–followerrelationship with this leader occurred in West Africa. For US respondents, a USAleader was defined as a person (a) who was born in the USA, (b) who has lived themajority of his or her life in the USA, and (c) the respondent’s leader–followerrelationship with this leader occurred in the USA.

We asked the respondents to describe the roles occupied by both the referentleader and the respondent when the leader–follower relationship took place. For theGhanaian sub-sample, 60 per cent of the referent leaders were pastors in Christianchurches, 13 per cent were educational administrators and 27 per cent were in otherorganizational roles. At the time of the leader–follower experience, 33 per cent of theGhanaian sub-sample members were working as associate church pastors, 20 per centwere working as youth pastors, 10 per cent as teachers, and 37 per cent were workingin other types of jobs. For the American sub-sample, 54 per cent of the leaders usedas a referent were in the role of a Christian church pastor at the time of the referentleadership experience, 6 per cent were educational administrators and 40 per centwere in other organizational leadership roles. At the time of the referent leadershipexperience, 22 per cent of the American sub-sample members were working as asso-ciate church pastors, 10 per cent were youth pastors, 3 per cent were working asteachers and 65 per cent were working in other jobs.

Measures

Leader effectivenessA six item scale developed by Ehrhart and Klein (2001) was used to measure Leader-ship Effectiveness. The measure asked each respondent to think of a referent leaderand state the extent to which the respondent believed he/she worked at a high levelof performance under this leader, enjoyed working for this leader, got along well with


404



the leader, found the leader’s style compatible with his/her own, and admired theleader, and felt the leader was similar to his/her ideal leader. Responses were on aLikert-type scale of 1 (to little or no extent) to 5 (to a great extent). Coefficient alphafor the scale was .93 for the entire sample, .92 for the Ghanaian sub-sample and .93for the USA sub-sample.

Servant leadershipServant leader behaviours were measured using 18 items adapted from Dennis(2004). The 18 items described the servant leadership behaviours of service tofollowers, humility in interactions with followers, and involvement of followers inestablishing vision. The items are presented in Appendix A. The items used a Likert-type response ranging from 1 to 7, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree.The sub-scale measuring service had reliability coefficient alpha of .94 in the USAsub-sample and .92 in the Ghanaian sub-sample. The sub-scale for humility hadcoefficient values of .95 in the USA sub-sample and .82 in the Ghanaian sub-sample.The sub-scale for vision had coefficient alpha values of .83 in the USA sub-sampleand .91 in the Ghanaian sub-sample.

Control variablesWe controlled for the possible effects of a respondent’s work experience, age, genderand social desirability response bias in reports about leadership effectiveness.Previous studies have shown that length of work experience could influence afollower’s rating of a leader’s leadership effectiveness (Ehrhart and Klein, 2001).Since the Ghanaian and American sub-samples differed in age and gender, we alsocontrolled these variables in our analysis.

Social desirability response bias refers to an individual’s tendency to over-reportsome attitudes or views that are seen as socially desirable or, conversely, to under-report some attitudes viewed as socially undesirable (Bernardi, 2006). In our study,it is possible that respondent ratings of the effectiveness of a leader might be affectedby this individual difference. Therefore, to control for this individual tendency inreporting, we collected data from each respondent using Reynold’s (1982) shortform (MC-Form C) of the Marlowe-Crown Social Desirability Scale (Marlowe andCrown, 1961). This measure of socially desirable tendency in responses was thenentered into our analysis in order to isolate and remove the variance in leadershipeffectiveness ratings accounted for by this individual difference among respondents.

ResultsOur analysis was a multi-step process. Since we collected all the measures fromfollowers, it is possible that relationships among the measures could be inflated bycommon method variance. Therefore, we first tested the extent to which the outcomevariable of leadership effectiveness was empirically distinct from the variablesmeasuring the leader behaviours of service, humility and vision. We tested this withinthe combined sample by examining the fit of alternative confirmatory factor models(Riordan and Vandenburg, 1994). We used the combined sample for this analysis toassure that the number of cases sufficiently exceeded the number of parameters esti-mated in the four factor confirmatory model. The model with four separate factorsfit the data significantly better than three alternative factor models:


405



(a) combining perceived leader effectiveness with vision (Δχ2 = 17.58, d.f. = 3;p < .01);

(b) combining leader effectiveness with humility (Δχ2 = 12.49, d.f. = 3;p < .01); and

(c) combining leader effectiveness with service (Δχ2 = 38.77, d.f. = 3; p < .01).

The four-factor model also fit the data significantly better than a two-factor modelcombining the dimensions of service humility and vision together (Δχ2 = 35.12,d.f. = 7; p < .01). The four-factor model also fit the data significantly better than aone-factor model combining all four key constructs together. These models wereestimated using LISREL version 8.14.

We next tested for measurement equivalence of the constructs within the samplesof Ghanaian and American respondents. Following Riordan and Vandenberg (1994),we first examined if the covariance matrices were identical. This test indicated thatthe covariance matrices were significantly different (Δχ2 = 540.19, d.f. = 24; p < .01).We then proceeded to test the extent to which the factor loadings for each of theconstructs were identical within the two sub-samples. The results of these tests areshown in Table 2.

As this table shows, the fit of the models for service and humility improved signifi-cantly when the loadings relating the items to the latent constructs varied betweenthe sub-samples. However, there was not a significant change in model fit when theloadings for leader effectiveness and vision were allowed to differ between the twosub-samples. Thus, the items seem to be related to the constructs of effectiveness andvision in the same way for both Ghanaian and US respondents. However, the loadingsdiffer for the constructs of service and humility. Since the loadings relating themeasurement items to the latent constructs for service and humility differed betweenthe Ghanaian and American sub-samples, we next examined the extent to which theservice and humility constructs were empirically distinct within each sub-sample. Amodel with two separate factors for service and humility fit the data better than amodel combining the service and humility constructs in both the Ghanaian sub-sample (Δχ2 = 19.57, d.f. = 1, p < .01) and the US sub-sample (Δχ2 = 59.28, d.f. = 1).Table 3 shows the loadings of the items for the service and humility constructs forthe Ghanaian and US sub-samples.

We subsequently used these loadings as weights to calculate the values for service


406

Table 2 Tests of construct measurement equivalence between Ghana and USA sub-samples

Model fit – Model fit – same pattern,

Construct same loadings different loadings Change in model fit

Effectiveness χΔ2 = 65.51, d.f. = 23 χΔ2 = 60.39, d.f. = 18 χΔ2 = 5.12, d.f. = 5, n.s.

Service χΔ2 = 55.81, d.f. = 23 χΔ2 = 30.40, d.f. = 18 χΔ2 = 25.41, d.f. = 5p < .01

Humility χΔ2 = 48.56, d.f. = 23 χΔ2 = 22.16, d.f. = 18 χΔ2 = 26.40, d.f. = 5p < .01

Vision χΔ2 = 40.38, d.f. = 23 χΔ2 = 35.69, d.f. = 18 χΔ2 = 4.69, d.f. = 5, n.s.



and humility for Ghanaian and American respondents respectively. Table 4 shows thezero order correlations among the study variables. The correlations for the Ghanaiansub-sample appear above the diagonal, while the correlations for the American sub-sample appear below the diagonal.

To examine our first research proposition concerning the extent to which respon-dents from Ghana and the USA reported having experienced servant leadership, wecompared the levels of the three dimensions of servant leadership reported byGhanaians and Americans in our sample controlling for social desirability in report-ing, the extent of work experience, age and gender of each respondent. Table 5 reportsthe result of this comparison.

There is a significant multivariate difference in the levels of the servant leadershipdimensions reported by Ghanaians and Americans (Wilks Lambda =.648, p < .001).In contrast to Ghanaians, North Americans reported experiencing all three servantleadership dimensions from their referent leaders more frequently than didGhanaians.


407

Table 3 Loadings of measurement items with service and humility constructs in Ghana andUSA sub-samples

Loading in Ghana Loading in USAItems sub-sample sub-sample

Service items

1. Sees serving as a mission of responsibility to 1.00 1.00others

2. Models service to inspire others .90 1.13

3. Understands that serving others is most 1.02 1.30important

4. Understands that service is the core ofleadership 1.02 1.24

5. Aspires not to be served but to serve others 1.22 1.34

6. Models service in his or her behaviors,attitudes, or values .44 1.31

Humility items

1. Talks more about employees’ accomplishments than his or her own .69 1.50

2. Does not overestimate her or his merits 1.31 1.44

3. Is not interested in self-glorification 1.72 1.72

4. Is humble enough to consult others in the 1.19 1.43organization when he or she may not haveall the answers

5. Does not center attention on his or her own 1.26 1.55accomplishment

6. Exhibits a demeanor of humility .65 1.57




408

Tabl

e 4

Mea

ns, S

tand

ard

devi

atio

ns, a

nd z

ero-

orde

r co

rrel

atio

ns o

fth

e st

udy

vari

able

sva

lues

for

Gha

na s

ub-s

ampl

e (N

= 6

0) a

re a

bove

the

diag

onal

; va

lues

for

USA

sub

-sam

ple

(N=

97)

are

bel

ow th

e di

agon

al

Var

iab

les

Mn

–Gh

Sd–G

hM

n–U

SSd

–US

12

34

56

78

1.Le

ader

eff

ectiv

enes

s4.

511.

325.

411.

39—

.85*

*.8

6**

.89*

*.0

7*–.

05**

.10*

.16

2.Se

rvic

e4.

221.

406.

801.

89.7

8**

—.8

1**

.74*

*–.

03*

–.07

**.0

7*.1

53.

Hum

ility

4.82

1.54

8.21

2.43

.76*

*.8

6**

—.8

1**

.04*

–.04

**.1

2*.1

64.

Vis

ion

4.29

1.43

4.94

1.30

.54*

*.6

2**

.70*

*—

.02*

–.03

**.0

3*.0

95.

Soci

al d

esira

bilit

y.3

6.2

1.5

0.2

3–.

06*

.05*

*.0

3**

–.03

**—

–.11

**–.

15*

.07

6.W

ork

expe

rienc

e1.

541.

494.

091.

83–.

01*

–.03

**–.

07**

–.02

**–.

14*

—.7

3*.0

17.

Age

4.28

2.23

5.25

1.97

.03*

.03*

*.0

1**

–.03

**–.

21*

.82*

*—

–.06

8.G

ende

r.0

7 .2

61.

45.5

0.0

8*.0

6**

–.04

**–.

14**

–.05

*.0

3**

–.09

*—

*p<

.05;

**p

< .0

1.



To investigate our second research proposition concerning the extent to whichfollowers see servant leadership dimensions as related to leadership effectiveness, weused LISREL to evaluate multivariate regression models for Ghanaians andAmericans in which the three servant leadership dimensions are exogenous predic-tors of leadership effectiveness. In these models, we also controlled respondent socialdesirability in reporting, levels of work experience, age and gender. We first assessedthe fit of a model in which the path coefficients from the servant leadership dimen-sions to leader effectiveness are required to be identical for both Ghanaians and


409

Table 5 Multivariate comparison of servant leadership dimensions

Mean levels(Controlling for social desirability, work experience,

age and gender)

Ghana USA F Value

Servicea 4.21 6.80 49.11**Humilitya 6.80 8.21 57.60**Vision 4.29 4.93 5.31**

a Values computed using weights derived from analysis of measurement equivalence.*p < .05; **p < .01.

Ghana sub-sample

Service Social desirability

Work experience

Humility Leadership Effectiveness

Vision

.29 (.08)**Age

Gender

.21 (.08)**

.42 (.08)**–.06 (.03)*

.04 (.03)

.06 (.03)*

.04 (.05)

USA sub-sample

Service Social desirability

Work experience

Humility Leadership Effectiveness

Vision

.38 (.09)**Age

Gender

.19 (.08)**

–.02 (.02).01 (.01)

.13 (.18)

.06 (.08)

–.59 (.39)

Figure 1 Path coefficients and standard errors for relationships of servant leadershipdimensions with leadership effectiveness



Americans. Then we assessed the fit of a model in which the path coefficients werefree to vary between Ghanaians and Americans. The model in which the paths werefree to differ between the two sub-samples fit the data significantly better than themodel requiring the paths to be identical (Δχ2 = 26.88, d.f. = 5, p < .01). The pathcoefficient estimates for each sub-sample are shown in Figure 1.

As Figure 2 shows, the path coefficient relating vision to leadership effectivenesswas significantly larger for Ghanaians than for Americans. The coefficients for thepaths relating service and humility with leadership effectiveness were not signifi-cantly different between the two sub-samples. In the Ghanaian sub-sample, workexperience and age were both related to judgment of leadership effectiveness. Noneof the control variables were significantly related to leadership effectiveness in theUSA sub-sample.

Discussion

Summary

In this study, we explored the extent to which employees from Ghana and the USAhave each experienced servant leadership in a work situation, as well as the extent towhich respondents relate servant leadership dimensions to judgments of leadershipeffectiveness in each culture. We first found that the weights for the items used tomeasure the servant leadership dimensions of service and humility were different forthe Ghanaian sub-sample compared to the USA sample. The item weights for themeasures of leadership effectiveness and vision were the same in each sub-sample.The scales for each of these aspects of servant leadership had acceptable reliabilityas measured by Cronbach’s alpha in both the Ghanaian and USA sub-samples.

Next, we found that respondents from Ghana reported experiencing servantleadership behaviours significantly less frequently than did respondents from theUSA. This was consistent with our expectations, based on higher levels of powerdistance and collectivism in the Ghanaian cultural practices. Servant leadershipincludes humility and development of followers, neither of which may be consistentwith leadership behaviour norms in cultures that are comfortable with greaterdistance between leaders and followers. Servant leadership also includes the buildingof relationship and community among co-workers, which in turn may not beconsistent with the higher distinctions between in-group and out-group members thatare comfortable for people in cultures with higher levels of collectivism.

In exploring the relationship of the three servant leadership dimensions withleadership effectiveness, we found no significant differences in the effects of serviceand humility between the Ghanaian and American sub-samples. However, we foundthat vision had a significantly stronger relationship with leader effectiveness forGhanaians. This result was consistent with our expectations for vision, but inconsis-tent with our expectation for service. Because Ghanaian culture exhibits higherpower distance in current practices, followers may have greater expectations thatpeople in leadership roles will provide vision, foresight and direction for followers,than their North American counterparts. Followers in Ghanaian culture may viewleaders who provide less vision as inadequate and ineffective. That is, as Hofstede(2001) has suggested, that members of higher power distance cultures tend to view


410



leaders as people who are somehow different from followers. This increased socialdistance or distinction between followers and leaders may carry with it higher expec-tations for leaders to perform in order to be considered effective. Consequently, aleader’s vision (or lack of it) and a leader’s behaviours that facilitate follower successmay be stronger determinants of judgements about overall leadership effectivenessthan in a lower power distance culture like the US. In North American culture, whichhas lower levels of power distance, followers may see leaders as people who aresimilar in many respects to themselves. In this case, followers may not rely as muchas Ghanaians on the leader to provide vision and foresight. North American follow-ers may not judge a leader who is less visionary as significantly less effective becausethe followers are more comfortable figuring out direction for themselves. Thus, theleader’s vision and facilitation of follower performance has less effect on judgementsabout overall leadership effectiveness.

It may be useful to consider our results in light of the estimates of cultural valuesfor the two countries obtained in the GLOBE project and presented in Table 1. Inparticular, West Africans, when asked about how things should be in society, placemuch greater emphasis on uncertainty avoidance than do Americans. It is possiblethat the value Ghanaians place on uncertainty avoidance manifests itself in a prefer-ence for leaders who provide vision. That is, vision may be viewed as a hedge againstuncertainty by Ghanaians, and leaders who provide better vision are thereforeperceived as being more effective.

Limitations

This exploratory study has several limitations. First, the samples in each country wereobtained through their connection with Christian seminaries. Since a salient NewTestament message from Jesus is that to be a leader, one must be a servant (seeMathew 20: 26–7, NIV), it is possible that the members of both sub-samples hadbeen sensitized to the servant leader model and therefore viewed servant leadershipbehaviours as more strongly related to overall leadership effectiveness than othersamples might. In addition, many of the members of the sub-samples had previouslyworked in a church setting where such behaviours as service and humility may beexpected, praised and rewarded more than in other settings, such as business orgovernment.

Although our sub-samples are from approximately parallel sampling frames, it isimportant to consider the generalization of the results in light of the background andpresent circumstances of the followers providing our data. Specifically, more thanhalf of the referent leaders used by respondents in both the Ghanaian and USA sub-samples were acting in the role of a Christian church pastor at the time of the leader-follower relationship. Some previous studies have found that job role may affectreports about leader behaviours (Herold and Fields, 2004). Thus, this circumstancecould have affected the mean levels of servant leadership behaviours that respondentsreported because pastors might be more likely to be humble and see a leader’s rolein terms of service to followers as opposed to leaders in job roles. In post-hocanalysis, we tested for a ‘pastor effect’ in the levels of servant leadership reported ineach sub-sample. We found that respondents in both sub-samples, whose referentleaders were church pastors at the time of the leader–follower relationships, reported


411



higher levels of service, humility and vision for these leaders compared to respon-dents whose referent leaders were in other job roles (F = 3.48, p < .05). It is note-worthy that the levels of servant leadership behaviours reported by respondentswhose leaders were in non-pastor roles were still significantly higher for the USAcompared to Ghanaian respondents. Still, it is unclear as to whether we might see thesame types of differences in levels of servant leadership reported by respondents fromGhana and the USA if all referent leaders were in other job roles, such as managerswho are expected to provide profitable results. It is worthwhile to observe that sincethe proportion of referent leaders who were pastors in each sub-sample were nearlyequal (60% for Ghanaian sub-sample and 54% for the US sub-sample), the ‘pastoreffect’ would seem to argue for smaller differences in the levels of servant leadershipreported. Since the levels of servant leadership reported were significantly differentin the sub-samples regardless of job role, there do seem to be meaningful culturaldifferences in the extent of servant leadership reported.

The other consideration in interpreting our results is the extent to which ourrespondents, all currently studying either full- or part-time in Christian seminaries,would tend to increase the connection between servant leadership dimensions andjudgements about leader effectiveness. In other words, regardless of the job role theyoccupied at the time of the leader–follower relationship, would the present role ofour respondents as seminary students tend to influence their retrospective perceptionsof leaders? Since his/her current job role is expected to affect a follower’s identity(Collinson, 2006), it may also directly affect follower perceptions about the extentto which service and humility are key ingredients for effective leaders. SinceChristian studies tend to emphasize the value of both service and humility as positivepersonal attributes, our respondents may have seen these as more important to leadereffectiveness than might have respondents currently working in a variety of other jobroles. It is of course impossible to answer this definitively within our sample. We didfind that Ghanaians related vision differently to leadership effectiveness than Amer-icans. However, across both sub-samples, we found the concepts of service andhumility similarly related to leadership effectiveness. Since the importance of visionfor leadership effectiveness might not be subject to a ‘seminary effect’ as much asservice and humility, this aspect of our results does raise some suspicions that somecontextual effect may be tending to equalize the value placed on service and humilityof leaders. It was necessary to estimate the scores for Ghana on the GLOBE culturaldimensions because actual data to measure these dimensions had not been collectedin Ghana. While our estimates appear consistent with earlier work by Hofstede(2001), the actual levels of cultural dimensions based on data collected fromGhanaians may differ from those we used. Although data collected through internet-and paper-based versions of the same instrument are likely to have similar psycho-metric properties, in some cases, mean internet responses may tend to be biasedupwards (Carlbring et al., 2005). Thus, it is possible that the US sub-sample meanvalues could have been systematically inflated because they were collected via aninternet-based version of the questionnaire. It is also possible that some differencesin mean levels of servant leadership reported by members of each sub-sample couldbe attributable to differences in interpreting and reporting Likert-type responses. Forexample, the distinctions between somewhat agree, agree, and strongly agree couldhave been interpreted differently by Ghanaians than by Americans.


412



Further research

The study also suggests some areas for further research. First, the relationship ofservant leadership with overall leadership effectiveness requires further investigationin both cultures, using samples drawn from a variety of occupations or areas of work.Servant leadership practices may be most effective in building employee commit-ment to an organization and thereby producing significant outcomes over the longerterm. Thus, the perceived relationships of servant leadership practices with leader-ship effectiveness may be different in business settings where performance may beevaluated using short-term results that could be more difficult to achieve with servantleadership approaches.

Second, it is necessary to investigate the relative contribution of servant leader-ship behaviours in comparison with other leadership models, including transforma-tional and transactional leadership with alternative industries across cultures.Although our analyses indicate the constructs in this study are independent and therelationships are not significantly inflated by common method variance, futurestudies should endeavour to obtain measures of servant leadership effectiveness fromarchival organizational data or organizational members other than those rating theleaders.

Finally, qualitative studies involving interviews with followers would provide anopportunity to explore the aspects of a leader’s behaviours and interactions withfollowers that these followers associate with servant leadership. These interviewscould also help us to better understand which aspects of servant leadership contributethe most to judgements of leader effectiveness along a range of possible dimensionswithin each culture.

ConclusionThis study explores the extent to which followers from Ghana and the USA reportexperiencing three servant leadership dimensions in a work situation, as well as theextent to which followers relate these servant leadership dimensions to judgementsabout leadership effectiveness in each culture.

In our study, Ghanaians report experiencing servant leadership less frequentlythan North Americans do. Also, Ghanaians relate a leader’s willingness to involvefollowers in establishing vision to judgements of leader effectiveness more stronglythan North Americans do. While the generalization of these results may be limitedby the some peculiarities of our samples from each country, there do seem to berelevant cultural differences in the occurrence and interpretation of servant leader-ship behaviours. While the cultural ‘short-hand’ provided by dimensions like powerdistance, collectivism and uncertainty avoidance do not tell the entire story aboutdifferences among cultures, these dimensions may be useful in predicting somemeaningful differences in the way that people in a culture prefer to be led and thusjudge leadership efforts. From a practical perspective, our results suggest thatconsideration of the multiple aspects of the contexts in which followers find them-selves embedded is necessary when hoping to understand leadership preferences andassessments.


413



References

Akosah-Sarpong, K. (29 June 2005) Rejoiner: Africa’s Complicated Leadership Past – theCase of Ghana. Africa News Service.

Banutu-Gomez, M. B. (2001) ‘The Concept of Intergenerational Leadership: A Study of theInfluence of Traditional African Leadership Practices in Government OrganizationalCulture, in the Gambia, West Africa’. PhD Thesis. Case Western Reserve University,Ohio. Retrieved April 12, 2004, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database(Publication No. AAT 3001091).

Barbuto, J., & Wheeler, D. (2006) ‘Scale Development and Construct Clarification ofServant Leadership’, Group and Organization Management 31(3): 300–26.

Bernardi, R. (2006) ‘Association Between Hofstede’s Cultural Constructs and SocialDesirability Response Bias’, Journal of Business Ethics 65: 43–53

Carlbring, P., Brunt, S., Bohman, S., Austin, D., Richards, J., Ost, L., & Andersson, G.(2005) ‘Internet Vs. Paper and Pencil Administration of Questionnaires Commonly Usedin Panic/Agoraphobia Research’, Computers in Human Behaviour 23(3): 1421–34.

Collinson, D. (2006) ‘“Rethinking Followership”: A Post-Structuralist Analysis of FollowerIdentities’, Leadership Quarterly 17: 179–89

Danso, K. A. (23 May 2005) ‘President Kufuor Defends Himself Well – But Can HeDeliver?’, Ghanaian Chronicle.

Dennis, R. (2004) ‘Servant Leadership Theory: Development of the Servant LeadershipAssessment Instrument’. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Regent University, Virginia Beach,Virginia, USA.

Dennis, R. S., & Bocarnea, M. C. (2005) ‘Development of the Servant LeadershipAssessment Instrument’, Leadership and Organization Development Journal 26(8):600–15.

Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K. J. (2001) ‘Predicting Followers’ Preferences for CharismaticLeadership: The Influence of Follower Values and Personality’, The Leadership Quarterly12: 155–79.

Farling, M. L., Stone, A. G., and Winston, B. E. (1999) ‘Servant Leadership: Setting theStage for Empirical Research’, Journal of Leadership Studies 6(1/2): 49–72.

Fields, D., Chan, A., Akhtar, S., & Blum, T. (2006) ‘Human Resource ManagementStrategies Under Uncertainty: How do American and Hong Kong Chinese CompaniesDiffer?’, Cross Culture Management: An International Journal 13(2): 171–86

Fields, D., Pang, M., and Chiu, C. (2000) ‘Distributive and Procedural Justice as Predictorsof Employee Outcomes in Hong Kong’, Journal of Organizational Behaviour 21:547–62.

Gonzaga University (2005) International Centres for Servant-Leadership. URL (accessed 19May 19 2004): http://www.gonzaga.edu/Academics/Colleges+and+Schools/School+of+Professional+Studies/Ph.D.+-+Leadership+Studies/Int.+Journal+of+Servant-Leadership/International+Centres+for+Servant-Leadership.htm

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

Greenleaf, R. K. (2002) Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Powerand Greatness (25th anniversary ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Herold, D., & Fields, D. (2004) ‘Making Sense of Subordinate Feedback for LeadershipDevelopment: Confounding Effects of Job Role and Organizational Rewards’, Group andOrganization Management 29(6): 686–701.

Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions,and Organizations Across Nations (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (eds) (2004) Culture,


414



Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, Inc.

Jones, M. F. (2002) ‘Participatory Engagement’, The Perspective. URL (accessed 10 April2004): http://www.theperspective.org/participatoryengagement.html

Kamara, S. (2003) Africa’s Woes are Due to Incompetent Leadership, Africa News Service.Koshal, J. O. (2005) ‘Servant Leadership Theory: Application of the Construct of Service in

the Context of Kenyan Leaders and Managers’. Paper presented at the Servant LeadershipResearch Roundtable. Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA, August.

Lassiter, J. E. (2000) ‘African Culture and Personality: Bad Social Science, Effective SocialActivism, or a Call to Reinvent Ethnology?’, African Studies Quarterly (Vol. 3).

Laub, J. (2004) ‘Defining Servant Leadership: a Recommended Typology for ServantLeadership’. Paper presented at the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. RegentUniversity, Virginia Beach, Virginia, August.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2005) ‘Development of aMultidimensional Measure of Servant Leadership’. Paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the Southern Management Association. Charleston, SC, November.

Marlowe, D., and Crown, D. (1961) ‘A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent ofPsychopathology’, Journal of Consulting Psychology 24(4): 349–54.

Masango, M. (2003) ‘Leadership in the African Context’, The Ecumenical Review 55(4):313.

Nelson, L. (2003) ‘An Exploratory Study of the Application and Acceptance of Servant-Leadership Theory Among Black Leaders in South Africa’. Unpublished PhD Thesis.Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA.

Nyabadza, G. W. (2003) ‘Leadership At the Peak – Africa Needs Dedicated Leaders’, AfricaNews Service.

Okumo, W. (2001) ‘Afro-Pessimism and African Leadership’, The Perspective. URL(accessed 9 April 2004): http://www.theperspective.org/afro_pessimism.html

Okumo, W. (2002) ‘Good African Leaders: Who Are They and How Do We Get Them?’,The Perspective. URL (accessed 10 April 2004): http://www.theperspective.org/goodafricanleaders.html

Patterson, K. A. (2003) Servant Leadership: A Theoretical Model. Unpublished PhD Thesis.Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA.

Reynolds, W. M. (1982) ‘Development of Reliable and Valid Short Forms of the Marlowe-Crown Social Desirability Scale’, Journal of Clinical Psychology 38(1): 119–25.

Riordan, C., & Vandenberg, R. (1994) ‘A Central Question in Cross-Cultural Research: DoEmployees of Different Cultures Interpret Work-Related Measures in an EquivalentManner?’, Journal of Management 20: 642–71.

Rugege, S. (1994). The Institution of Traditional Leadership and its Relation With theElected Local Government. URL (accessed 6 April 2004): http://www.kas.org.za/Publications/SeminarReports/Constitution%20and%20Law%20iv/rugege.pdf

Sandbrook, R., and Oelbaum, J. (1997) ‘Reforming Dysfunctional Institutions ThroughDemocratization? Reflections on Ghana’, The Journal of Modern African Studies 35(4):603–46.

Senjaya, S. (2003) ‘Development and Validation of Servant Leadership Behaviour Scale’.Paper presented at the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Regent University,Virginia Beach, VA, August.

Skinner, E. P. (1998) ‘African Political Cultures and the Problems of Government’, AfricanStudies Quarterly (Vol. 2).

Spears, L. C. (ed.) (1995) Reflections on Leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s Theory ofServant-Leadership Influenced Today’s Top Management Thinkers. New York: John Wileyand Sons, Inc.


415



Sunwabe, C. K., Jr. (2004) ‘Decrying the African Predicament’, The Perspective. URL(accessed 10 April 2004): http://www.theperspective.org/2004/mar/africanpredicament.html

Williams, A. (2003) ‘On the Subject of Kings and Queens: “Traditional” African Leadershipand the Diasporal Imagination’, African Studies Quarterly (Vol. 7).

Appendix A

Scale items used to measure service, humility, and vision

Service items

1. Sees serving as a mission of responsibility to others.

2. Models service to inspire others.

3. Understands that serving others is most important.

4. Understands that service is the core of leadership.

5. Aspires not to be served but to serve others.

6. Models service in his or her behaviours, attitudes, or values.

Humility items

1. Talks more about employees’ accomplishments than his or her own.

2. Does not overestimate her or his merits.

3. Is not interested in self-glorification.

4. Is humble enough to consult others in the organization when he or she maynot have all the answers.

5. Does not center attention on his or her own accomplishments.

6. Exhibits a demeanor of humility.

Vision items

1. Has sought my vision regarding the organization’s vision.

2. Has encouraged me to participate in determining and developing a sharedvision.

3. He/she and I have written a clear and concise vision statement for ourcompany.

4. Has asked me what I think the future direction of our organization should be.

5. Has shown that he or she wants to include employees’ vision into the firm’sgoals and objectives.

6. Seeks my commitment concerning the shared vision of our organization.

Response scale: 1= strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = somewhat disagree; 4 =neither; 5 = somewhat agree; 6 = agree; 7 = strongly agree


416



Jeff R. Hale has 15 years of cross-cultural leadership experience in West Africa.Currently, he is Associate Director of Africa Ministries for Bible League, Chicago,IL, USA. He is in the dissertation phase of a PhD in ‘Organizational Leadership’ atRegent University, Virginia Beach, VA, USA. [email: [email protected]]

Dail Fields has been a part of Regent University since 1999 with the School ofBusiness and now the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship. He teachesin the PhD programme in Organizational Leadership, supervises doctoral disser-tations and conducts a research program. He also provides consulting services inmanagement and leadership development to business and government organizations.He has been a guest lecturer and speaker for professional organizations anduniversities in China, Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong. Prior to joining RegentUniversity, Dr Fields served on the faculties of George Washington University andthe City University of Hong Kong. He also has extensive management and consult-ing experience with firms which include MCI Telecommunications Corp. andDeloitte Touche & Co. and entrepreneurial experience gained in starting a smallbusiness. [email: [email protected]]


417



Documents

397_002.pdf