Servant‐Leadership:AnExplorationofEssenceandFidelityby

DavidA.T.NagelB.A.,UniversityofNorthernBritishColumbia,2001

AThesisSubmittedinPartialFulfillmentoftheRequirementsfortheDegreeof

MASTEROFARTS

intheFacultyofEducation–Dept.ofEducationalPsychologyandLeadership

Studies

DavidA.T.Nagel,2012UniversityofVictoria

Allrightsreserved.Thisthesismaynotbereproducedinwholeorinpart,by

photocopyorothermeans,withoutthepermissionoftheauthor.

iiSupervisoryCommittee

Servant‐Leadership:AnExplorationofEssenceandFidelityby

DavidA.T.NagelB.A.,UniversityofNorthernBritishColumbia,2001

SupervisoryCommittee

Dr.CarolynCrippen,DepartmentofEducationalPsychologyandLeadershipStudies

Supervisor

Dr.SusanTasker,DepartmentofEducationalPsychologyandLeadershipStudies

DepartmentalMember

iiiAbstract

SupervisoryCommittee

Dr.CarolynCrippen,DepartmentofEducationalPsychologyandLeadershipStudies

Supervisor

Dr.SusanTasker,DepartmentofEducationalPsychologyandLeadershipStudies

DepartmentalMember

Abstract

In1970RobertK.Greenleafputforthaconceptualizationofleadership

aimedatre‐invigoratingasenseofbelongingandresponsibilityinthedisgruntled

youthofthosetimes.Inhisseminalwork,TheServantasLeader(1991),heoffersa

ratherrevolutionaryapproachtoleadershipthatfocusesnotonlyontheactionsof

theleader,butalsoontherelationshipexistingbetweenleaderandfollower.

Servant‐leadershipseekstorepositionleadershipasaprocessofrelationship

markedbymutualinfluence.

Thepurposeofthisqualitativestudy,bymeansofreflectiveanalysis,wasto

exploretheessenceofservant‐leadershipaccordingtoGreenleaf’soriginalwork

andtodescribehowthatessenceisreflectedwithinthesecondaryliteratureextant

toservant‐leadership.TheServantasLeader(1991)andOnBecomingaServant

Leader(1996)wereusedtodiscerntheessenceofGreenleaf’sconceptualization,

whilesecondaryservant‐leadershipliteratureintheformofbooks,bookchapters,

andjournalarticlesprovidedthecontextforunderstandinghowGreenleaf’swork

hasbeenrepresented.

ivTableofContents

Supervisory Committee ...................................................................................................... iiAbstract .............................................................................................................................. iiiTable of Contents............................................................................................................... ivAcknowledgments.............................................................................................................. viDedication ......................................................................................................................... viiChapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

Background ..................................................................................................................... 1Problem Statement .......................................................................................................... 3Purpose Statement........................................................................................................... 5Research Objectives........................................................................................................ 5Research Questions......................................................................................................... 5Definition of Terms......................................................................................................... 6

Chapter 2: Literature Review.............................................................................................. 7What is Servant-Leadership According to Greenleaf? ................................................... 7What is Servant-Leadership According to the Secondary Literature?.......................... 16

Servant-leadership as a philosophy........................................................................... 16Servant-leadership compared with transformational leadership............................... 17Servant-leadership as a portrayal of the new science. .............................................. 18Servant-leadership as a process. ............................................................................... 21Servant-leadership as service.................................................................................... 23Servant-leadership as a way of being........................................................................ 25

Servant-Leadership as a Measurable Construct............................................................ 29Chapter 3: Research Method............................................................................................. 35

Reflective Analysis ....................................................................................................... 36Dependability and Credibility....................................................................................... 37Role of the Researcher .................................................................................................. 38Research Procedure Question 1 .................................................................................... 39

Data collection. ......................................................................................................... 39Data reduction and analysis. ..................................................................................... 40Dependability and credibility.................................................................................... 42

Research Procedure Question 2 .................................................................................... 42Data collection. ......................................................................................................... 43Data reduction and analysis. ..................................................................................... 43Dependability and credibility.................................................................................... 45

Chapter 4: Findings........................................................................................................... 47Question 1 ..................................................................................................................... 47

An attitude of responsibility...................................................................................... 47Listening. .................................................................................................................. 48Awareness. ................................................................................................................ 49Intuitive insight. ........................................................................................................ 49Foresight. .................................................................................................................. 50Creativity................................................................................................................... 50

vPersuasion. ................................................................................................................ 51Unlimited liability..................................................................................................... 51

Question 2 ..................................................................................................................... 52An attitude of responsibility...................................................................................... 53Listening. .................................................................................................................. 54Awareness. ................................................................................................................ 56Intuitive insight. ........................................................................................................ 57Foresight. .................................................................................................................. 58Creativity................................................................................................................... 59Persuasion. ................................................................................................................ 61Unlimited liability..................................................................................................... 61Summation. ............................................................................................................... 62

Chapter 5: Discussion ....................................................................................................... 64Question 1 ..................................................................................................................... 64

Limitations. ............................................................................................................... 65Question 2 ..................................................................................................................... 65

Limitations. ............................................................................................................... 72Overall Thoughts .......................................................................................................... 73Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 74Recommendations and Next Steps................................................................................ 76

Recommendation 1: Engage in dialogue. ................................................................. 76Recommendation 2: Follow Van Dierendonck’s lead. ............................................. 76Recommendation 3: Explore varied contexts. .......................................................... 76Recommendation 4: Explore historical roots............................................................ 77Recommendation 5: Explore the concept of followership........................................ 77

Final Reflections ........................................................................................................... 77References......................................................................................................................... 79

viAcknowledgments

FirstandforemostI’dliketoacknowledgemywifeAvrilanddaughterKaiyafor

theircountlesshoursofsupportandunderstanding.InthatveinI’dliketothank:

ZachCamozzi,RhiannaNagel,Pancho(Francisco)Varela,GrandmaNagel,Maria

Nagel,DavidNagelSr.,AlayaBoisvert,AndreeDurand,andotherswhoprovided

countlesshoursofvaluablechildcare.

Dr.CarolynCrippenhasbeenanundyingmentorwhohasbeennothinglessthan

supportiveandencouragingduringthisentireprocess.Inadditiontosupporting

thisworkshehasbeenunprecedentedinherguidanceregardingmyscholarship

andacademiccareer.

Dr.SusanTaskerhasprovidedavaluablecriticaleyefortheproject,andhas

helpedimmenselyinthelogicalstructureandflowoftheargument.

Assomemayknow,withoutthequintessentialassistanceofdepartmentalstaff,

noneofthiswouldhavebeenpossible.ManythankstoStacey,Zoria,Gloria,Vivian,

andtoourformerandcurrentdepartmentalchairs;Dr.JohnWalshandDr.John

Anderson.LastlyI’dliketothankFranHunt‐Jinnouchi(INAF)andNorahMcRae(Co‐

op)forhelpingtolaunchmyresearchtrajectoryatUVic.

viiDedication

ToAldenTreeCamozziNagel

Chapter1:Introduction

Background

Someyearsagothisauthorwitnessedthedramaticpersonaltransformation

ofayoungpersonwhohadparticipatedinanexperientiallearningprogram.The

person,whomtheauthorhasknownforthemajorityofhislife,emergedfromthe

programassomeonewitharemarkablebalancebetweenher/hisselfandothers.

UponrecentreflectionasIconcludetheMaster’sportionofmygraduatestudiesit

becameapparentthatmyinterestinleadership(seedefinitionp.6)stemmedfrom

havingwitnessedthepersonalgrowthofthisyoungperson.

Myexperientialconnectiontothetopicofleadershipbeganwhenworking

foranationalyouthleadershipdevelopmentorganizationcalledKatimavik.

Katimavikfostersthegrowthofyoungpeopleaged17to21throughanexperiential

learningprogrambaseduponservice­learning(seedefinitionp.6)pedagogy.Seven

yearslater,IcommencedgraduatestudiesattheUniversityofVictoria.By

happenstanceandkismetthefirstcourseofferedandavailabletomewasservant‐

leadership.Theconceptimmediatelyspoketomylifeexperiencetothatdate,and

hasbeenafocalpointofmystudieseversince.

Thetermservant­leadershipemergedfromtheworkofRobertK.Greenleaf

inhisseminalworkentitledTheServantasLeader(1991).Greenleafwasconcerned

withthecivilandinstitutionalunrestofthe1960s,andwasdeeplyconcernedabout

thelackofresponsibilitythatheperceivedamongsttheyoung(Beazley&Beggs,

2002).Asaconsultant,Greenleafwasaskedoftenwhatcouldbedoneaboutthe

uneasylandscape.Hedecidedtofindoutwhatthestudentsofthatdaywere

2

reading,whichleadhimtodiscoveringTheJourneytotheEast,byHermanHesse.It

wasfromreadingthisbook,andreflectingontheroleofthemaincharacterLeo,

thathediscernedthetrueandgreatleaderwasservantfirst.Hethenwenton,with

theaidofhisprofessional,spiritual,andlifeexperiencetoputforththeconceptof

servant‐leadership.

Theservant‐leadershipconceptisdeeplyrootedinrelationshipsandhow

wechoosetoaffectourenvironmentvisàvisourconnectionsandactions.AsC.

Crippen(personalcommunication,March13th,2011)isoftknowntosay,“it’sall

aboutrelationships”;anotionofrelationshipsinlinewithwhatWheatley(2006)

describesasinterconnectivityandmutualpossibility.Inferredisanotionof

relationshipbeyondanegocentricfocusonindividualstoanunderstandingof

relationshipsthatincludesasynergyofideas,intentions,intuition,andwhat

Greenleaf(1991)referstoas“greatdreams”.

Inoneofthemostpotentdefinitionsofleadershiptodate,Rost(1991)

definesleadershipas“aninfluencerelationshipamongleadersandfollowerswho

intendrealchangesthatreflecttheirmutualpurposes”(p.102).Thisdefinitionof

leadershipcloselyconnectstotheservant‐leadershipconcept;inthatitisour

actionsandintentionsthatcreatetheworldinwhichwelive.Theservant‐leader,as

definedbyGreenleaf(1991),“isservantfirst…Itbeginswiththenaturalfeelingthat

onewantstoserve,toservefirst.Thenconsciouschoicebringsonetoaspireto

lead”(p.15).

3

ProblemStatement

Theconceptofservant‐leadershipisquitenew,emergingwithinpopular

discourseonlywithinthelast40years.DuringthepastthreeyearsIhave,bymeans

ofreading,attendingconferences,takingcourses,andresearchsensedalackof

commonunderstandingastowhatservant‐leadershipis.Interpretationvariesfrom

servant‐leadershipasasubsetoftransformationalleadership(Farling&Stone,

1999;Graham,1991;Patterson,2003),toservant‐leadershipasaphilosophyof

leadership(Frick,1995;Polleys,2002;Prosser,2010),toservant‐leadershipas

simplyafundamentalwayofbeing(Bordas,1995;Keith,2008;Spears,1998).This

seemsproblematic,foritleadsustowardafuzzyconceptualizationofservant‐

leadershipthathinderspracticeandapplication.Alsoofconcernisthatafuzzyand

ill‐definedconceptualizationofservant‐leadershipleadstoadistortionforpotential

empiricaltesting.

Inrecentyears,scholarshavecreatednolessthanelevenmeasureable

constructsofservant‐leadership(Barbuto&Wheeler,2002;Barbuto&Wheeler,

2006;Laub,2003;Liden,Wayne,Zhao,&Henderson,2008;Page&Wong,2000;

Patterson,2003;Russell&Stone,2002;Sendjaya,Sarros,&Santora,2008;Spears,

1995;VanDierendonck,2011).Further,researchandwritingonservant‐leadership

hasappearedinapotpourriofdisciplinesrangingfrombusinessandeducationto

nursingandtheology(Crippen,2005;Laub,2003;Neill&Saunders,2008;Russell,

2003).Suchabroadapplicationofaconceptinitsinfantstageshasledtovarying

viewsastowhatactuallyconstitutesservant‐leadership.

4

Forexample,Spears(1995)hasidentifiedlistening,empathy,healing,

awareness,persuasion,foresight,conceptualization,stewardship,thegrowthof

others,andbuildingcommunityastenessentialcharacteristicsofservant‐

leadership(pp.4‐7),whileFarling,Stone,andWinston(1999)offervision,

influence,credibility,trust,andservice(p.51).Patterson(2003)suggestsseven

virtuousconstructsbeingagapaolove,humility,altruism,vision,trust,

empowerment,andservice(p.2),whileLaub(2003)envisionsvaluingpeople,

developingpeople,buildingcommunity,displayingauthenticity,providing

leadership,andsharingleadership(p.3).Onecanseesomeminorsimilarities

withintheselists,butmoreevidentisthewidescopeofinterpretationastowhat

servant‐leadershipactuallyis.Perhapstelling,isthatonlySpears(1995)

acknowledgesadirectconnectiontotheoriginalworkofRobertK.Greenleaf.

Todate,therehasbeenonlyoneattempttocreateasynthesisofthemany

interpretationsofservant‐leadership(VanDierendonck,2011),thoughthereis

littlementionofGreenleaf’sconceptualization.Thus,itappearsthatareturnto

Greenleaf’s(1991;1996)originalworkwillprovidegreaterconceptualclarity,and

promoteacommonconceptualframework.Greaterconceptualclarity,basedon

Greenleaf’soriginalconceptualization,canthenprovideamoreaccuratestarting

pointfromwhichdialogueandresearchcancommence.Acontinuedlackof

commonconceptualunderstandingofservant‐leadershiprunstheriskofdiluting

theconceptsomuchthatitbecomesinsignificant.AreturntoGreenleaf’sworkisin

theinterestofthoseseekingtopromote,todevelop,toresearch,andtopractice

servant‐leadership.

5

PurposeStatement

Thepurposeofthisqualitativestudy,bymeansofreflectiveanalysis,wasto

exploretheessenceofservant‐leadershipaccordingtoGreenleaf’soriginalwork

(1991,1996a,1996b,1996c,1996d,1996e,1996f,1996g,1996h,1996j,1996k,

1996m,1996n,1996o),andtodescribehowthatessenceisreflectedwithinthe

secondaryliteratureextanttoservant‐leadership.TheServantasLeader(1991)and

OnBecomingaServantLeader(1996)wereusedtodiscerntheessenceof

Greenleaf’sconceptualization,whilesecondaryservant‐leadershipliteratureinthe

formofbooks,bookchapters,andjournalarticlesprovidedthecontextfor

understandinghowGreenleaf’sworkhasbeenrepresented.

ResearchObjectives

Thetwoobjectivesofthisresearchstudywere(a)toproposean

understandingoftheconceptualessenceofGreenleaf’s(1991,1996a,1996b,1996c,

1996d,1996e,1996f,1996g,1996h,1996j,1996k,1996m,1996n,1996o)original

workand(b)toexplorethesecondaryliteratureextanttoservant‐leadershipin

ordertodescribehowtheconceptasIhaveproposedisreflected.

ResearchQuestions

Accordingly,thisresearchstudyaskedtwoquestions:

• Question1:WhatisGreenleaf’sconceptualizationofthenatureandessence

ofservant‐leadershipascommunicatedinhis1991work,andinhisearly

essayscollectedinOnBecomingaServant­Leader(1996)?

6

• Question2:Howdoesthesecondaryliteratureextanttoservant‐leadership

overthelast40yearsreflecttheessenceofGreenleaf’sconceptualizationasI

havediscernedfromQuestion1?

DefinitionofTerms

Thefollowingtermsanddefinitionsareusedforthepurposeofthispaper.

Concept.“Ageneralideaderivedorinferredfromspecificinstancesor

occurrences”(Concept,1997,p.287).

Construct.“Tocreatebysystematicallyarrangingideasorterms;aconcept,

model,orschematicidea”(Construct,1997,p.298).

Essence.“Theintrinsicorindispensablepropertythatcharacterizeor

identifysomething”(Essence,1997,p.469).

Leadership.“Aninfluencerelationshipamongleadersandfollowerswho

intendrealchangesthatreflecttheirmutualpurposes”(Rost1991,p.102).

Servant­leader.“Theservant‐leaderisservantfirst…Itbeginswiththe

naturalfeelingthatonewantstoserve,toservefirst.Thenconsciouschoicebrings

onetoaspiretolead”(Greenleaf,1991,p.15).

Service­learning.“Service‐learningjoinstwocomplexconcepts:community

action,the‘service,’andeffortstolearnfromthatactionandconnectwhatis

learnedtoexistingknowledge,the‘learning’”(Stanton,Giles,&Cruz,1999,p.2).

Thischapterhasoutlinedthebackground,problemandpurposestatements,

researchobjectives,andresearchquestionsforthisstudy.InthenextchapterIturn

toareviewofGreenleaf’sworksfollowedbyareviewofthesecondaryliterature

extanttoservant‐leadership.

7

Chapter2:LiteratureReview

Thischapterhasbeenseparatedintotwoparts.Thefirstdescribesservant‐

leadershipaccordingtoGreenleaf’swritings,whiletheseconddescribesthe

secondaryliteratureextanttoservant‐leadership.Thesecondaryliteraturehas

beenorganizedintosevensub‐sectionsinordertopresentthevastamountof

informationinacoherentandunderstandablemanner.

WhatisServant­LeadershipAccordingtoGreenleaf?

Inperhapsthemostfrequentlyusedpassagefordescribingservant‐

leadership,Greenleaf(1991)suggeststhat:

Theservant‐leaderisservantfirst–asLeowasportrayed.Itbegins

withthenaturalfeelingthatonewantstoserve,toservefirst.Then

consciouschoicebringsonetoaspiretolead.Heissharplydifferent

fromthepersonwhoisleaderfirst,perhapsbecauseoftheneedto

assuageanunusualpowerdriveortoacquirematerialpossessions.

Forsuchitwillbealaterchoicetoserve–afterleadershipis

established.Theleader‐firstandtheservant‐firstaretwoextreme

types.Betweenthemthereareshadingsandblendsthatarepartof

theinfinitevarietyofhumannature.

Thedifferencemanifestsitselfinthecaretakenbytheservant‐firstto

makesurethatotherpeople’shighestpriorityneedsarebeingserved.

Thebesttest,anddifficulttoadminister,is:dothoseservedgrowas

persons;dothey,whilebeingserved,becomehealthier,wiser,freer,

moreautonomous,morelikelythemselvestobecomeservants?And,

8

whatistheeffectontheleastprivilegedinsociety;willhebenefit,or,

atleast,willhenotbefurtherdeprived?(p.15)

Further,regardingthenatureoftheservantGreenleafposits,“ifoneisservant,

eitherleaderorfollower,oneisalwayssearching,listening,expectingthatabetter

wheelforthesetimesisinthemaking”(p.11).

InhisearlyessaysGreenleafoftenconnectsleadershiptoanEthicof

Strength,whichhedefinesas“theability,inthefaceofthepracticalissuesoflife,to

choosetherightaimandtopursuethataimresponsiblyoveralongperiodoftime”

(Greenleaf,1996e,p.95).ThepassageillustratesthesearchofwhichGreenleaf

speaks,andthelifelongjourneythatonemustundertakeinitspractice.Inan

interviewwithDiStefano(Frick&Spears,1996),Greenleafsuggestsservant‐

leadershipis“basicallyaquestionofthevaluesthatareheldbyasociety”(p.348),

perhapsareflectiononageneralsenseofhopelessnessamongsttheyoung.

Greenleaf(1991)feltthattherightcourseofactioninresponsetothe

studentunrestofhisdaywasforenoughleadersto“convertthemselvesinto

affirmativebuildersofabettersociety”.Thisview,forservants“toemergeas

leaders”,orto“onlyfollowservant‐leaders”wasnotapopularone(p.12).Butfor

Greenleaf(1996j),constructivechange,incontrasttothedestructivesentimentsof

thosedays,requiredthatindividualsbewillingtoinvestthemselvesinandtotake

“responsibilityforleadership”,andtobewillingtotakethe“bitterwiththesweet,

thedullandroutinewiththeexcitingandchallenging”(p.293).Centraltothe

conceptofservant‐leadershipisthenotionthat“theforcesofgoodandevilinthe

worldoperatethroughthethoughts,attitudes,andactionsofindividualbeings.

9

Societies,movements,andinstitutionsarebutthecollectionorfocusofsuch

individualinitiatives”(Greenleaf,1996o,p.329).

AcommonthemetoGreenleaf’swritingwastheconcernfortheworld“not

thattherearesomanypoorlyequippedpeopleinitbutthatthewell‐equipped

peopledosopoorly”(Greenleaf,1996e,p.96).Andfurther,“ifaflawintheworldis

toberemedied,totheservanttheprocessofchangestartsinhere,intheservant,

notoutthere”(Greenleaf,1991,p.44).Ideas,movements,andchangeoriginate

withintheindividual,andcomeintotheworldbecauseof“originators,thosewho

imagineandwhotaketherisksofactingonanimaginedidea”(Greenleaf,1996g,p.

127).Greenleaf(1991)describesanessentialproblemofleadershipas:

Therealenemyisfuzzythinkingonthepartofgood,intelligent,vital

people,andtheirfailuretolead,andtofollowservantsasleaders.

Toomanysettleforbeingcriticsandexperts.Thereistoomuch

intellectualwheelspinning,toomuchretreatinginto“research,”too

littlepreparationforandwillingnesstoundertakethehardandhigh

risktaskofbuildingbetterinstitutionsinanimperfectworld,too

littledispositiontosee“theproblem”asresidinginhereandnotout

there.(p.46)

Whatfollowsfromadispositionofinhereandnotoutthereisa“senseof

responsibilityasanattitude,afeeling.Itisanoverridingpointofview,thecolorof

theglassesthroughwhichoneseestheworld,theframeofreferencewithinwhich

one’sphilosophyoflifeevolves”(Greenleaf,1996b,p.42).Thesourceforsuchan

attitudeisseenas“internalratherthanexternal.Responsibilityisnotseenasanact

10

ofconformity.Rather,itisthekeytoinnerserenity.Responsibilityisnotatested

formula,acode,orasetofrules”(p.42).Emergentisasenseofpurposethat

permeatesandinformsallofone’sactions,thoughts,andintentions.

ForGreenleaf(1996j),anattitudeofresponsibilityamongsttheyoung

seemedinshortsupply,forwhichhelaidblameonuniversitiesthattended“tobias

studentstowardbecomingcriticsandexpertsandawayfrombecomingresponsible

participantsinsociety”(p.289).Greenleaf(1991)quippedthat“aneducationthatis

preponderantlyabstractandanalytical”andthat“extendedforsomanysofarinto

theadultyears”robbedtheyoungof“normalparticipationinsociety…whenthey

werereadyforit”(p.47).Itwashisviewthat“ourverybestinfluenceneedstobe

broughttobearonourpotentiallybestyoungpeopleintheformativeyearsfrom

sixteentotwenty‐fivewhenthecrisisofidentityisbeingmet”(Greenleaf,1996d,p.

80).Thegreatestprioritywasandstillis“todevelopyoungpeopleastheycome

alongtodealcourageouslyandcreativelywiththefuture”(Greenleaf,1996n,p.

320),fosteringopportunitiestopracticeservingandleading;two“intuitionbased

concepts”inGreenleaf’sthinking(Greenleaf,1991,p.14).

Greenleaf(1991)describesintuitionas“afeelforpatterns”(p.24).He

envisionsaleaderwhohasa“sensefortheunknowableandbeabletoforeseethe

unforeseeable”(p.23),andsuggeststhatsuchaquality“ispartlywhatgivesthe

leaderhis‘lead’,whatputshimoutaheadandqualifieshimtoshowtheway”(p.

23).Actingonintuitionisessentialforaleader,butsuchbehaviorhasthepotential

tobeseenasimpulsivenessbythosewhoarehighlyrational(Greenleaf,1996c).

Greenleaf(1996c)cautionsthosepracticingservant‐leadershipto“regardthe

11

highlyrationalwithajaundicedeye”,though“sincerationalpeoplearenumerous

andneedtobetakenintoaccount,open,creativepeopleneedtolearnto

rationalize”(p.71).ForGreenleaf(1996m),“leadersmustbecreative;and

creativityislargelydiscovery–apushintotheunchartedandtheunknown”(p.

315).Heconnectsaleader’scapacityforcreativityandintuitiontothepractical

matterofdecisionmaking,forwhichaninformationgap“betweenthesolid

informationinhandandwhatisneeded”alwaysexists.Hence,“theartofleadership

rests,inpart,ontheabilitytobridgethatgapbyintuition,thatis,ajudgmentfrom

theunconsciousprocess”(Greenleaf,1991,p.24).

Connectedtothisintuitivecomponentofdecisionmakingisthenotionof

foresight.Greenleaf(1996h)viewedforesightas“afacetofintuitivefertility”(p.

170),andpartof“the‘lead’thataleaderhas”(Greenleaf,1991,27).Whenaleader

“losesthisleadandeventsstarttoforcehishand,heisleaderinnameonly.Heis

notleading;heisonlyreactingtoevents”(Greenleaf,1996n,p.319).ForGreenleaf,

“foresightmeansregardingtheeventsoftheinstantmomentandconstantly

comparingthenwithaseriesofprojectionsmadeinthepastandatthesametime

projectingfutureevents”(Greenleaf,1991,p.27).Exercisingforesightrequiresan

interestingperceptionoftimeinwhich“past,present,andfutureareoneorganic

unity”(Greenleaf,1996n,p.319).Greenleaf(1991)views“theabilitytodothisas

theessentialstructuraldynamicofleadership”(p.27),whichisrelatedmore

broadlytoaleader’sapproachtoknowledge.

12

ForGreenleaf(1991),theuseofforesightdependsuponone’sapproachto

knowledgeandreality,requiringwhathedescribesasa“sortofschizoidlife”(p.

28),inwhich:

Oneisalwaysattwolevelsofconsciousness:oneisintherealworld

–concerned,responsible,effective,valueoriented.Oneisalso

detached,ridingaboveit,seeingtoday’seventsandseeingoneself

deeplyinvolvedintoday’sevents,intheperspectiveofalongsweep

ofhistoryandprojectedintotheindefinitefuture.Suchasplit

enablesonebettertoforeseetheunforeseeable.Also,fromonelevel

ofconsciousness,eachofusactsresolutelyfrommomenttomoment

onasetofassumptionsthatthengovernhislife.Simultaneously,

fromanotherlevel,theadequacyoftheseassumptionsisexamined,

inaction,withtheaimoffuturerevisionandimprovement.Sucha

viewgivesonetheperspectivethatmakesitpossibleforhimtolive

andactintherealworldwithaclearerconscience.(p.28)

Suchanapproachleadstoanawarenessthat“meansopeningthedoorsof

perceptionwidesoastotakeinmorefromsensoryexperiencethanpeopleusually

takein”(Greenleaf,1996n,p.322);anawarenessthat“isnotagiverofsolace–itis

justtheopposite.Itisadisturberandanawakener.Ableleadersareusuallysharply

awakeandreasonablydisturbed.Theyarenotseekersaftersolace.Theyhavetheir

owninnerserenity”(Greenleaf,1991,p.29).

Thisviewofknowledgeandunderstandingis“bestdescribedbywordslike

perspective,enlargement,andinsight”,whicheschewsthenotionthatknowledge

13

andunderstandingleadtowardcertainty(Greenleaf,1996b,p.46).Forservant‐

leadership,“thebestknowledgeisnotcertainty(whetheraboutthepresentor

future)butprogressivelysharperinsights…theendresult,givenenoughtime,is

thatonewillbeknownaswise”(Greenleaf,1996n,p.321).Suchinsightbuildsfrom

anacceptanceofdoubt,somethingthatGreenleaf(1991)referstoasanactoffaith.

Inanoft‐usedquotefromDeanInge,faithisdescribedas“’thechoiceofthenobler

hypothesis’.Notthenoblest,oneneverknowswhatthatis.Butthenobler,thebest

onecanseewhenthechoiceismade”(p.16).Theacknowledgmentofuncertainty

providesa“psychologicalself‐insightthatisthemostdependablepartofthetrue

servant”(p.16).

Inferredisanapproachtoknowledgethatseekstrueunderstanding,bothof

one’sinternalandexternalenvironment.Anunderstandingthatrequirestrue

listening,illustratedwellintheSaintFrancisprayer,“grantthatImayseeknotso

muchtobeunderstoodastounderstand”(Greenleaf,1991,p.19).Greenleaf

(1996k)suggeststhat,“listenerslearnaboutpeopleinwaysthatmodify–firstthe

listener’sattitude,thenhisbehaviortowardothers,andfinallytheattitudesand

behaviorofothers”(p.303).Headmits“onlyatruenaturalservantautomatically

respondstoanyproblembylisteningfirst”,thoughbelievesonecanseekto

“becomeanaturalservantthroughalongandarduousdisciplineoflearningto

listen”(Greenleaf,1991,pp.18‐19).Greenleafbelieved“truelisteningbuilds

strengthinotherpeople”(p.19),prefacinganattitudetowardpowerinservant‐

leadershipmarkedbytheuseofpersuasion.

14

Greenleaf(1991),perhapsduetohisQuakerbeliefs,maintains“leadership

bypersuasionhasthevirtueofchangebyconvincementratherthancoercion”(p.

31).Hefeltthatcoercionwasoflittlevalue,asittendedtodestroyratherthan

build,andenactedamostseriousabuseofpower.Healsocautionedagainst

manipulation,whichoccurswhenoneis“guidedintobeliefsoractionsbyplausible

rationalizationsthattheydonotfullyunderstand”(Greenleaf,1996g,p.138).For

Greenleaf,itwasonlyinpersuasionthatonecouldcometoavoluntaryacceptance

andunderstandingofasituation.Persuasionismarkedbyanattitudethat“accepts

thatoneispersuadedonlywhenonearrivesatabelieforactionthroughone’sown

intuitivesenseoftherightnessofthatactionuntrammeledbycoercivepressureof

anykind”(Greenleaf,1996g,p.136).Itisa“difficult,time‐consumingprocess”,that

“demandsoneofthemostenactingofhumanskills”(p.129);askillthatreliesona

commitment“touseone’spoweraffirmativelytoserve,inthesensethatthose

beingservedbecomewiser,freer,moreautonomous,andmorelikelythemselvesto

becomeservants”(Greenleaf,1996h,p.171).

Theuseofpersuasionalsostemsfromagenuinebeliefinandacceptanceof

others;anacceptancethat“requiresatoleranceofimperfection”,giventhat“there

aren’tanyperfectpeople”(Greenleaf,1991,p.22).Greenleaf(1996k)believesthat

“anybodycanreachagoalthroughtheeffortsofotherpeopleifthosepeopleareall

perfect…Yeteventheimperfectpeoplearecapableofgreatdedicationandheroism.

Theyare,infact,allwehave”(p.303).Greatleadersarethosewho“haveempathy

andanunqualifiedacceptanceofthepersonsofthosewhogowiththeirleadership”

(Greenleaf,1991,p.22).Theyseeknottoempowerthosearoundthem,butrather

15

tofostertheconditionsnecessaryforotherstorealizeandexperiencetheirown

empowerment.

Thissentimentisillustratedwellinararelycitedaspectofservant‐

leadershiprelevanttosocialjustice,aboutwhichGreenleaf(1991)believes:

…thatsomeoftoday’sprivilegedwhowillliveintothetwenty‐first

centurywillfinditinterestingiftheycanabandontheirpresent

notionsofhowtheycanbestservetheirlessfavoredneighborand

waitandlistenuntilthelessfavoredfindtheirownenlightenment,

thendefinetheirneedsintheirownwayand,finally,stateclearly

howtheywanttobeserved.Thenow‐privilegedwhoarenatural

servantsmayinthisprocessgetafreshperspectiveonthepriority

ofother’sneedsandthustheymayagainbeabletoserveby

leading.(p.36)

Compassionandloveprovidethefoundation,ratherthananarmslength

applicationofproceduraljustice.Theservant‐leader,inseekingtobecomea

responsiblebuilder,demonstratestheir“ownunlimitedliabilityforaquitespecific

community‐relatedgroup”(Greenleaf,1991,p.39).ForGreenleaf,“assoonasone’s

liabilityforanotherisqualifiedtoanydegree,loveisdiminishedbythatmuch(p.

39).Therebuildingofinstitutions,andourbeliefinthem,isreliantuponthisnotion

ofsocialjustice.

Thissectionhasdescribedservant‐leadershipaccordingtoRobertK.

Greenleaf’sconceptualizationusingsomeofhisearlyessays.Thefollowingsection

describesthesecondaryliteratureextanttoservant‐leadership.

16

WhatisServant­LeadershipAccordingtotheSecondaryLiterature?

Thissectionpresentsservant‐leadershipasdescribedinthesecondary

literature.Theinformationhasbeenorganizedintosevensub‐categories

(philosophy,transformationalleadership,newscience,process,service,awayof

being,andasameasurableconstruct)thatreflectthevariousperspectivesofthose

otherthanRobertK.Greenleaf.

Servant­leadershipasaphilosophy.

Startingfromabroadperspective,someviewservant‐leadershipasa

philosophy;sometimesreferredtoasagroundingorhumanisticphilosophyof

leadership(Frick,1995;Polleys,2002;Rasmussen,1995).Formanyservant‐

leadershipismoreaphilosophyorwayoflife(e.g.,Frick,1998;Jaworski,2002;

McCollum,1995;Palmer,1998;Prosser,2010;Spears,1995,1998;Wheatley,

1999).Inreferencetoservant‐leadershipasaphilosophy,BeazleyandBeggs

(2002)suggestthat,“eachindividualandeveryorganization…willbedifferentin

thewayitteachesandpracticesservant‐leadership”(p.56).BarbutoandWheeler

(2006)putforththatforGreenleaf,servant‐leadership“describedanewleadership

philosophy,onethatadvocatestheservantasleader”(p.301).

Polleys(2002)suggests“servant‐leadershipcutsacrossthetheoriesand

providesafoundationalphilosophyforthetheoriesthatemphasizesprinciples

congruentwithhumangrowth”(p.125).Freeman,Isaksen,andDorval(2002)put

forththat“servant‐leadershipisamoralimperativeforthecreativitypractitioner”

andconversely,“practitionersofservant‐leadershipmust,bydefinition,be

interestedincreativity”(p.257).Zohar(2002)believesthat“servant‐leadership

17

involvestheessenceofquantumthinking”(p.112),positioningtheconceptinthe

realmofanemergentworldview.

Prosser(2010)putsforththequestioninarecentessayastowhetherornot

servant‐leadershipisindeedaphilosophy.Theconclusionhereachesisthat

servant‐leadershipisa“fundamentalwayofbeing”(p.32),andthatasaphilosophy,

servant‐leadershiphas“moretodowiththegeneralwaypeoplegaininsightinto

serviceandleadership”(p.10).Prosseralsosuggests–withaneyetotheprobable

–thatthemajorityofprominentwritersonthesubjectrefertoservant‐leadership

asaphilosophy.Thisstatementgivesonepausetowonderastothevalidityofsuch

anappealtothemasses,forjustbecausemanyagreeonsomethingdoesnotmakeit

true.Nonetheless,Prosserwasattemptingtoencourageadialogueastowhether

servant‐leadershipisindeedatheoryorphilosophy.Suchadiscussionisbeyondthe

scopeofthisthesis,thoughwewillrevisitthenotionofservant‐leadershipasa

theory,ormeasurableconstruct,inalatersection.

Servant­leadershipcomparedwithtransformationalleadership.

Servant‐leadershipcomparedwithtransformationalleadershipprovidesless

adescriptionoftheservant‐leadershipconcept,butmoreofanattempttoposition

servant‐leadershipintherealmofleadershiptheory.Thetheoryof

transformationalleadershiporiginatedfromtheworkofJamesMacGregorBurns

(1978),tobelaterrefinedandoperationalizedbyBernardBass(1985).

Transformationalleadershipissaidtoinclude:idealizedinfluence(orcharismatic

influence),inspirationalmotivation,intellectualstimulation,andindividualized

consideration(Avolio,Waldman,&Yammarino,1991).

18

Inanattempttocategorizeservant‐leadership,manywritershavecompared

theconcepttotransformationalleadership(Farling,Stone,&Winston,1999;

Graham,1991;Liden,Wayne,Zhao,&Henderson,2008;Parolini,Patterson,&

Winston,2009;Patterson,2003;Polleys,2002;Sendjaya,Sarros,&Santora,2008;

Stone,Russell,&Patterson,2004;VanDierendonck,2011).Farling,Stone,and

Winston(1999)haveposited“thatservantleadersareindeedtransformational

leaders”(p.66).However,thereislittleevidencefromwithintheliteratureto

supportsuchclaims.

Stone,Russell,andPatterson(2004),thoughconcedingtherearemany

similarities,suggestthe“tendencyoftheservantleadertofocusonfollowers

appearstobetheprimaryfactorthatdistinguishesservantleadershipfrom

transformationalleadership”(p.349),whichtendstowardanorganizationalfocus.

Lidenetal.(2008)identifyacultivationof“servantleadershipbehavioursamong

followers”(p.163)tobeamajordifferencebetweenthetwoconcepts.Van

Dierendonck(2011)goesfurthersuggestingthat“servant‐leadershipfocuseson

humility,authenticity,andinterpersonalacceptance”(p.8),whichissimilartoa

moralfocusofservant‐leadershipthatisnotpresentintransformationalleadership

(Graham,1991;Parolini,Patterson,&Winston,2009;Polleys,2002).

Servant­leadershipasaportrayalofthenewscience.

Servant‐leadershipisoftenlinkedwithconceptsofinterconnectivity,

systemstheory,quantumscience,andthenewparadigm.Zohar(2002)suggests

that“servant‐leadershipinvolvestheessenceofquantumthinking”(p.112),atype

ofthinkingreferredtoasthe“brain’sspirit”(p.120).Ourroleasco‐creatorsof

19

existenceandourresponsibilitytothecreationofsaidexistenceisseenas

foundationaltoservant‐leadership(Gardner,1998;Jaworski,1998,2002;Palmer,

1998;Senge,1995;Smith,1995;Wheatley,1998;Zohar,2002).ForJaworski

(2002),“thesubtlestdomainofleadership–butperhapsthemostvital–is

recognizingandstrengtheningourinnatecapacitytosenseandbringforth

emergingfutures”(p.287).InquotingaconversationwithphysicistDavidBohm,he

explains,“weareconnectedthroughandoperatewithinlivingfieldsofthoughtand

perception”(p.290).Itiswithintheserelationshipsorfieldswhereservant‐

leadershipoperates.

Relationshipsareseenasthebuildingblocksoflife,notthings(Senge,1995;

Smith,1995).Jaworski(1998)describedthisinaway“thateverythingisconnected

toeverythingelseandthatrelationshipistheorganizingprincipleoftheuniverse”

(p.261).Wheatley(1998)addsthat“organizationisaprocess,notastructure”(p.

348)andforservant‐leadersthereisthe“imperativetocreateone’sselfasan

explorationofnewnessandtheneedtoreachoutforrelationshipwithothersto

createsystems”(p.348).Thissenseofandlivinginrelationshipmeansthatone

must“beawarethatallhumanendeavor,includingbusiness,isapartofthelarger

andricherfabricofthewholeuniverse”(Zohar,2002,p.120).Atalevelof

practicingservant‐leadership,auniversalandrelationalawarenessplaysoutvia

systemsthinking.

Systemstheoryis“aboutunderstandingrelationships–betweenpeople,

processes,structures,beliefsystemsandahostofotherfactors”(Sipe&Frick,2009,

p.139),andaboutan“awarenessofinterdependency”(Senge,1995,p.225).The

20

servant‐leaderisconcernedaboutsystemicchange;somethingthatKim(2004)

believesrequiresonetooperateatthelevelofmentalmodels.Mentalmodels

represent“ourdeepbeliefsabouthowtheworldworksandhowthingsoughtto

be”,whileto“engageatthislevelmeansthatwemusttakereflectiveactions”(p.

212).AccordingtoSipeandFrick(2009),theservant‐leaderisasystemsthinker;a

characteristicthatallowsoneto“seethingswhole”(p.137).Thissenseof

wholeness,interdependency,andattentiontosystemicchangereflectsanew

paradigmthatisassociatedwithservant‐leadership.

Thenewparadigmisoftensetincontrasttotheoldparadigm;onemarked

byrigidity,control,linearthought,andstasis(McGee‐Cooper,1998;Smith,1995;

Wheatley,1998).Smith(1995)identifiesthreevaluessynonymouswithintheold

paradigm,whicharethevaluesofright‐wrong,objectivism,andequilibrium(p.

203);whileWheatley(1998)comparestheoldparadigmwithametaphorofthe

machine.Conversely,thenewparadigmismarkedbyinfinitepossibilityanda

toleranceforambiguity(Smith,1995),alongsideanacceptanceofchange,flux,and

anever‐endingprocess(McGee‐Cooper,1998).MargaretWheatley(1998)refersto

thenewparadigmasastoryillustratingthetaleoflife(p.344),inwhich“creative

self‐expressionandembracingsystemsofrelationshipsaretheorganizingenergies”

(p.344).Inthenewparadigmthereisanembeddedaccountabilitythatsprings

forthfromanawarenessthatweareallinterconnectedandco‐creatorsofour

reality(McGee‐Cooper,1998).

21

Servant­leadershipasaprocess.

Servant‐leadershipasaprocessisoftendescribedasajourney(Page&

Wong,2000;Palmer,1998;SanFacon&Spears,2008;Sipe&Frick,2009)orapath

(Jaworski,1998;Jones,2002;Lad&Luechauer,1998;Lopez,1995)thatindividuals

mustembarkuponintheirownuniqueway.SipeandFrick(2009)remark,“the

journeyisthekeyforthoseseekersknownasServant‐Leaders”(p.29).Jaworski

(1998)describesa“difficultjourneytowardself‐discoveryandlifelonglearning”(p.

259),whilePalmer(1998)suggestsan“innerjourney”throughwhichanindividual

comestorealizethat“creationcomesoutofchaos”(p.206).Jones(2002)illustrates

thejourneyas“discoveringourownvoice”(p.44),whichleadsoneintoalifeof

imaginationandcreativity.Asanoutcomeofservant‐leadership,SanFaconand

Spears(2008)suggest,“somewherealongthejourney,eventhoughwehavebeen

enjoyingcomfortandmaterialgainundertheestablishedorder,webecomewilling

tochangethatordertofurtheraworldthatworksforall”(p.5).

Block(1998)proposesservant‐leadershipasanexpressionofenlightened

citizenship,whileLadandLuechauer(1998)remark,“inmanyways,servant‐

leadershipistheconsciouspracticeoftheGoldenRule”(p.67).Similarly,forSpears

(1998)“servant‐leadershipisalong‐term,transformationalapproachtolifeand

work–inessence,awayofbeing–thathasthepotentialforcreatingchange

throughoutsociety”(p.3).McCollum(1998)seesbecomingaservant‐leaderasa

“processoflearningtobalanceourthoughts,feelings,andvalueswithouractions.

Theactofseekingthisbalance,whichrequiresself‐awareness,courage,and

independence,isthecrucibleinwhichservant‐leadershipforms”(p.328).Frick

22

(1998)describesservant‐leadershipasa“processofinnergrowth”andputsforth,

“servant‐leadershipis,first,aboutdeepidentity”(p.354),whileKentKeith(2008),

CEOoftheGreenleafCenterforServantLeadership,echoesthisinacautionary

note,thatservant‐leadershipisneitherabout“self‐sacrifice”nor“self‐denial”,but

ratherabout“self‐fulfillment.”

Thenotionofchangeasanoutcomeofthejourneyisechoedoftenviathe

phrase“theprocessofchangestartsinhere,intheservant,notoutthere”(Rieser,

1995,p.56).Thejourneyisverymuchamovetowardgreaterindividualand

collectiveresponsibilityandaccountability.Gardner(1998)suggests“arevolution

isneededinhowwerelatetoeachotheraspeopleandhowwerelatetothewhole

ofcreation”(p.116),whilePalmer(1998)emphasizesa“revolutioninthesphereof

humanconsciousness”(p.198).Thischangetowardaheightenedconsciousnessis

connectedsomewhattothenotionoflifelonglearning,which,accordingtoSenge

(1995)cannotoccurwithoutsignificantchangestooureducationprocess.

McCollum(1995)seesthischangeaspartofacontinuum,inwhich“changeis

growth;growthislearning;learningisadaptation”(p.255).Growth,learning,and

adaptioncanunfoldonlyonceanindividualhasembarkeduponaspecificpath.

Thepathofservant‐leadershipoffersnosingleframeworkortemplateready

formimicry(Jones,2002;Sipe&Frick,2009).InquotingtheSpanishpoetAntonio

Machado,Jones(2002)suggests“youmakethepathbywalking”(p.43).Jaworski

(1998)alludestoa“paththatrevealsitselfaswewalkalong.Followingthepath

requiresustobefullyawake,filledwithasenseofwonder,acutelyawareof

everythingoccurringaroundus…”(p.266).This“pathtoservant‐leadershipseems

23

(sic)tofocusonthedevelopingordeepeningofnewskills;thosedevelopedfrom

otherthantherationalandthatarerelationalinnature”(Lopez,1995,p.151).

Spears(1998)stressesthatthisdevelopmentispartofa“long‐term,

transformationalapproachtolifeandwork”(p.3),whichFrick(2011)describesas

a“becomingthatneverends”(p.6).Forservant‐leadership,wetakethejourney

towardgrowthandlearningalongourownpath,butwedosoinchoruswithothers

engagedintheprocessofexpandedconsciousnessandunderstanding.This

heightenedawarenessisoftenreferredtoasbeinginservicetoourhighercallingor

purpose.

Servant­leadershipasservice.

Thenotionofservant‐leadershipasserviceoftenrefersto(a)theindividual

asaservant,(b)anindividual’scallingorpurpose,or(c)abroaddescriptionofthe

notionofservice.Theconnectingofservicetotheindividualasservantisperhaps

duetoGreenleaf’s(1991)mostusedpassage,whichdescribestheservant‐leaderas

servantfirst.SipeandFrick(2009)describetheconceptofservantwell,inthat

“whenweactasaservanttoothers,weareconcernedwiththefull‐rangeoftheir

knowledge,skills,emotionalandbehaviouraldynamics”(p.39).Fromthis

understanding,theyillustrateaservantwhoservesbymeansoftheirpresenceand

listening(p.36).Rieser(1995)conceivesofwhathecallsthe“servantwithin,who

istheretohelptoservebothyouandme...thekeytomyrelationshipwithmyself,

withotherhumans,andperhapswithcreation”(p.49).Theideaorconceptof

servantrefersnotonlytoadesireorfeelingtoserveothers,butalsotoadesireor

feelingtobeofservicetosomething“greaterthanoneself”(Sipe&Frick,2009,p.

24

30).Prosser(2010)identifiesthisasa“commitmentfromthedominantideaof

servingone’sfellowhumanbeings”(p.32).Theimageofservicebeingsomething

largerthanoneselfisoftenpresentwhenpicturingserviceasacalling.

Serviceasacalling–firstpopularizedbyBarbutoandWheeler(2002)–has

beendescribedasbeingcognizantofone’ssocialresponsibilities(Graham,1991),

asa“passionateluretothehighestleveloffulfillment”(Sipe&Frick,2009,p.32),or

assomethingthat“involvesasenseofinterconnectednessbetweentheinternalself

andtheexternalworld(Sendjaya,Sarros,&Santora,2008,p.408).SanFaconand

Spears(2008)suggest,“wearecalledtoserveall–ourselves,ourlovedones,our

neighbours,ourtribe,ourpeople,otherpeoples,futuregenerations,otherlife

forms,livingsystems,andevencreationitself”(p.5).

Thisseemsratherdaunting,butillustrateswelltheon‐going,lifelongjourney

associatedwithone’scallingorpurpose,thatBordas(1995)describesasbeginning

“withthedesiretoconnectwiththe‘greatestgood,’bothwithinoneselfandsociety”

(p.180).Jaworski(1998)goessofarastosaythatitis“theresponsibilityof

servant‐leaderstodiscoverandservetheirowndestinyandthatoftheir

organization”(p.267),andthat“werefusethecallbecausedeepdownweknow

thattocooperatewithfatebringsnotonlygreatpersonalpower,butgreatpersonal

responsibilityaswell”(p.261).Thisperhapssumsupbestthecallingofthe

servant‐leader,onethatevokesandelicitsgreatresponsibility.Forsome,the

responsibilityissogreatthattheservantisviewedas“aservantofthevacuum,a

servantofthemanifoldpotentialityattheheartofexistence”(Zohar,2002.p.112).

25

MargaretWheatley(1999),internationallyknownforherworkin

organizationaltheory,paraphrasesGreenleaf’s(1991)wordsthat“servant‐

leadershipstartswithafeeling”,towhichsheadds“adesiretoserveothersthat

thenbecomesacommitmenttomovethatdesireintopractice,toactuallytakeon

thegreatcourageoustaskofservingothers”(p.5).Muchlikethesentiment

describedbyWheatley,PageandWong(2000)positionservant‐leadershipasan

“attitudetowardtheresponsibilitiesofleadershipasmuchasitisastyleof

leadership”(p.71).Thisnotionofservant‐leadershipasanattitudeorfeelingseems

quitecommon,leadingusintoadiscussionofservant‐leadershipasawayofbeing.

Servant­leadershipasawayofbeing.

Awayofbeingisperhapsoneofthemostcommondescriptionsusedwhen

communicatingwhatservant‐leadershipis(Batten,1998;Block,1998;Bordas,

1995;DiStefano,1995;Farling,Stone,&Winston,1999;Ferch,2004;Frick,1998,

2011;Gardner,1998;Jaworski,1998,2002;Jeffries,1998;Jones,2002;Keith,2008;

Lopez,1995;McCollum,1995,1998;McGee‐Cooper,1998;Page&Wong,2000;

Palmer,1998;Patterson,2003;Prosser,2010;Russell,2001;SanFacon&Spears,

2008;Senge,1995;Sipe&Frick,2009;Spears,1998;Wallace,2007;Wheatley,

1999;Zohar,2002).Somecommonaspectsassociatedwiththisdescriptionare

awareness(Jaworski,2002;Jones,2002;McGee‐Cooper,1998;SanFacon&Spears,

2008;Zohar,2002),self‐awareness(Jones,2002;Keith,2008;Lopez,1995;Palmer,

1998),reflection(Block,1998;SanFacon&Spears,2008;Wheatley,1999),

openness(Batten,1998;McCollum,1995;Spears,1998;Wheatley,1999),listening

(Frick,2011;Jaworski,2002;Jeffries,1998),dialogue(Block,1998;Ferch,2004;

26

Lad&Luechauer,1998;McGee‐Cooper,1998;SanFacon&Spears,2008;Senge,

1995),livinginthequestion(Block,1998;Jones,2002),anattitudeofresponsibility

(Page&Wong,2000;Patterson,2003;Smith,1995),anunqualifiedacceptanceof

others(McGee‐Cooper,1998;Russell,2001;SanFacon&Spears,2008;Sendjaya,

Sarros,&Santora,2008;Stone,Russell,&Patterson,2004),aworldview(Wallace,

2007),creativity(Jones,2002;Wheatley,1999),adispositionoftheheart(Jones,

2002;Prosser,2010),andpresence(Frick,2011;SanFacon&Spears,2008;Sipe&

Frick,2009).Awareness,openness,listening,anunqualifiedacceptanceofothers,

anddialogueseemtoemergethroughouttheliteratureasimportanttopicsrelevant

totheservant‐leadershipwayofbeing.

AwarenessisdescribedbyFrick(2011)as“thelifebloodofaleader’s‘lead’”

(p.17),andisapplicabletonotionsofself,other,environment,society,andlife

itself.Awarenessissaidtolead“topresence,thestateofbeingfullyavailableinthe

momenttoone’senvironmentandtootherpeople”(p.18).Italsoinvolvesaself‐

awarenessthat“includesknowledgeoftheimpactthatone’swordsanddeedshave

onothers”(Keith,2008,p.36),indicatinganunderstandingofourselvesasco‐

creatorsintheuniverse(Zohar,2002),oradeepeningsenseofwhatisunfolding

aroundusintheuniverse(Jones,2002).Awarenessfostersanunderstandingofour

innerandouterlives(McCollum,1998),andisamannerofbeingthateschews

dogmawhileembracingopenness.

Opennessissaidtobeoneofthehallmarksofservant‐leadership(McCollum,

1995).Itisasmuchanapproachtotheworldasitisanapproachtoexaminingand

toquestioningone’sbeliefsonaperpetualbasis.Opennessisinone’sattitude

27

towardnewnessandcreativity,andawelcomingofdiversityandsurprise

(Wheatley,1999).It’saboutopeningourselvestoothers(McCollum,1998),and

havingthecouragetokeepourheartsopenevenwiththerisksinvolved(Wheatley,

1999).Gardner(1998)describesitasbeing“openinmindandbodyandheart”(p.

124).Oneisopentobeingintheprocess,opentotransformation,andopento

change(Sipe&Frick,2009),whilealsokeeping“anopenandflexiblemind”,with

therealizationthatan“openmindgrows”anda“closedminddies”(Batten,1998,p.

48).McCollum(1995)considersopennessas“listeningfromtheother’s

perspective”(p.255),anaspectperhapsmostconnectedtoservant‐leadership.

Listeninggoesbeyondconventionalnotionsofmerelyhearingwhatothers

aresaying,requiringthatoneisopentoothersandtoself‐reflection.SipeandFrick

(2009)describelisteningas“gettingintouchwithone’sinnervoiceandseekingto

understandwhatone’sbody,mind,andspiritarecommunicating…Itrequires

listeningtooneselffirstandnurturinganemergingcomplexityofintegration”(p.

58).Listeningmeansfirstandforemostthatoneiswillingtobeginwithquestions

(Keith,2008),andthatoneisableto“askquestionsinaspiritofopeninquiryand

wonder”(p.19).Willingnesstoquestionallowsonetoliveinambiguity,to“express

doubtandtolivewithoutanswers”(Block,1998,p.93).Jaworski(1998)describesa

“willingnesstolisten,yield,andrespondtotheinnervoicethatguidesustoward

ourdestiny”(p.261).Listeningprovidesaccesstoourintuition,andis“alsoakey

waythroughwhichleadersdemonstraterespectandappreciationofothers”

(Russell,2001,p.80).

28

Anunqualifiedacceptanceofothersforwhotheyare(Lopez,1995;Sendjaya,

Sarros,&Santora,2008)andanunconditionalconcernforothers(Stone,Russell,&

Patterson,2004)areachievedthroughtheactoflistening.McGee‐Cooper(1998)

extendsthisacceptanceofotherstoanacceptanceofself.Self‐acceptanceandan

acceptanceofothersleadtoahumilityinwhichapersonseesoneselffroma

realisticandforgivingperspective(Ferch,2004).Awayofbeingmarkedby

acceptanceallowsforonetocommunicateinamodelofdialogue.

Dialogue,accordingtoPeterSengeofferssomeinterestinginsightsintothe

natureofcommunication,suggestingtheservant‐leaderentersintoconversationin

thespiritofdialogue.Senge(1995)putsforth“theoriginalmeaningoftheword

‘dia‐logos’wasmeaningmovesthroughorflowofmeaning”,whichhecontrasts

withtheworddiscussion,meaningliterally“toheaveone’sviewsattheother”(p.

226).Manydescribethepracticeofservant‐leadershipasengagingindialogue

(Block,1998;Ferch,2004;Jeffries,1998;Lad&Luechauer,1998;McGee‐Cooper,

1998).Fortheservant‐leader“dialoguerequiresthatIrevealmylogicandholdup

myassumptionsandbeliefs,ratherthanmyarguments,forpublicscrutiny”

(McCollum,1998,p.338).Ferch(2004)suggeststhat“inmeaningfuldialoguethe

servantasleadersubmitstoahigherperspective,onethatcanbepivotaltothe

developmentoftheselfinrelationtoothers”(p.235).Dialogueasanaspectofthe

servant‐leadershipwayofbeingdependsuponthepracticingofawareness,

openness,listening,andanacceptanceofothers.

Theprecedingdescriptionsofthesecondaryliteratureextantservant‐

leadershipspeaktoavarietyofperspectivesrelatedtotheconcept.Thenext

29

sectionprovidesareflectionontheperspectivesofthosewhoviewservant‐

leadershipasatheoryofleadershipthatlendsitselftothecreationofmeasurable

constructs.

Servant­LeadershipasaMeasurableConstruct

Therearenolessthanelevendifferentconstructscreatedbydifferent

authorsseekingtomeasureservant‐leadership;manyofwhomlambastthe

servant‐leadershipliteratureforananecdotalandphilosophicalfocusthatlacks

empiricallyvalidatedandtestableconstructs(Barbuto&Wheeler,2006;Farling,

Stone,&Winston,1999;Liden,Wayne,Zhao,&Henderson,2008;Page&Wong,

2000;Russell&Stone,2002;Sendjaya,2003;Sendjaya&Sarros,2002;Sendjaya,

Sarros,&Santora,2008;Stone,Russell,&Patterson,2004;VanDierendonck,2011;

Wallace,2007;Washington,Sutton,&Field,2006).

Accordingtothiscamp,thelackofempiricalresearchonservant‐leadership

isexplainedbythefactthatthereisnoagreedupontheoreticalframeworkforuse

increatingadefinitionoftheconcept(Barbuto&Wheeler,2006;Farling,Stone,&

Winston,1999;Page&Wong,2000;Wallace,2007;VanDierendonck,2011).Avolio,

Walumba,andWeber(2009)cautionthe“measurementofservantleadershipis

problematic”asaresultof“problemswithitsdefinition”(p.437).Indescribingthe

literatureonservant‐leadershipBarbutoandWheeler(2006)state,“mostpapers

havestand‐alonequalities,buttheworktodatehasnotevolved,withseemingly

moredifferentiationthanintegrationintheliterature”(p.303).Aswewillsee,

therehavebeenmanyattemptstocreateameasurableconstructoftheconcept,

despiteanacknowledgedlackofdefinitionorconceptualfoundation.

30

Thefirstattempttodescribeservant‐leadershipwasputforthbySpears

(1995),whichBarbutoandWheeler(2006)refertoas“theclosestrepresentation

ofanarticulatedframeworkforwhatcharacterizesservantleadership”(p.302).

Spears(1995)identifiedtenservant‐leadercharacteristicsas;listening,empathy,

healing,awareness,persuasion,conceptualization,foresight,stewardship,

commitmenttothegrowthofpeople,andcommunitybuilding.PageandWong

(2000),inanextensivesurveyofgeneralleadershiptheory,createdaconstructfor

measuringservant‐leadershiparoundthecharacteristicsof;integrity,humility,

servanthood,caringforothers,empoweringothers,developingothers,visioning,

goalsetting,leading,modeling,teambuilding,andshareddecision‐making.They

makeitclearthattheywerecarefultobuildupontheearlierframeworkdeveloped

bySpears,inaneffortto“stripservant‐leadershipofitsmysteryandreduceitto

quantifiablekeycomponents”(p.88).

AroundthesametimeasPageandWong,BarbutoandWheeler(2002)

offeredaconstructthataddedthedimensionofcallingtoSpears’ten

characteristics,whichtheyviewas“fundamentaltoservantleadershipand

consistentwithGreenleaf’soriginalmessage”(Barbuto&Wheeler,2006,p.303).

Followingtheirworkidentifyingelevencharacteristics,BarbutoandWheeler

(2006)performedafactoranalysis,whichfoundaltruisticcalling,emotional

healing,wisdom,persuasivemapping,andorganizationalstewardshipasbeing

“conceptuallyandempiricallydistinct”(p.318).Theprecedingauthorsmade

attemptstobuildfromSpears’(1995)work,thoughotherconstructsofservant‐

leadershipseemtobelessconnectedtohispioneeringefforts.

31

RussellandStone(2002)differentiatebetweenwhattheycallfunctional

attributes(vision,honesty,integrity,trust,service,modeling,pioneering,

appreciationofothers,andempowerment)andaccompanyingattributes

(communication,credibility,competence,stewardship,visibility,influence,

persuasion,listening,encouragement,teaching,anddelegation).Inresponse,

authorshavecommentedthatthereisalackofunderstandingastowhat

constituteseitherafunctionaloraccompanyingattribute(VanDierendonck,2011).

Farling,Stone,andWinston(1999),precedingtheworkofRussellandStone,

provideasomewhatsimilarlist,suggestingservant‐leadershipcontainsthe

variablesof“vision,influence,credibility,trust,andservice”(p.51).

Patterson(2003)andLaub(2003)offerconstructsemergingfromPhD

dissertationwork.Patterson(2003)identifiessevenvirtuousconstructsas:agapao

love,humility,altruism,vision,trust,empowerment,andservice.Laub(2003)

createdtheOrganizationalLeadershipAssessmentmodelfromhisdissertation

workonservant‐leadership,inwhichhedescribesaservant‐leadershipas:valuing

people,developingpeople,buildingcommunity,displayingauthenticity,providing

leadership,andsharingleadership.

Lidenetal.(2008)returntoadefinitionoftheconstructbasedonSpears’

tencharacteristics,inwhichtheyidentifyninedimensionsofservant‐leadershipas:

emotionalhealing,creatingvalueforthecommunity,conceptualskills,empowering,

helpingsubordinatesgrowandsucceed,puttingsubordinatesfirst,behaving

ethically,relationship,andservanthood.Theiruseofthetermsubordinatesinlieuof

followerswouldleadmanyservant‐leadershipscholarstogivepause.Nonetheless,

32

theirworkdoesidentify“therelationshipsthatformbetweenleadersandfollowers

ascentraltoservantleadership”(p.162).

Sendjayaetal.(2008)claimtohavedevelopedaholisticconstructof

servant‐leadership,identifiedbysixdimensionsthatare:voluntarysubordination,

authenticself,covenantalrelationship,responsiblemorality,transcendental

spirituality,andtransforminginfluence.However,theholisticnatureoftheir

frameworkisnotcleargiventheirassertionthatservant‐leadershiporiginatesin

theteachingsofJesusChrist;discountingtheconceptualizationaccordingtoRobert

K.Greenleaf(Sendjaya&Sarros,2002).Further,thedimensionofvoluntary

subordination,aswithLidenetal.’suseofthetermsubordinatesabove,wouldgive

someservant‐leadershipscholarspause(Keith,2008).

Clearly,thereisavastandwidearrayofdimensions,attributes,

characteristicsthatarebelievedtorepresentameasureableconstructofservant‐

leadership.VanDierendonck(2011)attemptstoprovideclaritytothesubjectby

differentiatingbetween“antecedents,behaviors,mediatingprocesses,and

outcomes”(p.27).Hisanalysisprovidessixkeyservant‐leadercharacteristicsas:

empoweringanddevelopingpeople,humility,authenticity,interpersonal

acceptance,providingdirection,andstewardship.Timewilltellastothedegreeto

whichhissynthesisandanalysisareagreeduponamongstservant‐leadership

scholars,thoughitseemsthathistheoreticalframeworkprovidesagood

foundation.

Giventhenecessityfortheadvancementofanacknowledgeddefinitionor

conceptualfoundation,muchdisparityandlackofconsensusstillexists.Patterson

33

(2003)raisesthequestionastowhetherservant‐leadership“isindeedaviable

theory,asubsetofanothertheorysuchastransformationalleadership,orjust

merelyaconceptualidea”(p.1).Polleys(2002)alsopondersthetheoretical

foundationsofservant‐leadershipandconcludes;“developmentofatheoryof

servant‐leadershipisprobablynotplausible”(p.125),thoughservant‐leadershipas

“afoundationalphilosophyforthetheoriesthatemphasizeprinciplescongruent

withhumangrowth”(p.125)ismorelikely.

DiStefano(1995)positsthelackofconsensusregardingameasurable

constructofservant‐leadershipisaresultoftheuniquenatureoftheservant‐leader

journeyforeachindividual.BeazleyandBeggs(2002)echothissentimentstating,

“nopreciseformulaguidesitsimplementation.Itsexpressionisalwaysan

individualexperiencebasedontheperson’suniquesetofskillsortalents”(p.56).

Frick(1998)cautionsthatanyattempttofixcertaincharacteristicsorattributesto

servant‐leadershiprunstheriskofreducingittoaneasilyappliedformula;thusby‐

passingthelifelonginnerjourneythatoneembarksontowardanunderstanding

andpracticeoftheconcept.

Asillustratedinthesecondaryliteratureextanttoservant‐leadership,there

isawidescopeofperceptionsregardingthefoundationsoftheconcept.Perhaps,as

morethoughtisgiventounderstandingtheconceptualfoundationsofservant‐

leadership,anagreedupontheoreticalframeworkmayonedaybepossible

(Polleys,2002).Thelackofacommonunderstandingregardingwhatconstitutes

servant‐leadership,aseitheraconceptorasameasurableconstruct,indicatesthat

aturntotheworkofRobertK.Greenleafmaybeprudent.Itmaybethatcurrent

34

interpretationsofservant‐leadershiphavemanagedtodriftawayfromtheintentof

hisoriginalmessage,makingthecaseforatleastanexplorationoftheidea.

Thischapterhasreviewedtheliteratureintwosteps.Thefirstwasto

describetheliteratureaccordingtoGreenleaf,whilethesecondwastodescribethe

secondaryliteratureaccordingtotheperspectiveofthoseotherthanRobertK.

Greenleaf.Thenextchapterpresentsthemethodusedforthisstudy.

35

Chapter3:ResearchMethod

Themethodforthisstudyisinformedbyaqualitativeapproachtoresearch

thatisconcernedwithcontextandprocess(Bogdan&Biklen,2007).Qualitative

inquiryseekstofindmeaninginexperience,andrecognizesthatallknowingand

formsofinquiryareinterpretive(Creswell,2009;Giarelli&Chambliss,1988;Noblit

&Hare,1988;Shank,2006).ShermanandWebb(1988)suggestthat,“qualitative

inquiryseekspossibilitiesinexperience…orrelationshipsamongevents”(p.6).

Relationshipsandpossibilitiesemergeasthemes,perspectives,orconcepts,allof

whichserveasmetaphorsforqualitativeinquiry(Noblit&Hare,1988).

Qualitativeresearchcanbeseenasacontinuousprocesstodefineand

redefinetheproblem(Sherman&Webb,1988).Aresearchstudyissaidtomerita

qualitativeapproachwhenlittleisknownorunderstoodaboutaconceptor

phenomenon(Creswell,2009).Qualitativeresearch“embracesnewwaysoflooking

attheworld”(Shank,2006,p.10),withthegoalsof“insight,enlightenment,and

illumination”(p.14)inmindasdesiredoutcomes.However,aqualitativeapproach

toresearchsometimesfaceschallenges,capturedwellinadescriptionofqualitative

researchas:

Aformofsocialandhumanscienceresearchthatdoesnothavefirm

guidelinesorspecificproceduresandisevolvingandchanging

constantly.Thiscomplicatestellingothershowoneplanstoconduct

astudyandhowothersmightjudgeitwhenthestudyisdone.

(Creswell,1998,p.17)

36

Therearemanyapproachesavailableforaresearchertostudyanindividual

orgroupofindividuals.Theresearcherlooksforthe“essential,invariantstructure

(oressence)orthecentralunderlyingmeaningoftheexperience”(Creswell,1998,

p.52),attemptingtogaininsightintohowindividualsconstructandinterpretreality

(Bogdan&Taylor,1975;Creswell,2009;Gall,Gall,&Borg,2007).Sheorhedoes

thisby“relyingonintuition,imagination,anduniversalstructurestoobtaina

pictureoftheexperience”(Creswell,1998,p.52).Furthermore,accordingto

Creswell,Hanson,PlanoClark,andMorale(2007),qualitativeapproachesare

appropriatetogeneratethelevelofdatadetailanddescriptionforfivetypesof

researchquestions,thefourthofwhichis“essencequestions”focusingonone

phenomena(p.239).

ReflectiveAnalysis

AccordingtoGall,Gall,andBorg(2007),analysisforqualitativeresearch

canutilizeproceduresofreflectiveanalysis,describedas“aprocessinwhichthe

researcherreliesprimarilyonintuitionandjudgmentinordertoportrayor

evaluatethephenomenonbeingstudied”(p.472).Reflectiveanalysisusually

“involvesadecisionbytheresearchertorelyontheirownintuitionandpersonal

judgmenttoanalyzethedataratherthanontechnicalproceduresinvolvingan

explicitcategoryclassificationsystem”(p.472).Thisisconsistentwithamore

generalapproachinqualitativeresearchinwhich“standardsarelargelyrelatedto

theresearcher’sinterpretation”(Creswell,1998,p.207).

Inareflectiveanalysis“theresearchercarefullyexaminesandthenre‐

examinesallthedatathathavebeencollected.Asthisprocesscontinues,certain

37

featuresofthephenomenonarelikelytobecomesalient”(Gall,Gall,&Borg,2007,p.

473).Inasimilarfashion,Creswell(1998)describesaprocessinwhichone“reflects

onhisorherowndescriptionandusesimaginativevariationorstructural

description,seekingallpossiblemeaningsanddivergentperspectives,varyingthe

framesofreferenceaboutthephenomenon,andconstructingadescriptionofhow

thephenomenonwasexperienced”(p.150).Followingthisiterativeprocess“the

researcherthenconstructsanoveralldescriptionofthemeaningandtheessenceof

theexperience”(p.150),anddoessobymeansof“anongoingprocessinvolving

continualreflection”(Creswell,2009,p.184).

Inageneraldescriptionofpotentiallevelsofanalysis(tobetakeninanon‐

linearsense),Creswell(2009)suggeststhattheresearcher(a)organizesand

preparesthedataforanalysis,(b)readsthroughallthedatainordertoobtaina

generalsense,(c)withasenseofthewholebeginstoclustersimilartopics,(d)

shapesclustersintogeneraldescriptionsorthemes,(e)advanceshowthe

descriptionandthemeswillberepresentedinthequalitativenarrative,and(f)

makesaninterpretationormeaningofthedata(pp.185‐189).

DependabilityandCredibility

Qualitativeresearcherstendtospeakofquantitativeconceptslike

reliabilityandvalidityintermsofdependabilityandtransferability(Shank,2006).

Forqualitativeresearchers,“verificationandstandardsarelargelyrelatedtothe

researcher’sinterpretation”(Creswell,1998,p.207).Shank(2006)suggests,“the

keystrategyforensuringdependabilityisanaudittrail.Withanaudittrail,thereisa

clearandconstantpathbetweenthecollectionofthedataanditsuse”(p.114).

38

Shankalsoreferstotransferabilitysuggesting,“theprimarytoolforestablishing

transferabilityistheuseofadequateanddetaileddescriptioninlayingoutallthe

relevantdetailsoftheresearchprocess”(p.115).

Credibilityisdescribedasanaspectofqualitativeresearchmethodthat

enhancesthetrustworthinessofastudy(Denzin,1994;Guba,1981).Janesick

(1994),indiscussingthecredibilityofastudystates,“qualitativeresearchhastodo

withdescriptionandexplanation,andwhetherornotagivenexplanationfitsa

givendescription”(p.216).Aresearchercanestablishthecredibilityofastudyby

meansofaprolongedexposuretoaphenomenon,triangulationofsources,peer

debriefing,andclarifyingthebiasofanauthor(Creswell,2009;Guba,1981).

RoleoftheResearcher

AccordingtoCreswell(2009)itiscommonpracticeforaqualitative

researcherto“explicitlyidentifyreflexivelytheirbiases,values,andpersonal

background,suchasgender,history,culture,andsocioeconomicstatus,thatmay

shapetheirinterpretationsformedduringastudy”(p.177).Theideabehinddoing

soisthebeliefthatthepurposefulandinterpretivenatureofqualitativeinquiry

tacitlyembedstheresearcherwithintheresearch.

Therefore,Iamawhitemaleinmythirties,marriedwithtwochildrenand

currentlylivinginsubsidizedhousing.Igrewupnotofprivilege,thoughfeltneither

thehorridaffectsofstarvationnorwanting.AstheeldestoffiveIhavebeenthrust

intorolesofresponsibilityforthebulkofmylife.Myscholarlyandleisurebased

pursuitshavebeenself‐financedviaamyriadofjobsrangingfromtruckdriverto

campcounselortohousepaintertoyouthleadertobartendertotree‐planter.Ithas

39

beenaneclecticlifetodate,markedbyvarietyandflux.Iamagraduatestudentin

LeadershipStudiesattheUniversityofVictoria,andhavepresentedattwo

internationalconferencesonthetopicofservant‐leadership.Iamthesole

researcherandinterpreterforthisresearchstudyandhavenovestedinterestin

servant‐leadership,otherthanthebeliefthatthereissomethinginherentlygood

abouttheconcept.

ResearchProcedureQuestion1

Thefirstobjectiveofthestudywastoproposeanunderstandingofthe

conceptualessenceofGreenleaf’s(1991,1996a,1996b,1996c,1996d,1996e,

1996f,1996g,1996h,1996j,1996k,1996m,1996n,1996o)originalwork.Thus

followsadescriptionoftheresearchprocedureseekingananswerto:Whatis

Greenleaf’sconceptualizationofthenatureandessenceofservant‐leadershipas

communicatedinhis1991work,andinhisearlyessayscollectedinOnBecominga

Servant­Leader(1996)?

Datacollection.

TheresearchbeganwithcollectingandorganizingdatalocatedinThe

ServantasLeader(Greenleaf,1991)andacollectionofearlyGreenleafessaysinOn

BecomingaServant­leader(Frick&Spears,1996).Theseworksdonotrepresent

theentiretyofGreenleaf’swriting,thoughwerechosenbecauseoftheclaritywith

whichtheyspokedirectlytoservant‐leadership.TheServantasLeaderisthemost

widelyusedanddisseminatedworkonservant‐leadership,whilethecollectionof

essaysinOnBecomingaServant­LeaderreflectsomeofGreenleaf’sthoughtsand

ideaswrittenbeforeTheServantasLeader.Theseworksprovideadepictionof

40

Greenleaf’swritingthatisbothbroadanddeep,reflectingthemanylayerspresent

inhisthinking.TheessayscollectedinOnBecomingaServant­Leaderoriginateat

differentpointsintimebeforethepublicationofTheServantasLeader,illustrating

aprogressionofandcontinuitytoGreenleaf’sthought.Suchavarietyofsources

contributetoatriangulationofdatacollectionthatisimportantinvalidating

qualitativeresearchprocedures(Creswell,2009;Guba,1981).

Datareductionandanalysis.

ThecollecteddatawerereadthroughinordertoobtainwhatCreswell

(2009)referstoasa“generalsenseoftheinformationandtoreflectonitsoverall

meaning”(p.185).Thisprocessofreadingthroughthedatawasrepeatedinorder

toensureageneralsenseorfeelingforthemeaningofthetext.Ithenidentified

importantpassageswithinthetexts,andcondensedTheServantasLeaderdownto

about10pagesfrom40pages,andcondensedOnBecomingaServant­leaderdown

fromover300pagestoabout40pages.Apassagewasdeemedasimportantifit

spokedirectlytotheconceptofservant‐leadership,ratherthansomething

tangentialandlooselyconnected.Thiswasaccomplishedbymeansofintuitive

judgementandthesensingofpatternsfromwithinthetext,whichisconsistentwith

theprocedureofreflectiveanalysis.

OnceIhadcollectedmydatafromtheoriginaltext,Ithenre‐commenceda

processofreadingandre‐readingwithoutmakingnotes,inordertoonceagain

obtainageneralsenseandappreciationforthewholenessofthetext.Afterthefifth

reading,IbegantounderlinepassagesthatseemedimportantorthatIwas

interpretingasemergingpatternsfromwithinthetext.Ithenbegantocreatealist

41

oftermsfromthetextonaseparatepieceofpaper.Iwouldrevisitthislistbefore

subsequentreadingsinordertocheckthatIwasindeedsensingapatternorto

discernthatanitemwasnotasprominentasIhadinitiallyinterpreted.Itis

importanttonote,thatanywherefromonetothreedayswouldpassbetweeneach

reading.Thiswasdoneinanattempttoallowthesubstanceofthetexttopenetrate

mysubconsciousandtoallowtimefortheintuitiveprocessofunderstandingto

occur.

Theprocessofreflectiveanalysisrecurredcloseto15times,atwhichpointI

wascomfortablethatIhadexhaustedmyinterpretivecapacities.Topicswere

groupedintosimilarcategories,witheachremainingtruetothelanguagefound

withintheoriginaltext.Sometopicsweresubsumedintoothers,suchasthetopicof

self‐awarenessthatwasinterpretedtobelongtoabroadercategorythatwas

namedawareness.Eachrepetitionprovidednewinsightandilluminatedtopicsthat

hadyettoemerge.TheprocessstoppedwhenIwasnolongerdiscoveringnew

topics,atwhichpointIsetouttocreatedescriptionsthatcouldbepresentedina

narrative.Theprocessissomewhatdescribedbytheanalogyofpeelingbackthe

onion,bywhichresearchersmove“deeperanddeeperintounderstandingthe

data…andmakinganinterpretationofthelargermeaningofthedata”(Creswell,

2009,p.183).

Iendedupwitheightessentialelementsofthephenomenonaccordingtothe

textualdata.OvertheperiodofaboutaweekIwouldvisitandrevisitthelisttosee

ifanythingfeltoutofplace.EventuallyIbecamecomfortablewiththelistasit

stood,andthensetouttofindexamplesfromwithinthetextthatcouldexpanda

42

descriptionofeachelement.Thesedescriptionswouldthenprovidethebasisfor

whichtheessencecouldbeusedforanexplorationofthesecondaryliterature.

Dependabilityandcredibility.

Severalmeansweretakentoensuredependabilityandcredibilityinthe

researchprocedureandproductforquestionone.First,multiplesourcesof

informationwereusedwithanaimtowardtriangulatingthedatacollection

process.Second,peerreviewersfamiliarwithservant‐leadershipwereconsulted

duringtheprocessofdiscerningthemeaningandessenceofGreenleaf’swork.

Third,Dr.CarolynCrippen,anexpertinthefieldofservant‐leadership,provided

guidanceandcritiqueatvariousintervalsduringthereflectiveprocess.Fourth,the

researcher’sexposuretoandimmersioninthesubjectofservant‐leadershiplasted

overthecourseofseveralyears,providingaprolongedexposuretothetopicof

study.Lastly,theessenceofservant‐leadershipasIhadinterpretedfrom

Greenleaf’sworkwaspresentedtoagroupofpeersataninternationalleadership

conference,allowingopportunityforpublicdiscourseandscrutiny.

ResearchProcedureQuestion2

Thesecondobjectiveofthestudywastoexplorethesecondaryliterature

extanttoservant‐leadershipandtodescribehowtheessenceofGreenleaf’s

conceptualization,asIhaveproposed,isreflected.Thusfollowsadescriptionofthe

researchprocedureseekingananswerto:Howdoesthesecondaryliteratureextant

toservant‐leadershipoverthelast40yearsreflecttheessenceofGreenleaf’s

conceptualizationasIhavediscernedfromQuestion1?

43

Datacollection.

Thesecondaryliteratureforthisresearchprojectwascollectedusinglibrary

databasesforarticleandbookretrieval,Googlewebsearchengines,GoogleScholar,

servant‐leadershipwebsitescanning,andreversereferencecheckingformajor

worksinthefield.Eitherservant­leaderorservant­leadershipwasusedasasearch

engineterm,whilejournalsspecifictopopularfieldsofapplicationinbusiness,

nursing,andeducationwerevisuallyscannedmanuallyforcontent.Some120

articleswereinitiallyfoundonthetopic,coupledwithapproximatelyanother50

chaptersandbooksonthesubject–aprocessthatspannedthecourseofnearly

threeyears.

Articlesfromscholarlyjournalsandchaptersfromentirebooksonservant

leadershipweredeemedasacceptable.Similartothereversereferencecheckwas

theuseofatimescitedfeatureofGoogleScholar,whichhelpedtodetermine

prominentworksinthefield.Insomecasespapersfrompeerreviewedconference

proceedingswereadmitted,whileon‐linearticlesandpopularpresswerenot

deemedassuitableforthisproject.Literaturethatspokedirectlytoservant‐

leadershipwaschosen,whileworkswithtangentialorlooseconnectionsto

servant‐leadershipwerenot.

Datareductionandanalysis.

Theanalysisofthedataforthesecondresearchquestiontookplaceintwo

stages.First,Isoughttogainanunderstandingofthesecondaryliteratureextantto

servant‐leadershipandtoorganizeitamannerthatwasusefulforanalysisand

exploration.Second,Isoughttoexplorethesecondaryliteratureforrepresentation

44

oftheeightessentialelementsofservant‐leadership,asIhaddiscernedfrom

Greenleaf’sworkinanswertoquestionone.

Followingthecollectionofsecondaryliteratureandtheidentificationof

prominentworks,Iengagedinaninitialreadingtodevelopasenseofandto

immersemyselfintotheliterature.Afterafirstreading,Ire‐readthecollected

literatureandbegantotranscribeimportantpassagesthatspokedirectlyand

clearlytoservant‐leadership,endingupwithapproximately50pagesofnotes.I

thenreadandre‐readthroughthesenotessomewhereintheneighbourhoodoffive

times,onceagainseekingtodiscernageneralsenseofthelargercontext.

Aftermanyreadingsandreflectiveiterations,Ibegantoorganizethe

secondaryliteratureintosimilartopicsorclusters,withanaimtoassistboththe

readerandmyselfinnavigatingtheinformation.Ididthisbykeepingarunninglist

oftopicsthatIwouldreferto,adjust,andconferwithduringthereflectiveprocess.

Intheend,sevenclustersemerged,whichsupportedthegroupingofliketopicsand

subjects.Thepurposefordoingthiswasforliterarydeviceandtoprovidea

structuredandorganizedframeworkfromwhichareflectiveanalysisexploring

representationoftheessentialelementscouldcommence.Followingthe

organizationandreductionofthesecondaryliterature,Iproceededtousereflective

analysisdeductively.Thatismyeightessences,asdiscernedfromGreenleaf’swork

inanswertoquestionone,becamemytheoreticallensthroughwhichIreadthe

reducedsecondaryliterature.

Atthispointintheprocess,Ireadthroughthereducedsecondaryliterature

lookingforrepresentationofGreenleaf’sessenceofservant‐leadershipasIhad

45

discerned.Ireadandre‐readthecondensedsecondaryliteratureapproximately

fivetimestogainasenseofitsmeaningandcontext.OnceIfeltfamiliarwithand

connectedtothesecondaryliteratureIthenbegantoreadthroughthe50pagesof

notesexploringthetextforrepresentationoftheeightessentialelementsasIhad

identifiedinquestionone.

Icreatedamentalmaponflipchartpaperconsistingofeachessential

element,towhichIaddedexamplesfromthesecondaryliteratureastheywere

discovered.Irepeatedthisprocessapproximately10timesuntilnonew

representationemerged.Thisprocessspannedthecourseofclosetoonemonth,

withroughly2to3daysinterspersedbetweenreadingstoallowfortheintuitive

process.DuringthelaterstagesofthisiterativeprocessIwouldlookmore

intentionallyforrepresentationofelementsforwhichIhadyettofindmany

examplesof.Thiswasdonetoensurethatmyfindingsforrepresentationwerenot

theresultsofmyownbiasedperceptions,andtoensurethatIwasexploringthe

secondaryliteratureforeachoftheeightessentialelementsequally.

Dependabilityandcredibility.

Severalstrategieswereemployedtoensuredependabilityandcredibilityfor

theresearchprocedureandproductrelativetoquestiontwo.First,secondary

literaturewascollectedoverthecourseofthreeyears,providingaprolonged

immersionandexposuretothetopic.Second,overthecourseofthosethreeyears,

peersandexpertsonservant‐leadershipwereconsultedforadviceastoprominent

literaturethatwasimportanttothestudyofservant‐leadership.Third,Dr.Carolyn

Crippenprovidedguidanceandfeedbackduringtheprocessesoforganizingthe

46

secondaryliteratureandforthereflectiveanalysisseekingreflectionofthe

essentialelementswithinsaidliterature.Fourth,mywifewhohasbecomewell

versedinthesubjectofservant‐leadership,providedmanyaneveningdiscussion

anddebateoverthementalmappingofandorganizingofthesecondaryliterature.

Andlastly,thecontinualprocessofreflectiveanalysisallowedfortheconstant

checkingandquestioningofmeaningasitdevelopedandemerged.

Thischapterhasdescribedthequalitativemethodusedforthisstudyby

meansofreflectiveanalysis,andhasprovidedadetaileddescriptionoftheresearch

proceduresforquestiononeandquestiontwo.Thenextchapterpresentsthe

findingforthisstudy.

47

Chapter4:Findings

Thischapterhasbeendividedintotwosections.Thefirstofwhichdescribes

thefindingsforquestionone,followedbyaseconddescribingthefindingsfor

questiontwo.ThefindingsforquestiononepresenttheessenceofGreenleaf’s

conceptualizationofservant‐leadershipasIhavediscerned,whilequestiontwo

presentsanexplorationofthesecondaryliteratureseekingtodescribehowthe

essenceasIhavediscernedisreflected.

Question1

• WhatisGreenleaf’sconceptualizationofthenatureandessenceofservant‐

leadershipascommunicatedinhis1991work,andinhisearlyessays

collectedinOnBecomingaServant­Leader(1996)?

Anin‐depthexplorationofGreenleaf’s(1991)originalessayTheServantas

LeaderandGreenleaf’s(1996a,1996b,1996c,1996d,1996e,1996f,1996g,1996h,

1996j,1996k,1996m,1996n,1996o)earlyessaysfoundinOnBecomingaServant

Leaderrevealedeightessentialelementsoftheservant‐leadershipconcept.The

eightessentialelementsasIhaveidentifiedandinterpretedbymeansofreflective

analysisare:anattitudeofresponsibility,listening,awareness,intuitiveinsight,

foresight,creativity,persuasion,andunlimitedliability.

Anattitudeofresponsibility.

Anattitudeofresponsibilityisthefoundationuponwhichthephilosophyof

servant‐leadershiprests.Itisanantecedentforbuildingbettercommunities,

institutions,andsocieties.Onenolongerviewsoneselfasseparatefromtheworld,

butratherasconnectedtoandinrelationwithit.Greenleaf’s(1991)responseto

48

theturmoilofthe1960swastoinsistthatindividualsangryaboutthestatusquo

seektobecome“affirmativebuildersofsociety”(p.44).Onemustviewthe

problemsandsuccessesoftheworldasresidinginhereandnotoutthere.An

attitudeofresponsibilityemergesfromaninternalseekingratherthanexternal

obligations(Greenleaf,1996b,p.42).CommontoGreenleaf’swritingsisthenotion

thatsocieties,systems,andcommunitiesarecreatedbecauseofindividualswhoact

onideasandgreatdreams.Anattitudeofresponsibilitymeansthat“apersonthink,

speak,andactasifpersonallyaccountabletoallwhomaybeaffectedbyhisorher

thoughts,words,anddeeds”(p.41).Itprovidesthebackboneforaholistic

conceptualizationofservice,andallowsonetopracticecompassion,empathy,and

healing.

Listening.

Listeningisthekeytoopennessandunderstanding.Itinfersstandard

notionsofcommunicationbetweenindividuals,butincludesideaslikeself‐

reflection,contemplation,meditation,attentiveness,andsilence.Greenleaf(1991)

wasquiteforwardinsuggestingthat,“onlyatrueservantresponds…bylistening

first”(p.18).Listeningisdescribedasadiscipline,thatwhenpracticedcouldbe

learned,helpinganon‐servantbecomeaservant(p.19).Commontoservant‐

leadershipverbiageistheSt.Francisprayer“grantthatImaynotseeksomuchto

beunderstoodastounderstand”(p.19).ForGreenleaf,“thesearchisthething”

(Greenleaf,1996a,p.33),andlisteningprovidesthestartingpointforonewhoison

thesearchingpath.Iflisteningisabsent(initsholisticsense)notmuchof

substantiveimportcanproceed.

49

Awareness.

Awarenessoffersanapproachtoknowledgeandknowingthatstraddlesthe

consciousandunconsciousmind.Greenleaf(1991)describesthesetwolevelsof

consciousnessasallowingonetobeintherealworldwhileatthesametimebeing

detachedfromit.Tobeawarerequiresthat“eachofusactresolutelyonasetof

assumptionswhileatthesametimequestioningtheseassumptions”(p.28).

Awarenessincludesanopennessandacceptanceofuncertainty,coupledwiththe

willingnesstoacceptthatsomeofourmostcherishedillusionsmaybewrong.Ina

rarejudgementaltoneGreenleafsuggeststhat,“dogmaticpeopleinthepresent,are

usuallydogmaticaboutthefuture–andwrong”(Greenleaf,1996d,p.77).The

Socraticadagethat“theunexaminedlifeisnotworthliving”isoftconnectedtothe

notionofawareness(p.34).One’sabilitytostraddlethelinebetweenconviction

anddoubtisinstrumentalifonedesirestomaintainasearchingapproachto

knowingandunderstanding.

Intuitiveinsight.

Intuitiveinsightreferstothinkinganddecision‐makingprocessesthatrest

apartfromconventionalrationalthought.Greenleafviewedintuitiveinsightas“the

essentialartistryinone’s[sic]leadership”(Greenleaf,1996f,p.113).Thesourceof

informationorknowledgeaccessedforintuitiveinsightoriginatesfromwhat

Greenleaf(1996a)referstoas“belowthewaterline”(p.34),orratherfromthe

subconscious.Toaccessthisinformationoneisencouraged“towithdrawfromthe

analyticalsearchandallowtheunconsciousresourcestodeliverarangeofchoices”

(Greenleaf,1996h,p.170).Intuitionisseenasa“feelforpatterns”,and“theperson

50

whoisbetteratthisthanmostislikelytoemergetheleader”(Greenleaf,1991,p.

24).Intuitiveinsightrequiresacertainkindoffaith,illustratedbytheoft‐citedDean

Ingequotethat“‘Faithisthechoiceofthenoblerhypothesis.’Notthenoblest,one

neverreallyknowswhatthatis”(p.16).

Foresight.

Foresightmightbedescribedastheanalyticalprocessofservant‐leadership.

Itisoftenreferredtoasthe“leadthataleaderhas,”andthatoncethisleadisgone

thepersonisaleaderonlyinname(Greenleaf,1991,p.27).Foresightrequiresthat

oneconceiveof“nowasamovingconceptinwhichpast,presentmoment,and

futureareoneorganicunity”(p.26).Thisentailsthatonebeabletodisassociate

withconventionalclocktimeunderstanding,andtopositiononeselfasafluidand

evolvingparticipantinlife.Theleaderwhocanviewnowinitsqualitativeand

contextualsensewillbemorelikelythanmosttoanticipatethefuture.For

Greenleaf,ifonecandevelopforesight“theendresult,givenenoughtime,isthat

onewillbeknownaswise”(Greenleaf,1996n,p.321).

Creativity.

Creativity,theprocessofbridgingtheconsciousandunconsciousmind,has

beenreferredtoas“theessentialstructuraldynamicofleadership”(Greenleaf,

1991,p.27).Creativityrequiresthedesireandcouragetogooutaheadandshow

theway.ItispoignantthatGreenleafdevotedsomanywordstoAlbertCamus’final

publishedlecture,entitledCreateDangerously(p.13).Thecreativeimpulseacts

uponintuitiveinsight,thusonebearstheriskofbeingwrong.Creativityisoneof

themostimportantskillsnecessaryforenvisioningandbuildingabettertomorrow,

51

andmustbefosteredwithvigorandpurposeamongsttheyoung.Creativity

emergesfromone’sopennesstoknowingandunfetteredcommitmenttothesearch.

Itisthegreatleapintotheunknown.

Persuasion.

Persuasionmightbeviewedastheactivecomponentoftheservant‐

leadershipphilosophy.Itisthemomentatwhichoneseekstoinfluenceothers

towardavisionorgoal.Persuasionisanimportantelementofthephilosophyof

servant‐leadership,insistingonebeawareofandastudentofissuesrelevantto

power.Greenleaf(1991)sawthat“leadershipbypersuasionhasthevirtueof

changebyconvincement”(p.31).Persuasionissaidtobewhenone“arrivesata

feelingofrightnessaboutabelieforactionthroughone’sownintuitivesense”

(Greenleaf,1996g,p.139).Itisperhapsthemosttroublingofqualitiesfor

individualsworkingandinteractingwithintraditionalinstitutions,whichtendto

promotequickdecisionprocessessteepedincoercionandmanipulation.True

persuasionrequirestime,andisperhapsagoalbettertobestrivedforwith

knowledgethatitmightneverbeobtained.Consensualdecisionprocessessupport

amovetowardpersuasion.

Unlimitedliability.

Unlimitedliabilityisperhapstheultimategoaloftheservant‐leadership

philosophy.Itenvisionsaworldthathasmovedawayfromarelianceonjustice

basednotionsofethicstowardanethicsofcare.Unlimitedliabilityrelatestothe

conceptoflove,andrequiresthatonecarryanattitudeofresponsibility.Greenleaf

(1991)believedthat“assoonasone’sliabilityforanotherisqualifiedtoanydegree,

52

loveisdiminishedbythatmuch”(p.39).Loveisviewedastobeindialogue,a

dialoguethatseeksunderstandingandpromotesacceptance.Unlimitedliabilityand

anattitudeofresponsibilityarethebookendsthatfostercompassion,empathy,

healing,andgrowth.ForGreenleaf,“allthatisneededtorebuildcommunity…isfor

enoughservant‐leaderstoshowtheway…byeachservant‐leadershowinghisown

unlimitedliabilityforaquitespecificcommunity‐relatedgroup”(p.40).Unlimited

liabilitymustbepresentinordertomakethingstrulywhole.

Takeninconcerttheseeightessentialelementsprovideinsightintothe

originsoftheservant‐leadershipconceptbyreflectingsomeofGreenleaf’soriginal

writingsonthesubject.Asdescribedaboveintheresearchproceduressection,the

findingsweretheresultofseveralyearsofprolongedexplorationusingmultiple

worksassourcesofinformation(Creswell,2009;Guba,1981).Peerreviewand

expertcritiqueprovidedchecksandbalancesduringtheprocessofdevelopingthe

findings,whilethefinalproductwassubjecttopublicdiscourseandscrutinyatan

internationalleadershipconference.Thesestepsallowedmetoproceedtothe

secondresearchquestionwithaconfidenceinthetrustworthinessofthefindings.

Question2

• Howdoesthesecondaryliteratureextanttoservant‐leadershipoverthelast

40yearsreflecttheessenceofGreenleaf’sconceptualizationasIhave

discernedfromQuestion1?

OncetheessentialconceptualelementshadbeendiscernedfromGreenleaf’s

work,Iwasabletoexplorehowthoseelementswerereflectedwithinthesecondary

53

literatureextanttoservant‐leadership.Thefollowingsectionpresentseachelement

withadescriptionofthefindingsbaseduponthesecondaryliterature.

Anattitudeofresponsibility.

Anattitudeofresponsibilitywasreflectedwithinthesecondaryliteraturein

variousforms.PageandWong(2000)referto“anattitudetowardtheresponsibility

ofleadershipasmuchasitisastyleofleadership”(p.70).Rieser(1995)speaksof

thetendencyinservant‐leadershipforindividualstotakeresponsibilityfor

problemsthatmayarise,somethingthatSanFaconandSpears(2008)extendtoa

thoughtprocessthatalwaystakesintoaccounttheeffectsthatone’s“actionswill

haveonindividualpeople,families,andthelargerfamiliesofthecommunityand

theworld”(p.151).McGee‐Cooper(1998)callsthisan“ultimateaccountability”,in

whichoneacknowledges“ourparticipationinthebiggerpicture”(p.78).Suchan

orientation,accordingtoPalmer(1998),requiresthatone“takespecial

responsibilityforwhat’sgoingoninsidehisorherownself,insidehisorher

consciousness”(p.200).

Thisbroadandallencompassingattitudeofresponsibilityisreflectedinthe

beliefthatwearetheresponsibleco‐creatorsofourreality(Palmer,1998;Smith,

1995;Zohar,2002).Itisbelievedthatbecauseweareresponsibleforthechoices

wemakeandthecreationswepursue,wemustbewillingto“takerisksandto

assumeownership”(Smith,1995,p.206).Palmer(1998)believesthat“weshare

responsibilityforcreatingtheexternalworldbyprojectingeitheraspiritoflightor

aspiritofshadowonthatwhichisotherthanus”(p.200).ThisleadstowhatZohar

(2002)viewsasa“senseofengagementandresponsibility,asenseof‘Ihaveto’”(p.

54

120),connectingtowhatsomeviewasacallingorsenseofpurpose(Bordas,1995;

Jaworski,1998;Sipe&Frick,2009).

Anattitudeofresponsibilityisreflectedinthenotionthatoneiscalled“to

discoverandservetheirowndestiny”;somethingthatJaworski(1998)suggests

brings“greatpersonalresponsibility”(p.261).SipeandFrick(2009)describethis

calltoresponsibilityasaninvitationtoparticipateinsomethinglargerthanoneself,

whichBordas(1995)seesasapersonalpurposethat“beginswiththedesireto

connectwiththe‘greatestgood’,bothwithinoneselfandsociety”(p.180).This

connectiontoandresponsibilityforthegreatergoodthenleadsonetowhat

BarbutoandWheeler(2006),Graham(1991),andPatterson(2003)describeasa

calltoserve.SanFaconandSpears(2008)viewthisasacallingto“serveall–

ourselves,ourlovedones,ourneighbor,ourtribe,ourpeople,otherpeoples,future

generations,otherlifeforms,livingsystems,andevencreationitself”(p.5).The

aboverepresentsquitealistthatreflectswelltheextenttowhichanattitudeof

responsibilityisbelievedtopermeateallaspectsofourlives,inthoughtandaction.

Listening.

Listeningisreflectedinamannerthatrepresentedbyopenness,

understanding,andreflection.McCollum(1995)describesanopennesstothe

perspectivesofothers,whilePeck(1995)believesthattoreallylisten,onemustbe

willing“toemptythemselves…togiveupexpectations”leadingtoanincreasedlevel

ofconsciousness(p.94).Theservant‐leaderalwayslistensfirstwithanopenmind

andflexiblemind(Batten,1998;Lopez,1995;Spears,1995).Anopenandflexible

orientationtoothersgraduallydevelopsintoattentivenessofone’ssurroundings

55

(Jeffries,1998).McCollum(1995)referstoanopennesscouchedinobservationthat

originatesfromtheheart,seekingtotrulyunderstandtherealityofanother.

Ferch(2004)suggests“onlyonewhoisaservantisabletoapproachpeople

firstbylisteningandtryingtounderstand,ratherthanbytryingtoproblemsolveor

lead”(p.232).Truelistening,hesays,hasthecapacityforbuilding“strengthin

otherpeople”(p.232),somethingthatsomefeelisaccomplishedbythemere

presencethatintenseandattentivelisteningcreates(Frick,2011;Gardner,1998).It

isinlisteningthat“servantleadersseektounderstandandempathizewithothers

inordertoidentifyandclarifythewilloftheirgroup”(Washington,Sutton,&Field,

2006,p.702).Listeningrequiresthe“willingnesstosupplement–andtranscend–

personalegowithaninterestinanddesiretounderstandothers”(Sipe&Frick,

2009,p.58).Inseekingtounderstandbeyondone’sownperceptions,onemust

“learntolisten,askquestions,expressdoubt,andlivewithoutanswers”(Block,

1998).SomethingJaworski(1998)extendsto“awillingnesstolisten,yield,and

respondtotheinnervoicethatguidesustowardourdestiny”(p.261).

Cory(1998)suggestslisteningtoourinnervoiceisnecessarysothatwemay

becognizantofourresponsibilityforwhatweareandwhatwecreate.Bordas

(1995)believesthatsucha“self‐insightcanonlybeborninsilence–wemust

withdrawintothedeeperwellofourselves”(p.185).SipeandFrick(2009)describe

thenecessityfor“self‐reflection;thatis,gettingintouchwithone’sinnervoiceand

seekingtounderstandwhatone’sbody,mind,andspiritarecommunicating…it

requireslisteningtooneselffirst”(p.58).Itisthroughthisactofself‐reflection,or

listeningtooneself,thatwecanbegintoengageina“processoflearningtobalance

56

ourthoughts,feelings,andvalueswithouractions”,abalancethatisviewedasa

“crucibleofservant‐leadership”(p.328).Frick(2011)referstoaspiritualjourney

whenonelistenswiththe“mind,senses,heart,andspirit”(p.16),whileWheatley

(1999)urges“wemusttaketimetoreflect”,suggestingtodosoisa“revolutionary

act”(p.3)inthesetroubledtimes.

Awareness.

Awarenessisreflectedasanacknowledgementoftheinterconnectednature

ofourco‐createdreality,inwhich“aservant‐leadercultivatesheightened

awareness,allowinghimtoseeconnectionsbetweenhistory,people,events,

possibilities,anddeepintuition”(Sipe&Frick,2009,p.137).Suchawareness

requiresanunderstandingoftherelationshipbetween“people,processes,

structures,beliefsystems,andahostofotherfactors”(p.139).Jaworski(1998)

describesashiftinourunderstandingfromanatomizedviewofthingstoanotion

“thateverythingisconnectedtoeverythingelseandthatrelationshipisthe

organizingprincipleoftheuniverse.Insteadofseeingtheuniverseasmechanistic,

fixed,anddetermined,webegintoseeitasopen,dynamic,andalive”(p.261).

Gardner(1998)refersto“interrelatedness”anda“deepinternalawareness

ofthewhole”(p.117),whicharefundamentalrealizationsforwhatSenge(1995)

believesarethefoundationalbuildingblocksoforganizations,suchthat“our

institutionsmightbeindeeperharmonywithouremergingunderstandingofthe

physicaluniverseandamorepositiveforceinourincreasinglyinterdependent

world”(p.225).Smith(1995)seesachangeinawarenessthat“involvesseeingand

embracingthepowerofrelationships….therelationshiponehaswithoneself;that

57

onehaswithothers;thatoccurbetweenteams,areas,departments,anddivisions

withinorganizations;andthatoccuramongorganizationswithinsociety”(p.213).

Suchanorientationisconnectedtoanawarenessthat“weparticipatein

creatingthefuture,notbytryingtoimposeourwillonit,butbydeepeningour

collectiveunderstandingofwhatwantstoemergeintheworld,andthenhavingthe

couragetodowhatisrequired”(Jaworski,1998,p.266).One’scourageisbolstered

bythebeliefthat“externalrealitydoesnotimpingeuponusasaprisonorasan

ultimateconstraint”(Palmer,1998,p.199).Instead,anawarenessemergesthatwe

aretheco‐creatorsofourexistence(Zohar,2002),requiringthatoneiscomfortable

withandabletolivewithalargeamountofuncertainty(Jones,2002;Spears,1995).

Thisuncertaintyisdescribedas“livinginthequestion”,cultivatinga

capacityto“letgoofwhatwebelieveoughttobehappening,andindoingsowewill

discoveradeepeningawarenessofwhatisalreadytryingtohappennaturallyinour

life”(p.42).SipeandFrick(2009)suggest“aServant‐Leaderisnotcomfortable

withcomplexitybecausehehasfiguredoutalltheanswers,butbecausehecanlive

withtheremainingquestionsandtruststhatitispossibletoliveintonewanswers”

(p.140).

Intuitiveinsight.

Intuitiveinsightisreflectedasafeelforpatterns,asenseoftheunknown,

andasanimportantaspectofdecisionmaking.Intuition,whenviewedasafeelfor

patterns,allowsonetogainasenseforandtoaccesstheunknownandtheunseen

(Bordas,1995;Rieser,1995).Rieser(1995)purportsthat“therehasbeenserious

neglectoftheintuitiveandspontaneoussideofournature”(p.58).TowhichSipe

58

andFrick(2009)assert,“oneofGreenleaf’smajorcontributionstobusinessthought

wasexplainingtheimportanceofreflectionandintuition”(p.9).Theygoonto

suggest“knowinghowtoaccessintuitionisaprerequisitefordevelopingforesight,

andforthatmatter,fullyunderstandingServantLeadership”(p.106).SanFaconand

Spears(2008)andVanDierendonck(2011)agreethatintuitiveinsightisan

importantskillfordevelopingforesight.Bordas(1995)putsforththat“intuitionis

independentofourreasoningprocess.Itistheabilitytodiscernknowledgefrom

withinourselves”(p.182),though“todevelopintuition,wemustlearntotrustour

hunches,perceptions,andfeelings”(p.189).

Theabilitytotrustourintuitivehunchesandtoactonthemgivesusthe

capacityto“bridgethegaps”inconsciousdecisionmaking(Bordas,1995,p.354).

SomethingJaworski(1998)viewsas“ourabilityto‘intuitthegap’betweenwhat

consciousrationalthoughttellsusandwhatweneedtoknow,betweenwhatisand

whatcanbe”(p.266).SipeandFrick(2009)seethisaspectofdecisionmakingas

mostproblematicforsome,asit“requirestakingtimeawayfromthemattertogain

perspectiveandtodrawuponthewisdomofintuition”(p.9).McCollum(1998)

suggeststheintuitiveaspectofdecisionmaking“requiresanawarenessand

understandingofourinnerlife”(p.328).Somefeelthatintuitionistheentranceto

understandingourcalling(Jeffries,1995),whileothersviewitasanessentialskill

fortheservant‐leader(Frick,1998).

Foresight.

Bordas(1995)describes“foresightasacentralethicofleadership…

groundedinanunderstandingthatthe“past,presentmomentandthefutureare

59

oneorganicunity”(p.186),whileLopez(1995)viewsthepracticeofforesightas

beingableto“seethewayandtopointtoit”(p.155).ForKeith(2008),“exercising

foresightcandomorethanprepareusforthefuture–itcanhelpuscreatethe

futurethatwedesirethemost”(p.55).Similarly,Kim(2004)asserts,“ifweareto

exerciseforesight,weneedtocontinuallyexpandourawarenessandperception,to

takeinmorethanwemightifwekeptthefocusofourattentiontoonarrowand

strictlylogical”(p.208).Hegoesontosaythatforesight,inrelationtomental

models,requires“ustosurface,suspend,andtestourdeepestbeliefsortheories

abouttheworld”(p.212).

Sipe&Frick(2009)suggestforesight“goesbeyond…mostlyanalyticaltools,

takingadvantageofresourcesinthehead,heart,andguttoaccesstheintuitive

mind…thetrickistofocusthebrain’spattern‐generatingcapacitysoitbecomesa

usefultoolforinsight”(p.111).Theyalsoproposeforesightasa“morefocused

applicationofcreativity”(p.122),andanessential“partofthedeepidentityofa

Servant‐Leader”(p.129).Foresightisviewedbymanyasanintegralcomponentof

theservant‐leader’scapacityfordecisionmaking(Frick,1998;Keith,2008;

SanFacon&Spears,2008;Spears,1995;VanDierendonck,2011).Kim(2004)

contends,“thefailuretoleadwithforesightisaethicalfailurebecausewherethere

isnovision,ourpeoplereallydoperish”(p.214).

Creativity.

Creativityisreflectedasemergingfromchaos,fromwithinquestions,andas

anembraceofnewness.Rieser(1995)claims,“itwasGreenleaf’sconvictionthatthe

modernworldhasstifledthecreativityofitsleadersinthestraitjacketofthe

60

rationalandanalytical”(p.51).Freeman,Isaksen,andDorval(2002)suggest,“an

understandingofcreativityisessentialtotheservant‐leader”(p.257),whileSipe

andFrick(2009)seecreativityasanintegral“partofthedeepidentityofaServant‐

Leader”(p.122).Creativityemergesfromconditionsofchaos;somethingPalmer

(1998)believesshouldbefosteredandsupported.Smith(1995)putsforththat

“therearenotriedandtrueblueprintsthatwilldefinitivelyshowustheway,or

showushowtoactoncewearethere”(p.206).Jaworski(1998)believesthata

creativecapacityisoneofthemostfundamentalcomponentsofservant‐leadership.

Thiscapacityforcreativityisreflectedinawillingnesstoacceptuncertainty

andtoseekoutandlivewithinquestions.Jones(2002)suggestsifaquestionor

problemexists,andweapproachitby“inquiringintowhattheanswermightfeelor

looklike,andbeingcuriousaboutit’spossibilities,itwillleadustothingswecould

nothaveplannedwiththestrategicpartofourmind”(p.41).Suchanimmersion

intouncertaintyprovideswhatJonesreferstoasan“experienceofbeinglost”,

duringwhichtimethe“imaginative,sensing,feelingheartcomesmostalive”(p.42).

Wheatley(1999)describesthisasasearchfornewness,andargues,“partofthejob

descriptionofaservantleader…isthatwehavetobethosewhowelcomenewness”

(p.5).Shepointstoan“imperativetocreateoneselfasanexplorationofnewness

andtheneedtoreachoutforrelationshipwithotherstocreatesystems”(Wheatley,

1998,p.341).Thisreflectsa“storyaboutlifethathascreativityandconnectedness

asitsessentialthemes”(p.345).

61

Persuasion.

Persuasionisreflectedbytheapproachthataleadertakestopowerand

influence(Barbuto&Wheeler,2006;Russell&Stone,2002;Spears,1995;

VanDierendonck,2011).Inservant‐leadershippersuasionisthepreferredmethod

ofinfluencereflectingaspecificattitudetowardtheuseofpower(Sipe&Frick,

2009).Servantleadersarethosewho“usepowerethically”andwhoarethus

“buildersofcommunity”(Lopez,1995,p.152).McCollum(1998)describesan

“ethicalbasisthatservesthefeelingofrightnessthatseparatespersuasionfrom

manipulation”(p.336).Intheuseofpersuasionservant‐leadersforgotheactof

control,seekinginsteadtoallowotherstheopportunityforgrowthand

empowerment(Lopez,1995),whichconnectstoMcCollum’s(1998)descriptionof

mentoringasaformofpersuasionusedbyservant‐leaders,“inthesenseofhelping

someonelearnhowto‘be’ratherthanwhatto‘do’”(p.336).Inreferringtothe

wordsofRobertBly,McCollumdescribesmentoringas“averticalprocess–onein

whichyoungmembersofasocietylearnhowto‘be’inthatsociety”(p.337).

Unlimitedliability.

Unlimitedliabilityisreflectedinservant‐leaderswho“takecarethatother’s

highestpriorityneedsarebeingmet”(Sipe&Frick,2009,p.40).Anunlimited

concernforothersisreflectedinprovidingopportunitiesforindividualstomeet

theirhighestpriorityneeds,andto“helpthemgetafeelingofwhatmaturegrowth

involvesandassumesomeresponsibilityfortheirowngrowth”(p.41).The

unlimitedliabilityexpressedbyservant‐leaders(Lopez,1995)containswithinita

“strongsenseofmutuality”(Rieser,1995,p.49),inwhich“morecareisshownfor

62

peoplethantheorganization’sbottomline”(Patterson,2003,p.3).Wheatley

(1999)describesthe“workofbeingaservant‐leader…tobecourageousenoughto

keepyourheartopen”(p.6).

Unlimitedliabilityinthisregardisreferredtoasunconditionallove(McGee‐

Cooper,1998;Sipe&Frick,2009;Stone,Russell,&Patterson,2004),alovethat

“leadstoservingthebestinterestofothers”(Patterson,2003,p.3).Gardner(1998)

describesthisas“beingfullypresent,beingopeninmindandbodyandheart,

listeningunconditionally”(p.124).Anunconditionalconcerniswhatcallsthe

servant‐leadertocareforandappreciateothers(SanFacon&Spears,2008;Stone,

Russell,&Patterson,2004).An“appreciationofothersbyservantleadersreflects

fundamentalpersonalvaluesthatesteemandhonorpeople”(Russell,2001,p.80),

emulatedbythosewho“demonstratealevelofcaringandappreciationthat

unconditionallyaffirmsothers–whoevertheyare,whatevertheircircumstances,

allowingeachpersontofeelunderstoodandappreciated”(Sipe&Frick,2009,p.

53).VanDierendonck(2011)suggeststhislevelofunconditionalconcernand

acceptance“includestheperspectivetakingelementofempathy”(p.7),and“the

outcomeofacceptanceandempathyisthatwewillnotrejecttheotherandwill

thereforebepracticing‘unlimitedliability’”(Lopez,1995,p.153).

Summation.

ThusconcludestherepresentationoffindingsforQuestion2,forwhicha

varietyofstrategieswereusedtoensuredependabilityandcredibility.First,

secondaryliteraturewascollectedoverthecourseofthreeyears,providinga

prolongedimmersionandexposuretothetopic.Second,Dr.CarolynCrippen

63

providedguidanceandfeedbackduringtheprocessesoforganizingthesecondary

literatureandforthereflectiveanalysisseekingreflectionoftheessentialelements

withinsaidliterature.Andlastly,acontinualprocessofreflectiveanalysisallowed

fortheconstantcheckingandquestioningofmeaningasitdevelopedandemerged,

supportedbyconsultationsamongstpeersfamiliarwithservant‐leadership.

Thischapterhaspresentedthefindingsrelevanttothetworesearch

questionsforthisstudy.Thenextchapterprovidesadiscussion,conclusion,some

recommendations,andafinalreflection.

64

Chapter5:Discussion

Thefinalchapterbeginswithadiscussionofthefindingsforquestionone

andquestiontworespectively.Theimplicationsforthefindingsofthisstudyare

thatitdiscernstheessenceofGreenleaf’swork,whichnoscholarorpractitioner

hasadmittedtodoingyet.Italsoacknowledgesandsupportssomeofthemore

prominentworksinthefield,particularlytheworkofSpears(1995)andofSipeand

Frick(2009).TheessenceasIhavediscernedisalsointendedtosparkdialogueand

toturnthegazeofourattentionbacktowhatGreenleafwastryingtocommunicate

some40yearsago.

Question1

• WhatisGreenleaf’sconceptualizationofthenatureandessenceofservant‐

leadershipascommunicatedinhis1991work,andinhisearlyessays

collectedinOnBecomingaServant­Leader(1996)?

ThereasonforaskingthefirstquestionwasinresponsetoadiscordthatI

sensedamongstthoseseekingtounderstandservant‐leadership.Thissenseof

discordcalledmetoturnmyattentiontoGreenleaf’soriginalwords,withthe

intentiontoexplorehismessage,whichwouldthenperhapsallowmeto

understandthewiderangeofperspectivesonservant‐leadershipthatothershad

writtenabout.InthatsensethefindingsforquestiononerepresenthowIhave

interpretedGreenleaf,andtheessenceofwhathewastryingtosay.Idon’tfeelas

thoughtheeightessentialelements(anattitudeofresponsibility,listening,

awareness,intuitiveinsight,foresight,creativity,persuasion,unlimitedliability),as

Ihavediscerned,represent“mylist”thatisnowsettocompetewithothers.In

65

responsetoquestionone,theeightessentialelementspresentthefindingsofan

explorationseekingtoprovideclaritytoaconcept.Ibelieved,perhapsintuitively,

thatthediscordIfeltcouldbealleviatedsomebyreturningtothethoughtsof

RobertK.Greenleaf.Thisconceptualfoundationthenprovidedmewiththelens

throughwhichIcouldviewandmakesenseoftheperspectivesofothers.

Limitations.

TheessenceofGreenleaf’sworkasIhavediscernedwasdonetothebestof

myabilities,asfallibleandprodigiousastheymaybe.Itwouldhavebeenmost

prudenttohavebeenabletositdownwithGreenleaf,inordertoengageintrue

dialogue.Inwrittenwordsweonlyhaveinterpretationsandapproximationsofour

experience.TositindialoguewithGreenleafwouldhaveclearlyenhanced

understanding.Isaythisbecausetopicscommontoservant‐leadershipsuchasflux,

flow,change,chaos,anddoubtcanbehardtopindown.Interpretingandreflecting

onthesecanbedifficult,thusafinallimitationisthatIwasnotabletoconverse

withmore“experts”inthefield.IwasfortunatetoworkwithDr.CarolynCrippen,

oneoftheforemostauthoritiesonservant‐leadershipintheworld,buttimeand

tougheconomictimesdidnotallowformeetingswithothergiantsinthefieldsuch

asLarryC.Spears,ShanFerch,DonFrick,AnnMcGee‐Cooper,PeterSenge,and

MargaretWheatley.

Question2

• Howdoesthesecondaryliteratureextanttoservant‐leadershipoverthelast

40yearsreflecttheessenceofGreenleaf’sconceptualizationasIhave

discernedfromQuestion1?

66

OnceIhaddiscernedtheessentialelementsofGreenleaf’sconceptualization,

Iwasthenabletoexplorethesecondaryliteraturetoseehowsaidessencewas

reflected.Ifoundthattheelementsoflistening,anattitudeofresponsibility,

awareness,andanunlimitedliabilitywerewellrepresented,whileintuitiveinsight,

foresight,creativity,andpersuasionwerepresentbutofteninamoreindirect

manner.

Theelementoflisteningwasrepresentedinthenotionsofopennessto

others,understanding,andreflection.Byfarthiselementwasmostprevalent,

thoughmoreemphasiswasgiventotheperceivedactoflistening,ratherthana

deepcommitmenttounderstandingothersandtoengaginginpersonalreflectionto

understandoneself.ThisissomewhatsurprisinggivenGreenleaf’s(1991)habitual

useofthephrase“grantthatImayseeknotsomuchtobeunderstoodasto

understand”(p.19).Apotentialreasonforthisisthatinthemodernorganization

timeisinshortsupply,sothatmomentsofdeeplisteningandreflectionbecome

whatWheatley(1999)referstoasrevolutionaryacts.Mostmodernorganizations,

andtheresearchtheyfund,seeknotrevolutionbutstableandpredictable

environments.Totrulylisten,andengageindialogue,meansthatonemustbeopen

tochangeandwillingtostepintoaworldofuncertainty.

Therewasanaspectofopennesstouncertaintythoughthatwasreflectedin

secondaryliteraturearoundtheelementofawareness.Awarenesswasrepresented

inmanywaysthatconnecttotheiceberganalogyGreenleaf(1991;1996d)often

usedtoillustrateoursenseofknowledgeforboth“below”and“above”the

waterline.Descriptionswithinthesecondaryliteraturesuchasinterconnectivity,

67

interrelatedness,relationship,uncertainty,co‐creation,andtheemergentnatureof

thingsreflectedtheelementofawarenessasGreenleafspokeofit.

Therepresentationofthesenotionsthoughdropsoffifonenarrowstheir

gazetotheliteratureseekingtocreatemeasurableconstructsofservant‐leadership.

Ofthosepresentinglistsofservant‐leadermeasures,onlySpears(1995)and

BarbutoandWheeler(2002)makementionofawarenessasanessential

component.Perhapsagainthisspeakstoaninclinationtowardspredictabilityand

stabilitythatmanyinorganizationalenvironmentsseeknottostrayfrom.In

speakingofinstitutionsthough,Greenleaf’s(1991)responsetotheunrestofthe

1960swasthatinstitutionsneededtoexpandtheirperceptionsofknowledgeand

tosupportnewtrendsinconductthatwereemerging.

Greenleaf(1991),indescribingtheseemergingtrendsspokemuchofthe

greatresponsibilitythatindividualswouldneedtotakeon.Theessentialelementof

anattitudeofresponsibilitywasrepresentedwellinavarietyofways,asauthors

spoketoaccountability,acalling,apurpose,service,andasensethatweareall

responsiblefortheco‐creationofourreality.Someattachedthisattitudeof

responsibilitytothenotionoftrust(Farling,Stone,andWinston,1999;Patterson,

2003;Russell&Stone,2002),whileothersspokeofauthenticityandintegrity

(Laub,2003;Page&Wong,2000;Russell&Stone,2002).Spears(1995)spokeof

responsibilityasacommitmenttothegrowthofothers,somewhatakintowhat

Sendjayaetal.(2008)refertoasresponsiblemorality.

Itwasthroughvariousinterpretationsofresponsibilitythatthenotionof

serviceemergedintheliterature.Theinnatefeeling,throughasenseofpurposeor

68

calling(Barbuto&Wheeler,2002;Sipe&Frick,2009),thatonewasresponsiblefor

othersreflectswellGreenleaf’s(1991)urgingofindividualstobecomeaffirmative

buildersofsocietyandtoviewanyproblemtheyencounterasresiding“inhere”

and“notoutthere”.

Thisaspectofresponsibility,leadingtothedesiretoserve,coupleswellwith

theessentialelementofanunlimitedliability.Ifoundgoodrepresentationwithin

thesecondaryliteraturegroundedindescriptionssuchasunconditionallove,

acceptance,empathy,andcare.Anorientationtowardunlimitedliabilityalso

supportedthedesireforindividualstoserveothers,andprovidedsomedirection

forwhattheappropriatemeanstodosomightbe.Manydescribedunlimited

liabilityasunconditionallove(McGee‐Cooper,1998;Stone,Russell,&Patterson,

2004),whileothersuncomfortablewithsuchfuzzynotionspreferreddescriptors

suchasacceptanceandempathy(Sipe&Frick,2009;VanDierendonck,2011).

Itseemsacommonlyacceptedaspectofservant‐leadership,withinallthe

writings,istheactofcaring.Greenleaf(1991)wentsofarastosaythatthemoment

unlimitedliabilityisdiminishedloveisalsobythesamedegree,whichgivescritics

thebasisforderidingservant‐leadershipasbeingsoft.Itcomesacrossstrongly

thoughwithintheliteraturethatservant‐leadershipputspeoplefirst,andthrough

thegrowthandstrengthofindividualstheorganizationwillflourish(Patterson,

2003;Sipe&Frick,2009;Spears,1995;VanDierendonck,2011).

Asomewhatsurprisinglackofrepresentationfortheessentialelementof

foresightwasfound.Iwouldhaveexpected,givenGreenleaf’s(1991)beliefthat

foresightistheleadthataleaderhasandthatfailuretouseforesightcouldbe

69

viewedasanethicalfailure,therewouldhavebeenmorewhomadereferenceto

foresight(Barbuto&Wheeler,2002;Keith,2008;Sipe&Frick,2009;Spears,1995;

VanDierendonck,2011).Itcouldbethattheelementofforesightisincorporated

intootherdescriptionsofservant‐leadership.Forexample,somerefertovision

(Farling,Stone,&Winston,1999;Page&Wong,2000;Patterson,2003)asa

componentofservant‐leadership,whichcouldeasilybeconstruedasforesight.

What’smissingthoughisanorientationtotimeinwhichGreenleaf(1991)

describesthepast,present,andfutureasoneorganicunity,whichwasonlytouched

onbysome(Bordas,1995;Sipe&Frick,2009).

Connectedtoforesightisintuitiveinsight,whichwasreflectedinonlysome

oftheliteratureasafeelforpatterns,asensefortheunknown,andasanimportant

aspectofdecisionmaking;eventhoughitisreferredtoasanintegralcomponentof

servant‐leadership(Greenleaf,2001;Sipe&Frick,2009).PerhapsRieser’s(1995)

statementthat“therehasbeenaseriousneglectoftheintuitiveandspontaneous

sideofournature”(p.58)isworthnoting.Greenleaf(1996f)hadevenpositioned

intuitiveinsightas“theessentialartistryinone’sleadership”(p.113).

Intuitiveinsight,reflectedbysomeasasensefortheunknown(McCollum,

1998;Jaworski,1998)orasafeelforpatterns(Bordas,1995;Rieser,1995),may

inflictwavesofpanicandanxietyforthosemorecomfortablewiththesupposed

predictabilityoflinearrationalthought.ThoughGreenleaf,indescribingaleader’s

decisionmakingprocess,suggestsintuitionandbeingabletoactuponitisthe

distinguishingfactorfortheeffectiveleader.Itispossible,thatthenotionof

70

intuitionisembeddedwithintheessenceofawareness(Barbuto&Wheeler,2002;

Spears,1995)orevenforesightforthatmatter.

Similartointuitiontheessentialelementofcreativityisratherabsentfrom

thesecondaryliterature,especiallywithintheliteratureseekingtocreatelistsof

measurableconstructs.RussellandStone(2002)refertopioneeringwhichcouldbe

looselyconnectedtocreativity,thoughlackingisGreenleaf’sembracingofand

leapingintotheunknown.Creativityisreflectedinsomeofthesecondaryliterature

asanembraceofnewness,ofchaos,andoflivinginthequestion.

Mostauthors,saveforSipeandFrick(2009),whomakereferenceto

creativitydosofromaworldviewthatembracesthenewscienceofquantum

mechanics(Jaworski,1998;Jones,2002;Smith,1995;Wheatley,1998,1999).Senge

(1995)andKim(2002)provideaclueastowhythismaybethecase,asboth

promoteandfosternewapproachestoorganizing,inwhichsystemstheoryand

learningorganizationsareoffashion.Theoldstyleoforganizing,representedin

muchoftheliterature,lacksanembraceofnewnessandcreativitythatpermeates

allfacetsoflife(Smith,1995;Wheatley,1998).Creativityperhapsrequiresmore

attention,givenGreenleaf’s(1991)referencetocreativityas“theessential

structuraldynamicofleadership”(p.27).

Lastly,theessentialelementofpersuasionisreflectedwithinthesecondary

literatureintermsofpower,influence,andmentoring.Somerefertopersuasionas

thepreferredmethodofinfluenceinanorganization(Barbuto&Wheeler,2006;

Russell&Stone,2002),whileothersfocusmoreonone’sapproachtotheissueof

power(Sipe&Frick,2009;Spears,1995).Persuasionwasreflectedasaformof

71

mentoring(McCollum,1995;Lopez,1995),supportingGreenleaf’s(1991)belief

thatthenumberonepriorityofasocietyshouldbetoprepareyoungpeoplefor

positionsofleadership.

Persuasioncouldbepresentinwhatsomerefertoasabeliefinthe

capacitiesanddeficienciesofothers(Sipe&Frick,2009;Smith,1995).Inthis

regard,whatseemslikeadearthofreferencetopersuasioncouldsimplybethatthe

essentialelementsofunlimitedliabilityandanattitudeofresponsibilityinferthe

ethicaluseofpowerthatGreenleafdescribedinpersuasion.Theomissionof

persuasionforsomemaybeduetotheconstrictingandlimitedviewthatmodern

organizationshaveoftime,anditsapparentlacking.Truepersuasiontakestime,

andultimatelymanifestsinanorganizationalcontextasconsensualdecision

making;thoughagain,theperceptionoflimitedamountsoftimeconstrainsand

restrictsattemptsforitsimplementation.

Inallthereisreasonablerepresentationwithinthesecondaryliterature

extanttoservant‐leadershipoftheeightessentialelementsasIhavediscerned

fromGreenleaf’swriting.Forthemostpartthoughtheessentialelementsare

representedinpiece‐meal,withsmatteringsofoneelementhereandanother

somewhereelse.Thisholdstruebothwithintheso‐calledanecdotalliteratureand

withintheliteratureseekingtocreatemeasurableconstructsofservant‐leadership.

Thisperhapsindicates,giventhatmyinterpretationsarevalid,thatareturnto

Greenleaf’soriginalworkhasbeenprudent.

Thatsaid,thelistoftencharacteristicscreatedbySpears(listening,

empathy,healing,awareness,persuasion,conceptualization,foresight,stewardship,

72

commitmenttothegrowthofothers,andbuildingcommunity)isstilltheclosest

representationtoGreenleaf’sconceptualizationofservant‐leadershipasIhave

discerned.What’smissingthough,isafocusonunlimitedliabilityandanattitudeof

responsibility,whichIbelievearenecessaryconditionsforthedevelopingof

stewardship,commitmenttoothers,empathy,healing,andbuildingcommunity.

Also,itispossiblethatmyinterpretationofintuitiveinsightandcreativityismerely

anotherwayofexpressingconceptualizationandawareness,thoughIbelieve,in

discerningGreenleaf’swork,thatintuitionandcreativitydeserveaplaceunto

themselves.

Finally,ifonedesirestoembarkonanexplorationofservant‐leadership,and

wishestogobeyondTheServantasLeader(1991)andtheessayscollectedinOn

BecomingaServantLeader(1996),IwouldrecommendTheSevenPillarsofServant

Leadership:PracticingtheWisdomofLeadingbyServing,bySipeandFrick(2009).

Inmyestimationtheseauthorsrepresentmosttrulywithoutanypretensethe

essenceofGreenleaf’sconceptualization.Aprolongedexposuretothewritingsof

RobertK.GreenleafleadsmetobelievethatSipeandFrick,alongwithothergiants

suchasLarryC.Spears,GeorgeSanFacon,ShanFerch,ParkerPalmer,Carolyn

Crippen,JosephJaworski,AnnMcGee‐Cooper,PeterSenge,andMargaretWheatley

seemtosomehowgetwhatGreenleafwastryingtosay.Thereareofcourseothers,

butforsomeintuitivereasontheseindividualssimplystandout.

Limitations.

Theprocessfordiscerninghowtheessentialelementsarereflectedwithin

thesecondaryliteraturewasasoloaffair,andthoughIhadtheprivilegeofpeer

73

reviewandexpertfeedbackalongtheway,theproductisbasedonmy

interpretationsalone.Agroupapproachtothistypeofstudymayprovide

interestingresults,thoughthetimeandfinancialconstraintsforthisprocesswould

nothaveallowedforsuchalengthyendeavour.Itisalsoimpossibletocollectallthe

secondaryliteratureonthesubject,thusthereisthepossibilitythatanimportant

pieceofworkwasmissed.Thislimitationwasaddressedthoughbyconsultingwith

otherstoidentifyandensurethatimportantworkswereincluded.Lastly,most

literatureoriginatesfromacorporatecontextwheremeansexisttofundresearch,

leavingoutmanypotentiallyvaluableperspectivesofcommunityandnon‐profit

organizations.

OverallThoughts

Itseemsthatservant‐leadershiprepresentsfirstandforemostawayofbeing

intheworld,oraworldviewthatshapesandinformsone’sinteractionswiththe

world.Thisnotionofadeepinnerqualityisevidentwithintheso‐calledanecdotal

writingsonthesubject,butseemsratherabsentwithinworksseekingtocreate

measurableconstructsoftheservant‐leadershipconcept.Thismaybeduetoa

cautionarynotefrommanywritersthatproblemswithdefiningservant‐leadership

couldstemfromalackofsolidconceptualfoundation(Barbuto&Wheeler,2006;

Farling,Stone,&Winston,1999;Page&Wong,2000).

Muchoftheservant‐leadershipliteraturethoughisnotaimedatcreatinga

standardized,cookie‐cuttertypeframeworkforunderstandingservant‐leadership.

Itseemsthatmostwritershavetakentheessenceofwhattheservant‐leadership

conceptmeanstothem,andhaveappliedittostoriesanddescriptionsoftheirown

74

realities(Ferch,2004;Jones,2002;Lopez1995).Thusmanyofthewriters

describingservant‐leadershipspeaktotheconceptinawaythatisrelevanttotheir

ownperspectives,perhapsindicatingloudlythatservant‐leadershipisindeedaway

ofbeingthatblossomsintoaninfinitearrayofrepresentations.

Manywritershavecommentedthatservant‐leadershipisanindividualpath

thatweavesthroughacomplexwebofrelationshipsandsystems(Jaworski,1998;

Jones,2002;Sipe&Frick,2009).Thepotentialfordifferentiationincharacterized

orbehavioraloutcomesisimmense,andgrowslargerintheabsenceofanagreed

uponandthoroughlyconsideredconceptualfoundation.Moreproblematictothe

searchforstandardizationistheinevitabledifferencethatemergesgivenavariety

ofinstitutional,societal,cultural,andcommunitycontexts.

Therelationalaspectsofservant‐leadershipspeaktoaviewofleadership

thatpromotesmutualunderstandingandasenseofresponsibilityforcreating

ratherthanimpedingordestroying.Thisviewofleadershipplantstheseedsforthe

promotionofthegreatergood,orofthecommongood,assomeprefertodescribe

(Bordas,1995).IbelievethiswasoneofGreenleaf’sgreatestgoals,somethingIlike

torefertoasasortof“appliedhumanity”blueprintormoralpraxisforthenew

ages.

Conclusion

ForthreeyearsIhavebeenimmersedinthetopicofservant‐leadership,

duringwhichtimeIsensedadiscordastohowitwasperceived.Inoticedthismost

apparentlywithintheliteratureseekingtocreatemeasurableconstructsofservant‐

leadership,whichseemedtoindicateaproblemwithitsconceptualization.Ithus

75

venturedforthtoexplorethisproblem,firstbydiscerninganessenceofservant‐

leadershipfromGreenleaf’swritingusingreflectiveanalysis.ThroughthisprocessI

interpretedeightessentialelements,whichwere:anattitudeofresponsibility,

listening,awareness,intuitiveinsight,foresight,creativity,persuasion,and

unlimitedliability.

Ithenexploredthesecondaryliteratureextanttoservant‐leadership,

seekingtodescribehowGreenleaf’sconceptualization,asIhaddiscerned,was

represented.Ifoundrepresentationofeachelementinvariousforms,though

findingapieceofworkthatreflectedalleightproveddifficult.However,Ididfind

thatLarrySpears,arecognizedpioneerinservant‐leadership,cameclosestto

reflectingalleightelementsasIhaddiscerned.Thisisperhapsnosurprisegiven

BarbutoandWheeler’s(2006)beliefthatSpears,outofallthoseseekingtopresent

listsofservant‐leadership,comesclosesttotheoriginalwritingsofGreenleaf.

Thatisuntil2009,whenSipeandFrickputtogetherabookcalledTheSeven

PillarsofServantLeadership:PracticingtheWisdomofLeadingbyServing.Ifound

thatthisbookmostaptlyreflectedtheessentialelementsofGreenleaf’swritingasI

haddiscerned,anditmanagestodosofromaperspectiveofcorporate

organization.Wastheirworktheresultofaleapoffaithontheirpart?Wasittheir

willingnesstofollowtheirintuitionandtopushintouncharteredwaters?Whatever

theimpetusandsourceofinspiration,SipeandFrickactedwithforesightto

producearecommendedreadingforanystudentseekingtoexploreand

understandtheconceptofservant‐leadership.

76

RecommendationsandNextSteps

Thefollowingfiverecommendationsstemfromtheresearchfindingsand

aremeanttosuggestpossibledirectionsforfutureresearch.

Recommendation1:Engageindialogue.

AdialogueaboutGreenleaf’soriginalworkseemsappropriategiventhe

acknowledgedlackofconceptualfoundationsthatcouldleadtowardanagreed

uponunderstanding.Suchadialoguecouldhelptofocuseffortsinseekingto

discerndescriptionsofbehaviours,attributes,orcharacteristicsthatonemay

emulatewhenadoptingaservant‐leadershipworldview.Itcouldalsoturnattention

backtotheoriginalworksofGreenleafprovidingananchorforthecreationof

sharedmeaninganddialogue.

Recommendation2:FollowVanDierendonck’slead.

VanDierendonck(2011)suggestsdifferentiatingbetween“antecedents,

behaviours,mediatingprocesses,andoutcomes”(p.27)asanapproachtothestudy

ofservant‐leadership.Suchanapproachcanprovideanorganizedresearch

structureformovingtowardanunderstandingoftheservant‐leadershipconcept.

Recommendation3:Explorevariedcontexts.

Muchoftheworktodateonservant‐leadershipexistsintherealmof

businessandorganizationaltheory.Expandingthehorizonsofinquirytoinclude

settingssuchascommunity,family,relationship,sport,art,andsoforth,maylead

towardamoreholisticandaccuraterepresentationoftheservant‐leadership

concept.Thefactthemuchresearchandstudyoriginatesfromthebusinessrealm

needstobeconsideredasabiasofsortsandhasyettobeaddressed.

77

Recommendation4:Explorehistoricalroots.

Greenleaf,anacknowledgedQuaker,pointstoameldingofProtestantand

easternreligiousworldviewsthatcontributedtohisconceptionofservant‐

leadership.HecreditsreadingHesse’sJourneytotheEastasasourceofinspiration

forTheServantasLeader,andhintsatotherinfluencesinsomeofhiswritings.

GreenleafalludestomanygreatthinkerssuchasPauloFreire,KurtLewin,Albert

Camus,AldousHuxley,RalphWaldoEmerson,AlfredKorzybski,andErikEriksonto

namejustafew.Anexplorationofthesethinkersandothersmayhelptocreatean

evenricherunderstandingofthebreadthanddepthofservant‐leadership.

Recommendation5:Exploretheconceptoffollowership.

Greenleafspokeofacontinuuminherentinservant‐leadershipinwhichone

movedbetweenleadingandfollowing.Theconceptoffollowershipisquitenewbut

mayprovideinsightandadeeperunderstandingofservant‐leadership.Itmaybe

thattheleadership‐followershipcontinuumisrelatedinsomemannertothe

relationshipbetweenservantandleader.Thiscouldbeavaluablecontributionto

thestudyofservant‐leadership,leadingtowardabroaderunderstandingof

influenceprocessesthataresynonymouswithleadership.

FinalReflections

Itseemsnecessary,iftheservant‐leadershipconceptistoflourishandgrow,

thatpractitionersandscholarsrevisitGreenleaf’smessage.Iamsurethateach

individualwhoreadsGreenleaf’soriginalworkwillhaveadifferentandunique

perspectiveofservant‐leadership.Thus,Ibelievethatadialogueconcerningthe

essenceoftheconceptisimportant,beforeanyfurtherdissolutionofitssubstance

78

occurs.IhopemyinterpretationofferingeightessentialelementsofGreenleaf’s

(1991,1996a,1996b,1996c,1996d,1996e,1996f,1996g,1996h,1996j,1996k,

1996m,1996n,1996o)workencouragessuchadialogue.

ItseemstomethatforRobertK.Greenleafitwasthepromotionofthe

greatergoodthatlayattheheartofhisimmensecontribution.Thedifficultyfor

mostisthathechosetoneitherdictatenorprescribe,buttorathersharesome

insightsthathadoccurredtohimalonghisownlife‐longseekingjourney;ajourney

inwhichhemarveledatthemysteryandwonderoftheworld,somethingthathe

hopedtopersuadeotherstodoaswell.

79

References

Avolio,B.J,Waldman,D.,&Yammarino,F.(1991).Leadinginthe1990s:ThefourIs

oftransformationalleadership.JournalofEuropeanIndustrialTraining,15(4),

9‐16.

Avolio,B.J.,Walumba,F.O.,&Weber,T.J.(2009).Leadership:Currenttheories,

research,andfuturedirections.AnnualReviewofPsychology,60,421‐429.

Barbuto,J.E.,&Wheeler,D.W.(2002).Becomingaservantleader:Doyouhavewhat

ittakes?NebGuideG02­1481­A.Lincoln:UniversityofNebraska,Nebraska

CooperativeExtension.

Barbuto,J.E.,&Wheeler,D.W.(2006).Scaledevelopmentandconstructclarification

ofservantleadership.GroupandOrganizationManagement,31(3),300‐326.

Bass,B.M.(1985).Leadershipandperformancebeyondexpectations.NewYork:Free

Press.

Batten,J.(1998).Servant‐leadership:Apassiontoserve.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),

Insightsonleadership:Service,stewardship,spirit,andservant­leadership(pp.

38‐53).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.

Beazley,H.,&Beggs,J.(2002).Teachingservant‐leadership.InL.C.Spears&M.

Lawrence(Eds.),Focusonleadership:Servant­leadershipforthetwenty­first

century(pp.53‐63).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.

Block,P.(1998).Fromleadershiptocitizenship.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),Insightson

leadership:Service,stewardship,spirit,andservant­leadership(pp.87‐95).New

York:Wiley&Sons,Inc.

80

Bogdan,R.C.,&Biklen,S.K.(2007).Qualitativeresearchforeducation:An

introductiontotheoriesandmethods(5thed.).Boston,MA:PearsonA&B.

Bogdan,R.,&Taylor,S.J.(1975).Introductiontoqualitativeresearchmethods:A

phenomenologicalapproachtothesocialsciences.NewYork,NY:JohnWiley

andSons,Inc.

Bordas,J.(1995).Powerandpassion:Findingpersonalpurpose.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),

ReflectionsonLeadership:HowRobertK.Greenleaf’stheoryofservant­

leadershipinfluencedtoday’stopmanagementthinkers(pp.179‐193).New

York:Wiley&Sons,Inc.

Burns,J.M.(1978).Leadership.NewYork:HarperandRow.

Concept.(1997).NelsonCanadianDictionaryoftheEnglishLanguage:An

EncyclopedicReference(tradeed.,p.287).Scarborough,Ontario:ITPNelson.

Construct.(1997).NelsonCanadianDictionaryoftheEnglishLanguage:An

EncyclopedicReference(tradeed.,p.298).Scarborough,Ontario:ITPNelson.

Creswell,J.W.(1998).Qualitativeinquiryandresearchdesign:Choosingamongfive

traditions.ThousandOaks,CA:SAGEPublicationsInc.

Creswell,J.W.(2009).Researchdesign:Qualitative,quantitative,andmixedmethods

approaches(3rded.).ThousandOaks,CA:SAGEPublicationsInc.

Creswell,J.W.,Hanson,W.E.,PlanoClark,V.L.,&Morales,A.(2007).Qualitative

researchdesign:Selectionandimplementation.TheCounsellingPsychologist,

35(2),236‐264.

Crippen,C.(2005).Thedemocraticschool:Firsttoserve,thentolead.Canadian

JournalofEducationalAdministrationandPolicy,47,1‐17.

81

Denzin,N.K.(1994).Theartofpoliticandinterpretation.InN.K.Denzin,&Y.S.

Lincoln(Eds.),Handbookofqualitativeresearch(pp.500‐515).Thousand

Oaks,CA:SagePublications.

DiStefano,J.J.(1995).TracingthevisionandimpactofRobertK.Greenleaf.InL.C.

Spears(Ed.),ReflectionsonLeadership:HowRobertK.Greenleaf’stheoryof

servant­leadershipinfluencedtoday’stopmanagementthinkers(pp.61‐78).

NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.

Essence.(1997).NelsonCanadianDictionaryoftheEnglishLanguage:An

EncyclopedicReference(tradeed.,p.469).Scarborough,Ontario:ITPNelson.

Farling,M.L.,Stone,A.G.,&Winston,B.E.(1999).Servantleadership:Settingthe

stageforempiricalresearch.JournalofLeadershipStudies,1(2),49‐72.

Ferch,S.R.(2004).Servant‐leadership,forgiveness,andsocialjustice.InL.C.Spears,

&M.Lawrence(Eds.),Practicingservant­leadership:Succeedingthroughtrust,

bravery,andforgiveness(pp.225‐239).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐Bass.

Freeman,T.L.,Isaksen,S.G.,&Dorval,K.B.(2002).Servant‐leadershipandcreativity.

InL.C.Spears&M.Lawrence(Eds.),Focusonleadership:Servant­leadershipfor

thetwenty­firstcentury,(pp.257‐267).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.

Frick,D.M.(1995).Pyramids,circles,andgardens:Storiesofimplementingservant‐

leadership.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),ReflectionsonLeadership:HowRobertK.

Greenleaf’stheoryofservant­leadershipinfluencedtoday’stopmanagement

thinkers(pp.257‐281).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.

Frick,D.M.,&Spears,L.C.(1996).Onbecomingaservantleader.SanFrancisco,CA:

Josey‐BassInc.

82

Frick,D.M.(1998).Afterward:UnderstandingRobertK.Greenleafandservant‐

leadership.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),Insightsonleadership:Service,stewardship,

spirit,andservant­leadership(pp.353‐358).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.

Frick,D.M(2011).Greenleafandservant­leaderlistening.Westfield,IN:The

GreenleafCenterforServantLeadership.

Gall,M.D.,Gall,J.P.,&Borg,W.R.(2007).Educationalresearch:Anintroduction(8th

ed.).Boston,MA:PearsonEducationInc.

Gardner,J.J.(1998).Quietpresence:Theholygroundofleadership.InL.C.Spears

(Ed.),Insightsonleadership:Service,stewardship,spirit,andservant­leadership

(pp.116‐125).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.

Giarelli,J.M.,&Chambliss,J.J.(1988).Philosophyofeducationasqualitativeinquiry.

InR.R.Sherman,&R.B.Webb(Eds.),Qualitativeresearchineducation:Focus

andmethods(pp.30‐43).Philadelphia,PA:TheFalmerPress.

Graham,J.W.(1991).Servant‐leadershipinorganizations:Inspirationalandmoral.

LeadershipQuarterly,2(2),105‐119.

Greenleaf,R.K.(1991).Theservantasleader.Westfield,IN:TheGreenleafCenterfor

ServantLeadership.

Greenleaf,R.K.(1996a).Thesearch.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.Spears(Eds.),Onbecoming

aservantleader(pp.31‐40).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐BassInc.

Greenleaf,R.K.(1996b).Therequirementsofresponsibility.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.

Spears(Eds.),Onbecomingaservantleader(pp.41‐52).SanFrancisco,CA:

Josey‐BassInc.

83

Greenleaf,R.K.(1996c).Thepracticeofopenness.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.Spears(Eds.),

Onbecomingaservantleader(pp.65‐72).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐BassInc.

Greenleaf,R.K.(1996d).Thefutureisnow.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.Spears(Eds.),On

becomingaservantleader(pp.73‐80).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐BassInc.

Greenleaf,R.K.(1996e).Purposeandlaughter.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.Spears(Eds.),On

becomingaservantleader(pp.91‐98).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐BassInc.

Greenleaf,R.K.(1996f).Businessethicsandmanipulation.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.

Spears(Eds.),Onbecomingaservantleader(pp.109‐126).SanFrancisco,CA:

Josey‐BassInc.

Greenleaf,R.K.(1996g).Coercion,manipulation,andpersuasion:Reflectionsona

strategyforchange.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.Spears(Eds.),Onbecomingaservant

leader(pp.127‐148).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐BassInc.

Greenleaf,R.K.(1996h).Buildingtheethicofstrengthinbusiness.InD.M.Frick,&

L.C.Spears(Eds.),Onbecomingaservantleader(pp.163‐176).SanFrancisco,

CA:Josey‐BassInc.

Greenleaf,R.K.(1996j).Thecrisisofleadership.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.Spears(Eds.),

Onbecomingaservantleader(pp.287‐297).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐BassInc.

Greenleaf,R.K.(1996k).Thestrategiesofaleader.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.Spears(Eds.),

Onbecomingaservantleader(pp.299‐311).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐BassInc.

Greenleaf,R.K.(1996m).Leadershipandtheunknown.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.Spears

(Eds.),Onbecomingaservantleader(pp.313‐316).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐

BassInc.

84

Greenleaf,R.K.(1996n).Leadershipandforesight.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.Spears(Eds.),

Onbecomingaservantleader(pp.317‐326).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐BassInc.

Greenleaf,R.K.(1996o).Theindividualasleader.InD.M.Frick,&L.C.Spears(Eds.),

Onbecomingaservantleader(pp.327‐338).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐BassInc.

Guba,E.G.(1981).ERIC/ECTJAnnualreviewpaper:Criteriaforassessingthe

trustworthinessofnaturalisticinquiries.EducationalCommunicationand

Technology,29(2),75‐91.

Janesick,V.J.(1994).Thedanceofqualitativeresearch.InN.K.Denzin,&Y.S.Lincoln

(Eds.),Handbookofqualitativeresearch(pp.209‐219).ThousandOaks,CA:

SagePublications.

Jaworski,J.(1998).Destinyandtheleader.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),Insightson

leadership:Service,stewardship,spirit,andservant­leadership(pp.258‐267).

NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.

Jaworski,J.(2002).Synchronicityandservant‐leadership.InL.C.Spears&M.

Lawrence(Eds.),Focusonleadership:Servant­leadershipforthetwenty­first

century(pp.287‐293).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.

Jeffries,E.(1998).Workasacalling.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),Insightsonleadership:

Service,stewardship,spirit,andservant­leadership(pp.29‐37).NewYork:

Wiley&Sons,Inc.

Jones,M.(2002).Servant‐leadershipandtheimaginativelife.InL.C.Spears&M.

Lawrence(Eds.),Focusonleadership:Servant­leadershipforthetwenty­first

century(pp.35‐45).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.

85

Keith,K.M.(2008).Thecaseforservantleadership.Westfield,IN:TheGreenleaf

CenterforServantLeadership.

Kim,D.H.(2004).Foresightasthecentralethicofleadership.InL.C.Spears,&M.

Lawrence(Eds.),Practicingservant­leadership:Succeedingthroughtrust,

bravery,andforgiveness(pp.201‐224).SanFrancisco,CA:Josey‐Bass.

Lad,L.J.,&Luechauer,D.(1998).Onthepathtoservant‐leadership.InL.C.Spears

(Ed.),Insightsonleadership:Service,stewardship,spirit,andservant­leadership

(pp.54‐67).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.

Laub,J.(2003).Frompaternalismtotheservantorganization:Expandingthe

organizationalleadershipassessment(OLA)model.ServantLeadership

ResearchRoundtableProceedings.Retrievedfrom

http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/home.cfm

Liden,R.C.,Wayne,S.J.,Zhao,H.,&Henderson,D.(2008).Servantleadership:

Developmentofamultidimensionalmeasureandmulti‐levelassessment.The

LeadershipQuarterly,19(2),161‐177.

Lopez,I.O.(1995).Becomingaservant‐leader:Thepersonaldevelopmentpath.In

L.C.Spears(Ed.),ReflectionsonLeadership:HowRobertK.Greenleaf’stheoryof

servant­leadershipinfluencedtoday’stopmanagementthinkers(pp.149‐160).

NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.

McCollum,J.(1995).Chaos,complexity,andservant‐leadership.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),

ReflectionsonLeadership:HowRobertK.Greenleaf’stheoryofservant­

leadershipinfluencedtoday’stopmanagementthinkers(pp.241‐256).New

York:Wiley&Sons,Inc.

86

McCollum,J.N.(1998).Theinside‐outproposition:Finding(andkeeping)our

balanceincontemporaryorganizations.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),Insightson

leadership:Service,stewardship,spirit,andservant­leadership(pp.326‐339).

NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.

McGeeCooper,A.(1998).Accountabilityascovenant:Thetaprootofservant‐

leadership.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),Insightsonleadership:Service,stewardship,

spirit,andservant­leadership(pp.77‐84).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.

Neill,M.W.,&Saunders,N.S.(2008).Servantleadership:Enhancingqualityofcare

andstaffsatisfaction.TheJournalofNursingStudies,38(9),395‐400.

Noblit,G.W.,&Hare,R.D.(1988).Meta­ethnography:Synthesizingqualitativestudies.

NewburyPark,CA:SagePublications.

Page,D.,&Wong,P.T.P.(2000).Aconceptualframeworkformeasuringservant

leadership.InS.Adjibolooso(Ed.),Thehumanfactorinshapingthecourseof

historyanddevelopment(pp.69‐110).Washington,DC:AmericanUniversity

Press.

Palmer,P.J.(1998).Leadingfromwithin.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),Insightsonleadership:

Service,stewardship,spirit,andservant­leadership(pp.197‐208).NewYork:

Wiley&Sons,Inc.

Parolini,J.,Patterson,K.,&Winston,B.(2009).Distinguishingbetween

transformationalandservantleadership.LeadershipandOrganization

DevelopmentJournal,30(3),274‐291.

87

Patterson,K.(2003).Servantleadership:Atheoreticalmodel.ServantLeadership

ResearchRoundtableProceedings.Retrievedfrom

http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/home.cfm

Polleys,M.S.(2002).Oneuniversity’sresponsetotheanti‐leadershipvaccine:

Developingservantleaders.TheJournalofLeadershipStudies,8(3),117‐130.

Prosser,S.(2010).Servantleadership:Morephilosophy,lesstheory.Westfield,IN:

TheGreenleafCenterforServantLeadership.

Rasmussen,T.(1995).Creatingacultureofservant‐leadership:Areallifestory.In

L.C.Spears(Ed.),ReflectionsonLeadership:HowRobertK.Greenleaf’stheoryof

servant­leadershipinfluencedtoday’stopmanagementthinkers(pp.282‐297).

NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.

Rieser,C.(1995).Claimingservant‐leadershipasyourheritage.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),

ReflectionsonLeadership:HowRobertK.Greenleaf’stheoryofservant­

leadershipinfluencedtoday’stopmanagementthinkers(pp.49‐60).NewYork:

Wiley&Sons,Inc.

Rost,J.C.(1991).Leadershipforthetwenty­firstcentury.NewYork,NY:Praeger.

Russell,R.F.(2001).Theroleofvaluesinservantleadership.Leadershipand

OrganizationDevelopmentJournal,22(2),76‐83.

Russell,R.F.(2003).Apracticaltheologyofservantleadership.ServantLeadership

ResearchRoundtableProceedings.Retrievedfrom

http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/home.cfm

88

Russell,R.F.,&Stone,A.G.(2002).Areviewofservantleadershipattributes:

Developingapracticalmodel.LeadershipandOrganizationDevelopment

Journal,23(3),145‐157.

SanFacon,G.,&Spears,L.C.(2008).HolisticServant­leadership.Indianapolis,IN:The

SpearsCenterforServantLeadership.

Sendjaya,S.(2003).Developmentandvalidationofservantleadershipbehaviour

scale.ServantLeadershipResearchRoundtable,Retrievedfrom

https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/home.cfm

Sendjaya,S.,&Sarros,J.C.(2002).Servantleadership:Itsorigin,development,and

applicationinorganizations.JournalofLeadershipandOrganizationalStudies,

9(2),57‐64.

Sendjaya,S.,Sarros,J.C.,&Santora,J.C.(2008).Definingandmeasuringservant

leadershipbehaviourinorganizations.JournalofManagementStudies,45(2),

402‐424.

Senge,P.M.(1995).RobertGreenleaf’slegacy:Anewfoundationfortwenty‐first

centuryinstitutions.InL.C.Spears(Ed.),ReflectionsonLeadership:HowRobert

K.Greenleaf’stheoryofservant­leadershipinfluencedtoday’stopmanagement

thinkers(pp.217‐240).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.

Shank,G.D.(2006).Qualitativeresearch:Apersonalskillsapproach(2ndEd.).Upper

SaddleRiver,NJ:PearsonEducation,Inc.

Sherman,R.R.,&Webb,R.B.(1988).Qualitativeresearchineducation:Afocus.In

R.R.Sherman,&R.B.Webb(Eds.),Qualitativeresearchineducation:Focusand

methods(pp.2‐21).Philadelphia,PA:TheFalmerPress.

89

Sipe,J.W.,&Frick,D.M.(2009).Sevenpillarsofservant­leadership:Practicingthe

wisdomofleadingbyserving.Mahwah,NJ:PaulistPress.

Smith,R.W.(1995).Servant‐leadership:Apathwaytotheemergingterritory.InL.C.

Spears(Ed.),ReflectionsonLeadership:HowRobertK.Greenleaf’stheoryof

servant­leadershipinfluencedtoday’stopmanagementthinkers(pp.198‐213).

NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.

Spears,L.C.(1995).Introduction:Servant‐leadershipandtheGreenleaflegacy.In

L.C.Spears(Ed.),ReflectionsonLeadership:HowRobertK.Greenleaf’stheoryof

servant­leadershipinfluencedtoday’stopmanagementthinkers(pp.1‐14).New

York:Wiley&Sons,Inc.

Spears,L.C.(1998).Introduction:Tracingthegrowingimpactofservant‐leadership.

InL.C.Spears(Ed.),Insightsonleadership:Service,stewardship,spirit,and

servant­leadership(pp.1‐12).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.

Stanton,T.K.,Giles,D.E.,&Cruz,N.I.(1999).Service­learning:Amovementspioneers

reflectonitsorigins,practice,andfuture.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey‐BassInc.

Stone,A.G.,Russell,R.F.,&Patterson,K.(2004).Transformationalversusservant

leadership:Adifferenceinleaderfocus.LeadershipandOrganization

DevelopmentJournal,25(4),349‐361.

VanDierendonck,D.(2011).Servantleadership:Areviewandsynthesis.Journalof

Management,37(4),1228­1261.

Wallace,J.R.(2007).Servantleadership:Aworldviewperspective.International

JournalofLeadershipStudies,2(2),114‐132.

90

Washington,R.R.,Sutton,C.D.,&Field,H.S.(2006).Individualdifferencesinservant

leadership:Therolesofvaluesandpersonality.LeadershipandOrganization

DevelopmentJournal,27(8),700‐716.

Wheatley,M.J.(1998).Whatisourwork?InL.C.Spears(Ed.),Insightsonleadership:

Service,stewardship,spirit,andservant­leadership(pp.340‐351).NewYork:

Wiley&Sons,Inc.

Wheatley,M.J.(1999).Servant‐leadershipandcommunityleadershipinthe21st

century.Keynoteaddress,TheRobertK.GreenleafCenterforServantLeadership

AnnualConference,June1999,retrievedfrom

http://www.margaretwheatley.com/articles/servantleader.html

Wheatley,M.(2006).Leadershipandthenewscience:Discoveringorderinachaotic

world.SanFrancisco,CA:Berrett‐KoehlerPublishers.

Zohar,D.(2002).Servant‐leadershipandrewiringthecorporatebrain.InL.C.

Spears&M.Lawrence(Eds.),Focusonleadership:Servant­leadershipforthe

twenty­firstcentury(pp.111‐121).NewYork:Wiley&Sons,Inc.