Using Servant Leadership

Angelo J. Letizia

• Publisher: Rutgers University Press
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9780813587363
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Higher Education

Using Servant Leadership provides an instructive guide for how faculty members can engage in servant leadership with administrators, students, and community members. By utilizing a wide range of research and through a series of case studies, Angelo J. Letizia demonstrates how, with a bit of creative thinking, the ideals of servant leadership can work even in the fractious, cash-strapped world of contemporary higher education. Furthermore, he considers how these concepts can be implemented in pedagogy, research, strategic planning, accountability, and assessment. This book points the way to a more humane university, one that truly serves the public good.

1

What Is Servant Leadership?

What does it mean to serve another human being? How does one human being help another human being grow and develop? What exactly is growth, and how do we measure it? These questions all point to the phenomenon of servant leadership, which has emerged over the last forty years due chiefly to the writings of Robert Greenleaf. Greenleaf argued leadership could be conceived of as service to followers. For Greenleaf (2002), the most important test of servant leadership is “Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become heathier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants?” Greenleaf (2002) did not just view servant leadership as an individual phenomenon, however; he also called for the ideas of servant leadership to transform institutions.

The terms “servant” and “leader” are opposed in some sense; thus the idea of servant leadership is paradoxical (SanFacon and Spears 2011; Spears 2004). Yet as SanFacon and Spears (2011) note, when opposites join, paradoxes ensue and can open our eyes to new, previously unknown ideas. The new possibility is a leader who serves (Spears 2004). As Greenleaf noted, servant leaders want to serve before they want to lead. In contrast, leaders who lead first may simply have a desire for power (Greenleaf 2002). Greenleaf called these leaders “leader-first,” and for them, leading comes before serving. Of course, as Greenleaf (2002) notes, in real life leaders usually fall into a number of complex gradations between these two concepts of leadership. Greenleaf’s voluminous work set in motion the ideas and research for servant leadership that spans until the present day.

Servant leadership may sound too good to be true. However, many other philosophers and thinkers throughout the ages have postulated ideas that, while largely unattainable, were nonetheless important because they pushed others’ thinking forward and in new directions. In his study of the Frankfurt school in midcentury Germany, Jay (1996) notes how many of the members of the school understood that their utopian ideas, which centered on building the perfect society, were largely unattainable. Nevertheless, this did not deter them; in fact, they realized that even though unattainable, they had to pursue these utopian ideas to give hope in volatile times. This sentiment animates this entire book. The point is that while the ideas of servant leadership may be unattainable, this is even more reason to pursue them. Servant leadership can provide hope in our own volatile time.

The Research on Servant Leadership

Servant leadership is a complex idea, incorporating a variety of different facets (Parris and Peachey 2013; van Dierendonck 2011; Winston and Fields 2015). As Parris and Peachey (2013), van Dierendonck (2011), and Winston and Fields (2015) argue, there is not much agreement upon a definition of servant leadership. Of course, as Hernandez and colleagues (2011) note, there is much variation in the definitions of leadership in general. Van Dierendonck (2011) surveyed a number of prominent measurement instruments over the last two decades. Pousa (2014) surveyed a variety of instruments to measure various aspects of servant leadership spanning from 1999 until 2011. In short, over the last fifteen years or so, scholars have theorized and tested a number of facets of servant leadership, some of which I review below. These varied studies point in a number of directions and offer potential for the study of servant leadership, but many questions remain.

After Greenleaf, Larry Spears is probably the most impactful scholar of servant leadership (Parris and Peachey 2013; Pousa 2014; van Dierendonck 2011). Spears (1995:4–7) furthered the work of Robert Greenleaf by elaborating ten attributes that servant leaders should possess: listening, empathy, healing (helping to mend people’s brokenness and pain), awareness (includes awareness of the situation and self-awareness), persuasion (as opposed to coercion), conceptualization (being able to “dream great dreams”), foresight (drawing on experience, understanding the likelihood of future events), stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006; Pousa 2014). Spears’s early work in the 1990s represented one of the first coherent frameworks for servant leadership (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006; Pousa 2014). Spears’s ten attributes, which were created not by a literature review but by drawing on his experience, helped to lay the groundwork for most of the later studies of servant leadership (Pousa 2014).

Parris and Peachey (2013) note that in 1999, Farling, Stone, and Winston (1999) urged scholars to undertake empirical studies on servant leadership, which until that time had largely been non-empirical (Winston 2010). A number of scholars heeded this call (Parris and Peachey 2013). Following Spears, other scholars began to put forth operational definitions of servant leadership (Pousa 2014). Later, Pousa (2014) noted that scholars began to create measurement instruments. Parris and Peachey (2013) also note that a measurement strand developed, as well as a strand of model development. Not surprisingly, Pousa (2014) observed that a progression of servant leadership research has occurred; essentially, models have grown more complex and sophisticated. In addition, there is variability in the definition and understanding of servant leadership, and there is a high degree of overlap (Pousa 2014; van Dierendonck 2011). (Due to this overlap and to avoid redundancy, I have not defined every dimension of servant leadership articulated in every study.) Pousa (2014) and van Dierendonck (2011) have provided some excellent summaries and classifications of the more prominent studies of servant leadership, which helped to guide my thinking.

Definitions of Servant Leadership

As noted above, Spears was the first to pin down a list of attributes for servant leaders and overlapping definitions followed (Pousa 2014). Pousa (2014) notes that Laub also articulated a definition as well as a measurement instrument; I focus on the instrument to avoid redundancy.

Russell and Stone (2002) sought to create a model for servant leadership from existing studies (Pousa 2014). Beginning with Spears’s ten attributes, Russell and Stone (2002:147) articulated twenty attributes of servant leaders, which they further delineated into what they labeled as nine functional attributes (vision, honesty, integrity, trust, service, modeling, pioneering, appreciation of others, and empowerment) and eleven accompanying attributes (communication, credibility, competence, stewardship, visibility, influence, persuasion, listening, encouragement, teaching, and delegation). The functional attributes are the core attributes, and the accompanying attributes help to complete the core attributes (Pousa 2014; Russell and Stone 2002). Russell and Stone (2002) note that the idea of servant leadership can promote individual and organizational change. Some later scholars examined servant leadership in both individual and organizational contexts (Hunter et al. 2013).

Patterson (2003, 2010) calls attention to the notion of love and its role in servant leadership. Patterson calls this agapao love. Patterson (2010:68) stresses that agapao love is moral in nature, and she calls it “the cornerstone of the servant-follower relationship.” Dennis and Bocarnea, (2005:602), following Winston (2002), argue that agapao love is “love in a social or moral sense.” Again, following Winston, Dennis and Bocarnea (2005) note that in this type of love, leaders always treat people as ends in themselves, never as a means to the leaders’ own ends. Patterson (2010) stresses that leading with love allows subordinates to develop and grow and engage in risk-taking. Patterson presented a unique model of servant leadership that consists of seven “constructs” (Dennis and Bocarnea 2005; Patterson 2003; Pousa 2014): agapao love, humility, altruism, vision, trust, empowerment, and service (Dennis and Bocarnea 2005:601–602). Further, these are not dimensions in the normal sense. Rather, each construct builds off each other (Pousa 2014).

Instruments of Measurement

Jim Laub created the Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) in the late 1990s, which derived from his dissertation (Parris and Peachey 2013; Pousa, 2014). Laub’s tool gauges organizational health in six areas: values people, develops people, builds community, displays authenticity, provides leadership, and shares leadership (Laub 2017; Parris and Peachey 2013:383). Drawing from the OLA Group (Laub 2017), Parris and Peachey (2013) note that Laub’s research focused on servant leadership as an organizational quality, as opposed to an individual attribute. Parris and Peachey (2013) note that behind Greenleaf and Spears, Laub is the most highly cited author for servant leadership studies.

Wong and Page first created the Servant Leadership Profile in 2000 (van Dierendonck 2011), then revised it and developed the Revised Servant Leadership Profile (Pousa 2014; Wong and Page 2003). This instrument measures servant leadership attributes such as team-building, visioning, empowering others, and integrity, to name a few (Wong and Page 2003:4). Their study also calls attention to phenomena in organizations that can act as barriers to servant leadership: egotism and hierarchy. Wong and Page (2003:8) call egotism and hierarchy “the evil twins, which have consistently hindered and undermined the implementation of SL [servant leadership].” This attention to the barriers of servant leadership is important, and unfortunately these barriers are all too prevalent in contemporary society (Wong and Page 2003).

Drawing on the ideas of leadership scholar Max DePree (2002), Dennis and Bocarnea (2005) argue that leaders need ideas to help frame and ground their understanding in moral terms. Patterson’s constructs can be this type of moral guide for leaders (Dennis and Bocarnea 2005). Dennis and Bocarnea (2005) expanded on Patterson’s work by creating an instrument that measured Patterson’s constructs and which ultimately allows servant leaders to gauge their own effectiveness. Dennis and Bocarnea (2005:601) argue that Patterson’s constructs help to “define servant leaders, shaping their attitudes, characteristics and behavior.”

Barbuto and Wheeler (2006:300) found support for five factors of servant leadership: altruistic calling, emotional healing, persuasive mapping, wisdom, and organizational stewardship. Altruistic calling entails leaders wanting to influence others’ lives in beneficial ways. Emotional healing is described as being able to help people recover from despair and difficulties they experience. Wisdom entails an anticipation of possible future actions and an understanding of one’s current environment and situation (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006). Persuasive mapping is “mapping issues and conceptualizing greater possibilities” for organizational members (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006:319). Finally, organizational stewardship calls for leaders to help their organizations leave a beneficial legacy (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006).

Liden and colleagues (2008), following a number of earlier scholars, elaborated and found support for seven dimensions to the construct of servant leadership: emotional healing, creating value for the community, conceptual skills (understanding what needs to be done and assisting others to do it), empowering (facilitating followers), helping subordinates grow and succeed, putting subordinates first, and behaving ethically (Liden et al. 2008:162, 173). Liden and colleagues (2008) developed the SL-28, a twenty-eight-item scale that measures dimensions of servant leadership. Liden and colleagues (2015) reduced the original twenty-eight-item scale to a seven-item scale (the SL-7). Liden and colleagues’ (2008) instrument also examines servant leadership on the individual and group levels for a variety of phenomena (Hunter et al. 2013).

Sendjaya, Sarros, and Santora (2008) created the Servant Leader Behavior Scale. As Sendjaya (2010) notes, this instrument is unique in the servant leadership literature because it adds a spiritual dimension to servant leadership (Pousa 2014). This book draws on the spiritual (but not fundamentalist or dogmatic) aspect of servant leadership, and thus Sendjaya and colleagues’ instrument is especially important to the present work. As such, I delve a little more deeply into this instrument.

The Servant Leader Behavior Scale consists of six dimensions: voluntary subordination, authentic self, covenantal relationship, responsible morality, transcendental spirituality, and transforming influence (Sendjaya, Sarros, and Santora 2008:409). Sendjaya and colleagues (2008), following Foster (1989), argue that an element of voluntary subordination entails a leader serving others out of need, not simply when it suits the leader. Following McGee-Cooper and Looper (2001) and Swindoll (1981), Sendjaya and colleagues (2008) argue that the next dimension, authentic self, entails leading with humility. The third dimension, covenantal relationship, is rooted in positive relationships between followers and leaders. Following Marshall (1991), Sendjaya and colleagues (2008:407) argue that an important consideration of covenantal relationship is the notion of “radical equality,” which entails equal relationships between leaders and followers. Further, following Daft and Lengel (2000), Sendjaya and colleagues (2008) note that relationships between leader and followers should allow followers to thrive and create new ideas. The next dimension is that of responsible morality, which is centered on ethical behaviors of leaders.

Transcendental spirituality is the next dimension. This dimension calls attention to the role of a servant leader in increasingly meaning-starved organizations (Sendjaya, Sarros, and Santora 2008). Sendjaya and colleagues (2008:408), following Fairholm (1997) and Mitroff and Denton (1999), argue that “servant leadership responds to the needs of individuals whose lives in today’s modern workplace are often characterized by disconnectedness, compartmentalization and disorientation.” The notion of meaningful work is especially important for this book. Too many times students seek the credential, or professors seek the publication, without paying attention to the work that is actually done. The work that students, professors, administrators, staff, coaches, and all in higher education achieve should be meaningful and a record of achievement, and not achievement in a competitive manner, but as a record of contribution. The notion of meaningful work, and, more important, of conceiving of helping people (students, professors, and so forth) to produce meaningful work as an act of service is foundational to this book. Transforming influence in the final dimension in Sendjaya and colleagues’ (2008) model. Following Greenleaf, this dimension focuses on how servant leaders positively transform people and create more servant leaders (Sendjaya, Sarros, and Santora 2008).

Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) developed the servant leadership survey (SLS). This instrument included eight dimensions of servant leadership: empowerment, accountability, standing back, humility, authenticity, courage, interpersonal acceptance, and stewardship (Pousa 2014). One important aspect of the Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) scale is that of accountability, which they argue has been neglected in many other measurement scales. Following Conger (1989), Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) describe accountability as fostering a sense of responsibility for one’s actions over which one has control.

Other Relevant Works

A central question of servant leadership is perhaps the basic question of what is it? Another question is how do you do it? This is a question of implementation. A notable work of implementation is Sipe and Frick’s (2015) work: Seven Pillars of Servant Leadership: Practicing the Wisdom of Leading by Serving. This work mainly focuses on business and the for-profit sector. Sipe and Frick (2015:7) took Spears’s ten characteristics and used them to create a framework, which in their words “will enable you to acquire, master and measure the knowledge, skills and abilities of a Servant-Leader.” This contention, the idea of implementation and practical usage of servant leadership, is also at the heart of this book as well. The fundamental question is how does one actually practice servant leadership?

Sipe and Frick (2015:5–6) categorized Spears’s ideas into a seven-part framework: person of character, puts people first, skilled communicator, compassionate collaborator, has foresight, systems thinker, and leads with moral authority. The seven principles are then further broken down into seven subpoints. The subpoints, following Sipe and Frick (2015:5–6), are: person of character is broken down into maintains integrity, demonstrates humility, and serves a higher purpose. Puts people first is broken down into displays a servant’s heart, is mentor minded, and shows care and concern. Skilled communicator is broken down into demonstrates empathy, invites feedback, and communicates persuasively. Compassionate collaborator is broken down into expresses appreciation, builds teams and communities, and negotiates conflict. Has foresight is broken down into visionary, displays creativity, and takes courageous and decisive action. Systems thinker is broken down into comfortable with complexity, demonstrates adaptability, and considers the greater good. Leads with moral authority is broken down into accepts and delegates responsibility, shares power and control, and creates a culture of accountability.

While the above characteristics share many similarities with characteristics in other studies, the notion of systems thinker is important for this book. This pillar of servant leadership moves the servant leader out of the realm of individual action and toward organizational and systemic understandings. As Sipe and Frick (2015) point out, servant leaders who are systems thinkers can situate the actions of individuals in a much wider organizational context. This sentiment is crucial for servant leadership. Contemporary organizations are complex, and servant leaders must be cognizant of this complexity and situate individual action, others’ and their own, within it (Sipe and Frick 2015).

Each chapter in their book examines the seven principles and its subpoints in detail. Sipe and Frick’s (2015) work is a work of implementation. However, they note, “Servant Leadership cannot be implemented with a few memos and pep talks” (Sipe and Frick 2015:13). Rather, effective implementation “requires a dedicated effort of study, skill practice, feedback, and reflection about your deepest values” (Sipe and Frick 2015:13). Following this sentiment, my book can only act as a rough guideline. Sipe and Frick (2015) also note that most servant leaders will not be able to embody all of these traits at all times. This admission speaks to something larger; no one, not even servant leaders, is perfect. Servant leaders have faults and make bad decisions. This is also an important point to keep in mind when practicing and implementing servant leadership.

Van Dierendonck (2011) put forth a conceptual model that synthesized a number of recent research studies. As van Dierendonck (2011:1232) explains, this model is important because it distinguishes “between antecedents, behaviors, mediating processes and outcomes” that have been unclear in earlier studies. Van Dierendonck (2011:1243) argues that at the root of his proposed servant leadership model is the “need to serve combined with a motivation to lead.” Further, the servant leader embodies certain individual characteristics, such as self-determination and moral development. Van Dierendonck (2011) also explores the roles of national cultures. He notes that certain cultures may be more conducive to servant leadership, such as more caring cultures. Next, he (2011:1232–1234) observes that servant leaders perform certain actions such as empowering people, showing humility, being authentic, accepting people, providing direction, and being stewards. Through mediating factors of relationships and a positive organizational climate, individual outcomes aligned with servant leadership, such as positive job satisfaction and engagement; performance outcomes, such as positive organizational citizenship; and organizational outcomes, such as sustainability can emerge (van Dierendonck 2011:1233).

A note on terminology. Throughout this book, I refer to organizational culture as opposed to organizational climate. As Bess and Dee (2012) note, organizational culture is much more entrenched and evidenced by observation, whereas organizational climate is less entrenched and evidenced by people’s perceptions (obtained in interviews and surveys). Many studies show that servant leadership can promote positive organizational climate (Walumbwa, Hartnell, and Oke 2010; Black 2010). Obviously, culture and climate are related. Nevertheless, for consistency, I focus on studies that reference organizational culture.

The distinction between behaviors and outcomes is especially useful for servant leaders to help bring about change and conceptualize their actions. Following van Dierendonck (2011), certain activities in this book can be conceived of as a behavior or behaviors to bring about certain outcomes. As I explain in each chapter, each aspect of ...