SERVICE AND HUMILITY IN CRISIS LEADERSHIP:

INTRIGUING THEORIES, BUT DO THEY ACTUALLY

PRODUCE RESULTS?
ABSTRACT

In times of crisis, people turn to leaders for guidance and inspiration. Literature theorizes that
servant leaders might be particularly effective in times of crisis (Greenleaf, 1977). “Ego works
in the face of genuine crisis” (Greenleaf, p.6), indicating that the subjugation of the ego into
service to followers is more effective in navigating crisis. However, there is not yet any
published empirical evidence to support that theory. The purpose of this research was to identify
the leaders that people turn to in crisis, and then ascertain the type and effectiveness of that
leadership. Utilizing the definition of a leader as anyone who influences the thoughts and
behaviors of others (Sims, 2002), this leader could be one with formal authority or one with no
formal authority.  Participants were asked to identify the person that they turned to in a specific
time of crisis. They were then asked to evaluate the effectiveness of those leader during the time
of crisis. Finally, they assessed the servant leadership and level 5 leadership behaviors exhibited
by each of the leaders. Servant leadership was measured utilizing the ten item Essential Servant
Leader Behaviors instrument from Winston and Fields (2015), and level 5 leadership was
measured utilizing the ten item Level 5 Leadership instrument by Reid (2012). An analysis of the
data shows that each of these leadership types is effective in crisis, but that level 5 leadership
has the strongest relationship with success.

Keywords: Level 5 leadership, servant leadership, crisis, turbulence, humility

 SERVICE AND HUMILITY IN CRISIS LEADERSHIP:

INTRIGUING THEORIES, BUT DO THEY ACTUALLY

PRODUCE RESULTS?

A new generation of leadership experts are intrigued by leaders who subvert their own
ego-centric behaviors for the good of their organization or followers [ CITATION Chi16 \l 1033 ]. In
the business world, level 5 leadership captured the attention of a generation of business leaders in
Good to Great [CITATION Placeholder3 \t \l 1033 ] . In academia, servant leadership is the construct
that has attracted the attention of many researchers [CITATION Chi16 \y \t \l 1033 ] . These
constructs are also particularly popular with Christian leaders and researchers because of their
consistency with the life and teachings of Jesus [ CITATION She06 \l 1033 ] . Recent research has
shown that these humble leaders have a positive impact on their personal performance and on
their teams [CITATION Reg17 \m Rei17 \t \l 1033 ]
Collins introduced level 5 leadership in Good to Great [CITATION Col01 \n \t \l 1033 ], one
of the best-selling and seminal business books of this generation [ CITATION Cov11 \l 1033 ]. In his
research, Collins found that all of the companies that rose from good to great were led by humble
CEOs who had "an absolute, obsessed, burning, compulsive ambition for the organization"
[CITATION Col09 \t \l 1033 ].
Greenleaf introduced the concept of servant leadership in the modern era: “The servant-
leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first.
Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead” [CITATION Gre77 \p 27 \t \l 1033 ] . Its focus on
the needs of followers is increasingly being presented as a desirable approach in meeting modern
organizational challenges, especially among millennial employees [CITATION Pat031 \m Van11 \m
Bro15 \m Rei17 \t \l 1033 ].
Although it has often been suggested that level 5 leadership and servant leadership may
actually be the same, each construct has a unique focus [CITATION Sto04 \m Col01 \t \m Rei14 \l
1033 ]. Servant leaders focus on serving their followers, so that organizational objectives are
subordinate [ CITATION Sto04 \l 1033 ]. Collins stated that level 5 leaders are different than servant
leaders because they are in service to their organization or cause, not their followers [CITATION
She06 \m Rei17 \t \l 1033 ].

While Reid [CITATION Rei17 \n \t \l 1033 ] showed that level 5 and servant leadership are
positively related to a follower’s perception of boss results, one might wonder if the relationship
holds in crisis. Perhaps an authoritarian leader or ego-centric leader would be more effective in
leading an organization out of crisis. Literature theorizes that servant leaders might be
particularly effective in crisis (Greenleaf, 1977). “Ego works in the face of genuine crisis”
(Greenleaf, p.6), indicating that the subjugation of the ego into service to followers is more
effective in navigating turbulent times. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the follower’s
perception of the effectiveness of level 5 and servant leadership for leaders in a time of crisis.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
Level 5 Leadership
Level 5 leadership is unique in research because it was popularized in a best-selling
business book that only contained one chapter on leadership. It has not been popular in
academia. The lack of scholarly research is likely due to the historical lack of a validated
instrument to measure it. A validated instrument was developed in 2012, but has not yet been
widely utilized [ CITATION Rei12 \l 1033 \m Rei14].
Collins [CITATION Col01 \n \t \l 1033 ] provided the primary literature surrounding Level 5
leadership. In addition to the introduction of the term in Good to Great, Collins followed with
diverse journal and popular press articles in publications that included Harvard Business Review
[CITATION Col05 \t \m Col011 \t \l 1033 ] , Strategy and Leadership [ CITATION Fin11 \l 1033 ], and
Newsweek (McGinn & Silver-Greenberg, 2005), among others. In addition, he published three
videos and 16 audio clips regarding Level 5 leadership on his web site, www.jimcollins.com, and
he provided interviews and presentations that he made available on YouTube [CITATION Col09
\t \m Col11 \t \m Col \t \l 1033 ] . The following sections provide an overview of the literature
regarding the two constructs of Level 5 leadership: personal humility and professional will.
Personal Humility. Collins [CITATION Col01 \n \t \l 1033 ] identified the first construct of
level 5 leadership as personal humility. To define personal humility, he simply described what it
looked like in some of the CEOs that led their organizations to greatness. He described Darwin
Smith of Kimberly-Clark as a shy man who lacked of any pretense or air of self-importance.
Smith reportedly felt unqualified to accept the job of CEO, and at his retirement 20 years later,
he said that “he never stopped trying to become qualified for the job” [CITATION Wic97 \p 10 \l
1033 ]. Colman Mockler was described as a quiet, reserved, courteous, gracious gentleman, with
a placid persona. David Maxwell was an advocate first and foremost for the company and not for
himself. Ken Iverson’s lifestyle was simple, humble, and modest. The Level 5 leaders did not
talk about themselves, but when others talked about them they said it wasn’t false modesty. They
used words like “quiet, humble, modest, reserved, shy, gracious, mild mannered, self-effacing,
understated, did not believe his own clippings; and so forth” [CITATION Col01 \p 27 \t \l 1033 ] .
Additionally, he categorized Level 5 leaders as selfless, servant leaders.
As Collins’ research team was searching for a term to describe this new type of
leadership seen in the good-to-great companies, there was discussion regarding calling it
“servant leadership”. According to Collins [CITATION Placeholder3 \n \t \l 1033 ] , however,
members of the team violently objected to these characterizations. “Those labels don’t ring true. .
. . It makes them sound weak or meek, but that is not at all the way that I think of Darwin Smith
or Colman Mockler. They would do almost anything to make the company great” [CITATION
Placeholder3 \p 30 \n \y \t \l 1033 ].
Although people in the organization, as well as outside observers, credited the Level 5
leaders as the key to elevating their companies from good to great, these leaders did not accept
the credit and often credited luck. Collins [CITATION Col01 \n \t \l 1033 ] summarized a Level 5
leader as one who
 …demonstrates a compelling modesty, shunning public adulation; never boastful... Acts
with quiet, calm determination; relies principally on inspired standards, not inspiring
charisma, to motivate... Channels ambition into the company, not the self; sets up
successors for even greater success in the next generation... Looks out the window, not in
the mirror, to apportion credit for the success of the company – to other people, external
factors, and good luck. [CITATION Col01 \p 36 \n \y \t \l 1033 ]
Collins concluded that humility serves as a key to successful leadership, since “we cannot
see something from the perspective of another if we do not have deep humility, because without
it we impose our own perspective or analyze things from our own perspective only; we will not
see the other person’s viewpoint” [CITATION Ser11 \p 396 \l 1033 ] . Similarly, leaders must
reassess their roles regarding practice and power within the organization, and the organization
must consider whether their leaders recognize and appreciate the implications of their power
[ CITATION Gol00 \l 1033 ].

Professional Will. Ten years after the publication of Good to Great, Collins
acknowledged that his description of Level 5 leaders "focused heavily on the humility aspect"
[CITATION Col111 \p 32 \l 1033 ]. However, he and Hanson further concluded that the most
important trait of Level 5 leaders includes that they serve as "incredibly ambitious, but their
ambition is first and foremost for the cause, for the company, for the work, not themselves"
[CITATION Col111 \p 32 \y \t \l 1033 ] . Although Collins and secondary writers have dwelt more
on personal humility in leaders because it seems to appear as a novel concept in the corporate
world, Level 5 leadership presents as equal parts humility and “ferocious resolve, an almost stoic
determination to do whatever needs to be done to make the company great” [CITATION Col01 \p 30
\t \l 1033 ]. After describing Darwin Smith’s personal humility, Collins stated, "if you were to
think of Darwin Smith as somehow meek or soft, you would be terribly mistaken. His awkward
shyness and lack of pretense was coupled with a fierce, even stoic resolve toward life" [CITATION
Col01 \p 18 \t \l 1033 ]. He coupled this intense, ferocious resolve with an incredible work ethic
(Collins, 2001). Likewise, he described Colman Mockler as a strong and tireless fighter with an
inner intensity to make whatever he touched the best that it could be. He categorized David
Maxwell as ambitious for the company and not himself. In that regard, he said: "Level 5 leaders
are fanatically driven, infected with an incurable need to produce results" [CITATION Col01 \p 30 \t
\l 1033 ]. Level 5 leaders have a workmanlike diligence. They serve as clear catalysts in the
transitions from good to great, and they set the standard of greatness. They will settle for nothing
less.
Research of Level 5 Leadership. The methodology that Collins used in Good to Great
[CITATION Col01 \n \t \l 1033 ] to develop level 5 leadership has been criticized for a variety of
reasons, including the lack of disconfirming research that would show how many companies that
did not make the leap to greatness were also led by level 5 leaders [ CITATION May06 \l 1033 ] and
the small sample size of 11 CEOs of great companies from which to draw conclusions [ CITATION
Nei08 \l 1033 \m Ren08], According to Sutton, “Although there are thousands of rigorous peer
reviewed studies that are directly on the issues he studies -- he never mentions any of them to
further bolster or refine his arguments” (2008, p. 1). For example, he states that charisma is
negatively correlated to effective leadership and that it is a handicap that a leader must overcome
[CITATION Col09 \t \l 1033 ] . However, this conclusion is based on a sample size of 11 great
companies and 11 comparison companies and it is at odds with numerous studies that show
charisma is positively correlated to effective leadership [ CITATION DeG00 \l 1033 \m Rei12].
 Since Collins did not provide a validated instrument with which to measure level 5
leaders, additional research has been problematic. However, a 10-item validated instrument
known as the Level 5 Leadership Scale (L5LS) is now available for academic research to build
upon the anecdotal observations of Collins [CITATION Rei12 \t \m Rei14 \l 1033 ]. The items are:
 Personal Humility
o Genuine
o Humble
o A team player
o Servant attitude
o Doesn’t seek the spotlight
 Professional Will
o Intense resolve
o Dedication to the organization
o A clear catalyst in achieving results
o Strong work ethic
o Self-motivated
The Level 5 Leadership Scale was developed by starting with an expert panel that
reviewed 99 attributes described by Collins and validated 74 as being unique and valid for a
scale. Then 349 participants evaluated their bosses on a 10-point, semantic differential scale for
each of the 74 attributes. Literature reviews have suggested that Level 5 leadership and servant
leadership represent the same concept, thus a 10-item servant leadership scale from Winston and
Fields [CITATION Win15 \n \t \l 1033 ] was used to check for concurrent validity. Additionally,
Collins proposed eight untested questions to determine if individuals qualify as Level 5 leaders.
Principle component analysis resulted in two factors that explained 55.2% of the variance and
these factors matched Collins' proposed personal humility and professional will constructs. The
final instrument contains five attributes of personal humility and five attributes of professional
will that yield Cronbach alphas of .83 and .85, respectively. The analysis also revealed
statistically significant positive relationships between the Level 5 attributes, servant leadership,
and a single factor that represented Collins's eight questions [ CITATION Rei14 \l 1033 ]. Since
Collins provided only a vague description of the level of personal humility and professional will,
Reid set a scoring criteria of 7.5 on the 10-point scale to represent the mid-point between an
average and a perfect response from the participant. Based on the responses from the original
349 participants, 31% of leaders were identified as level 5 leaders [ CITATION Rei12 \l 1033 ].
Servant Leadership
Greenleaf (1970, 1977) observed that the focus of servant leadership is on the
development and performance of the follower [CITATION Win15 \t \l 1033 ] and described the
motivation behind the desire to lead:
The servant-leader is servant first. . . . It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to
serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply
different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual
power drive or to acquire material possessions. For such it will be a later choice to serve
—after leadership is established. The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme
types.. . . The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make
 sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. [CITATION Gre77 \p 13 \t \l
1033 ]
Following the introduction of servant leadership into modern leadership research by
Greenleaf, studies have sought to define measures to quantify the attributes of a servant leader
[CITATION Den05 \m Placeholder2 \t \m Win03 \t \m Win15 \t \l 1033 ] . Winston and Fields
identified 10 essential servant leader behaviors:
o Practices what he or she preaches;
o Serves people without regard to their nationality, gender, or race;
o Sees serving as a mission of responsibility to others;
o Shows genuinely interested in employees as people;
o Understands that serving others is most important;
o Is willing to make sacrifices to help others;
o Seeks to instill trust rather than fear or insecurity;
o Is always honest;
o Is driven by a sense of higher calling; and
o Promotes values that transcend self-interest and material success.
These behaviors integrate the body of research on servant leadership and will be used to establish
a relationship with Level 5 leadership. Based on a review of the key attributes of servant
leadership, it seems that servant leadership does not account for the professional will element of
Level 5 leadership, but it may be the same as the construct part of personal humility within Level
5 leadership.
As the millennial generation is entering the workforce, the discussion of servant
leadership in corporate America is escalating. Organizations are moving away from traditional,
hierarchical, patriarchal, and top-down structures where employees serve their bosses. Today,
servant leadership is a more effective model for employee-centric organizations that foster
innovation, engagement, and employee well-being [ CITATION Cri05 \l 1033 \m Mag03 \m
Nwo04 \m Ser00]. Christians are particularly interested in promoting servant leadership because it
is consistent with the teachings of Jesus and his disciples (John 13:12-16, Mark 10:42-45, 1 Peter
5:1-14, Philippians 2:1-5)
Although there are some high-profile corporations such as Chick-Fil-A, Nordstrom, SAS,
and Southwest Airlines that have been very successful utilizing servant leadership, there are only
a few empirical studies that have evaluated the success of servant leaders in a business context.
Positive correlations were found between CEO performance and servant leadership [ CITATION
Pet12 \l 1033 ] and between sales manager and sales people [ CITATION Jar09 \l 1033 ] . Outside of
business leadership, positive correlations were found between elementary school teachers and
test scores [ CITATION ELA13 \l 1033 ], coaches and long distance runner performance [ CITATION
Ham12 \l 1033 ], and mixed results in health care sales performance [ CITATION Aux13 \l 1033 ].
Parris and Peachey [CITATION Par13 \n \t \l 1033 ] found that servant leadership literature
consists primarily of conceptual work, especially in terms of characteristics, measurement
development, and theoretical framework development. There is “very little continued direct
exploration of prior theoretical development for the purposes of incremental advancement of
theory” [CITATION Bro15 \p 15 \l 1033 ].
 Although level 5 and servant leadership all have unique constructs, the differences may
not be discernable to followers [ CITATION Sto04 \l 1033 ]. A common perception among business
leaders is that level 5 leadership is just another name for servant leadership [CITATION Lic10 \l
1033 ]. Additionally, in academia, Patterson et al. [CITATION Placeholder2 \n \t \l 1033 ] and Drury
[CITATION Dru04 \n \t \l 1033 ] suggested that Level 5 leadership may be the same as servant
leadership. Wong and Davey [CITATION Won07 \n \t \l 1033 ] concluded that servant leaders are
more likely to be Level 5 leaders, van Dierendonck [CITATION Die11 \n \t \l 1033 ] stated that
there is a clear overlap between Level 5 and servant leadership, and Morris, Brotheridge, and
Urbanski [CITATION Mor05 \n \t \l 1033 ] found that “there are marked similarities between the
behavior of those termed Level 5 leaders and the servant or humble leader” [CITATION Mor05 \p
1323 \n \y \t \l 1033 ] . In the development of a validated instrument to measure level 5
leadership, Reid [CITATION Rei12 \n \t \l 1033 ] found that there was no statistically significant
difference between leaders that were identified as level 5 leaders and servant leaders.
METHODS
Empirical leadership studies have not addressed the relationship between the humble
leadership styles of level 5 or servant leaders regarding success in turbulent times, or times of
crisis. The primary purpose of this research is to address those gaps in literature.
Research Questions
The research questions to be answered are:
1. Is there a statistically significant relationship between the rank of the leader and success
in times of crisis?
2. Is there a statistically significant relationship between leader success in times of crisis
and servant leadership?
3. Is there a statistically significant relationship between leader success in times of crisis
and level 5 leadership?
Variables
The research began with an online survey that was disseminated via Mail Chimp to e-
mail addresses of 1,314 American adults. The survey was conducted on Survey Monkey, and the
distribution list was compiled from professional connections of the researchers. The survey was
completed by 300 participants. The leadership styles of servant leadership and level 5 leadership
and the rank of the leader are the independent variables of this study. The success of the leader in
times of crisis is the dependent variable (figure 1).
Figure 1
Data Model

Independent Variables Dependent Variable

Rank of Leader
Ordinal (1-4) Success of Leader
Ordinal (1-3)
Servant Leadership Little or no success
Scale of 1-5 Moderate success
Great Success
Level 5 Leadership
Dichotomous: yes or no

Independent Variables. The independent variables focus on the type of leader that
attempts to bring the organization out of times of crisis.
Rank of leader. An interesting perspective in considering turbulent times at work is to see
the rank of leader that people turn to in crisis. Participants were asked to categorize the leader
that they turned to as the CEO (or highest-ranking leader), another senior manager, a middle
manager, or a person with no formal authority.
Servant Leadership. Servant leadership was measured utilizing the 10-item scale of
essential behaviors of servant leadership from Winston and Fields [CITATION Win15 \n \t \l
1033 ]. A key challenge in conducting research on servant leadership is the variety of definitions
and dimensions that create a vagueness around the term [ CITATION Die11 \l 1033 ]. Winston and
Fields sought to reduce this challenge by synthesizing the existing work into one concise
instrument. “Since use of the terms servant and leadership together can be conceptually
confusing, one goal of this study was to clarify the essential nature of how servant leadership is
established and transmitted among members of an organization” [CITATION Win15 \p 427 \t \l
1033 ]. Participants using this instrument rate their boss on a five-point Likert scale for each of
the ten essential servant leader behaviors. The ten scores were averaged to yield one overall
servant leadership score for each leader. Analysis is based on this continuous variable.
Level 5 leadership. Level 5 leadership was measured using the 10 item Level 5
Leadership Scale (L5LS) scale from Reid [CITATION Rei12 \n \t \l 1033 ] , which is the only
validated instrument available. Participants rate their boss on a 10-point Likert scale. The first
five items describe personal humility and the last five items describe professional will. Scores
are averaged to yield a single personal humility score and a single professional will score. Since
Collins described level 5 leaders dichotomously, leaders are designated as either level 5 or not
level 5. The variable is dichotomous, not continuous. Leaders that score at least 7.5 on both
personal humility and professional will are considered to be Level 5 [ CITATION Rei12 \l 1033 ].
Therefore, a leader with a score lower than 7.5 on either attribute will not be considered level 5.
 Dependent variables. The dependent variable is the success of the boss in leading the
organization out of turbulent times, or times of crisis. Specifically, participants were asked two
questions:
1. Think of a turbulent time, or a time of crisis, at work. Who was the person that took the
lead in trying to pull the organization out of the crisis?
2. How successful was this person in leading the organization out of crisis?
The first question was designed to prompt the participant to think of a specific time and person,
as well as to determine the level of the person that they turned to. However, the answer to the
second question is the dependent variable. There were three potential responses: limited or no
success, moderate success, or great success.
Moderating variables. The age and gender of the participants were examined as
potential moderating variables, but these variables offered no statistical significance to the
model.
RESULTS
The purpose of this section is to evaluate the outcome of the analysis of the data, starting
with a descriptive overview of the participants and the leaders. There was a total of 300
participants in the study, representing a diverse mix of age and gender (table 1).
Table 1
Gender and Age of Participants
Age
Under Over
  30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 Total
Female 19 21 47 47 38 172
Gender
Male 13 16 33 21 45 128
Total 32 37 80 68 83 300

The leaders represented a wide range of rank and success, though results were skewed toward
great success (table 2). Only 18% of participants indicated that their leader achieved limited or
no success.
Table 2
Leadership Type and Leader Success
Leader Success
Limite
d or no Moderate Great
  success success success Total Percent
The CEO (or highest-ranking 9 25 44 78 26%
Leadership person in the organization)
Rank Another senior executive 8 27 31 66 22%
A middle manager 20 44 31 95 32%
 A person with no formal rank 16 16 22 54 18%
Other 1 2 4 7 2%
Total 54 114 132 300
Percent   18% 38% 44%    

An examination of the correlation between all of the dependent and independent variables
shows that success of the leader is positively correlated and statistically significant with all of the
independent variables (table 3). However, it is interesting to note that the leader’s rank is not
statistically significant when evaluating servant leadership or level 5 leadership. This indicates
that servant leaders and level 5 leaders are found in approximately equal proportions at all levels
in the organization.
Table 3XCorrelations
  Rank Success Level 5 Servant
Rank Pearson   .163** .044 .082
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)   .005 .448 .154
** **
Success Pearson .163   .446 .416**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .005   .000 .000
**
Level 5 Pearson .044 .446   .553**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .448 .000   .000
Servant Pearson .082 .416** .553**  
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .154 .000 .000  
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
n=300          

Even though there is a statistically significant correlation between the independent variables, a
test for multicollinearity shows VIF measures between 1 and 2, indicating that regression can be
used with these independent variables (table 4).
Table 4
Test for Multicollinearity
Model Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance VIF
L5 Code .694 1.441
1 SL .690 1.448
Rank Code .993 1.007
a. Dependent Variable: Success Code
The Model
Ordinal regression was chosen as the appropriate method to evaluate the data. The model
fitting information table (table 5) shows that the likelihood that the independent variables have
an effect on the dependent are positive and statistically significant.
Table 5
Model Fitting Information
Model -2 Log Chi- df Sig.
Likelihood Square
Intercept
492.211
Only
Final 396.634 95.577 6 .000
Link function: Logit.

The pseudo R-square calculations show that the independent variables explain between
15.4% and 31.2% of the variability of the dependent variability (table 6).

Table 6
Pseudo R-Square
Cox and Snell .273
Nagelkerke .312
McFadden .154
Link function: Logit.

The test of parallel lines, or proportional odds, rejects the null hypothesis (table 7). This
confirms that the slope coefficients are statistically different and that the model is valid.

Table 7
Test of Parallel Lines
Model -2 Log Chi- df Sig.
Likelihood Square
Null Hypothesis 396.634
General 390.527 6.107 6 .411
The null hypothesis states that the location parameters (slope
coefficients) are the same across response categories.
a. Link function: Logit.

The parameter estimates table (table 8) shows that servant leadership and level 5
leadership are both positively related to the success of the leader, and that the result is
statistically significant. The data also show that higher ranked leaders are generally more
successful, though the difference between CEOs and other senior executives is not statistically
significant.
Table 8
Parameter Estimates
Estimate Std. Wald df Sig. 95% Confidence
Error Interval
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
[Success =
-.666 .765 .756 1 .385 -2.166 .835
1.00]
Threshold
[Success =
1.621 .774 4.389 1 .036 .104 3.137
2.00]
SL .638 .163 15.290 1 .000 .318 .958
Other .346 .828 .175 1 .675 -1.276 1.968
No rank -.948 .361 6.910 1 .009 -1.655 -.241
Middle Mgr -1.031 .317 10.618 1 .001 -1.652 -.411
Location
Senior Mgr -.333 .348 .916 1 .339 -1.014 .349
CEO 0a . . 0 . . .
Not level 5 -1.438 .283 25.895 1 .000 -1.992 -.884
a
Level 5 0 . . 0 . . .
Link function: Logit.
a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.

Individual Independent Variables

With the overall model confirmed, the analysis can be narrowed to each of the
independent variables individually. Again, ordinal regression was utilized in the analysis of each
independent variable.
Research Question #1: Rank of leader and success. The first research question: Is there
a statistically significant relationship between the rank of the leader and success in times of
crisis? To answer this first question, the rank of the leader was evaluated with the amount of
success that they had in bringing the organization out of the crisis. Success was scored as little or
no success (1), moderate success (2), or great success (3). Table 9 shows that higher ranked
leaders generated more success in leading the organization out of crisis.
Table 9
Scores by Leader Rank  
Success of
Rank the Leader
The CEO (or highest ranking person in the organization) 2.45
Another senior executive 2.35
A middle manager 2.12
A person with no formal rank 2.11
The rank of the leader has a statistically significant impact on success (table 10).

Table 10
Model Fitting Information
Model -2 Log Chi- df Sig.
Likelihood Square
Intercept Only 55.934
Final 43.687 12.248 4 .016
Link function: Logit.

Although the relationship is statistically significant, the pseudo r-squared shows that only 2.0%
to 4.6% of the variance in success is attributable to the rank of the leader (table 11).

Table 11
Pseudo R-Square
Cox and Snell .040
Nagelkerke .046
McFadden .020
Link function: Logit.

Research Question #2: Servant leadership and success. Is there a statistically

significant relationship between leader success in times of crisis and servant leadership? The data
show that higher levels of success have higher servant leadership scores (table 12).
Table 12
Success and Servant Leadership
Servant
Success Leadership
Great success 4.30
Moderate success 3.88
Limited or no success 3.31
Overall average 3.96

The relationship between success and servant leadership is statistically significant (table 13).

Table 13
Model Fitting for Success and Servant Leadership
Model -2 Log Chi- Df Sig.
Likelihood Square
Intercept Only 262.514
Final 206.554 55.959 1 .000
Link function: Logit.
The pseudo r-squared shows that 9.0% to 19.5% of the variance in success is attributable to the
rank of the leader (table 14).

Table 14
Pseudo R-Square for Success and
Servant Leadership
Cox and Snell .170
Nagelkerke .195
McFadden .090
Link function: Logit.

Research Question #3: Level 5 leadership and success. Is there a statistically

significant relationship between leader success in times of crisis and level 5 leadership? Leaders
in this study that experienced great success in leading the organization out of crisis were three
times as likely to be identified as level 5 leaders. Conversely, leaders that experienced little or no
success were five times as likely to be identified as not level 5 leaders (table 15).
Table 15
Success and Level 5 Leadership
Not Level 5 Level 5
Success Count Percent Count Percent
Great success 33 11% 99 33%
Moderate success 67 22% 47 16%
Limited or no success 45 15% 9 3%
Total 145 48% 155 52%
The relationship between success and level 5 leadership is statistically significant (table 16).
Table 16
Model Fitting Information for Success and Level 5 Leaders
Model -2 Log Chi- df Sig.
Likelihood Square
Intercept Only 83.442
Final 19.772 63.669 1 .000
Link function: Logit.

The pseudo r-squared shows that 10.2% to 21.9% of the variance in success is attributable to the
rank of the leader (table 14).

Table 17
Pseudo R-Square for Success
and Level 5 Leaders
Cox and Snell .191
Nagelkerke .219
McFadden .102
Link function: Logit.

Summary of Pseudo R-Squared

  Cox & Snell Nagelkerke McFadden
Rank 4.0% 4.6% 2.0%
Servant Leadership 17.0% 19.5% 9.0%
Level 5 Leadership 19.1% 21.9% 10.2%

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, all three research questions were answered in the affirmative. Higher
ranked leaders have more success in bringing an organization out of crisis. Leaders that score
higher in servant leadership have more success in bringing organizations out of crisis. Finally,
level 5 leaders have more success.
Another study by Reid (2017) evaluated follower’s perception of boss success as it
relates to servant leadership and level 5 leadership. In that study, servant leadership explained
almost twice as much of the variance in boss success (table 18). However, with a similar
dependent variable set in turbulent times, or times of crisis, and the same servant leadership and
level 5 instruments, level 5 became the strongest predictor and servant leadership decreased. This
indicates that level 5 leadership is more effective in difficult times. This is not inconsistent with
the original findings of Collins (2001), because he studied these leaders in times of transitions
and difficulties as they moved from good to great companies.
Comparison of Studies: Percent of success explained
Leadership Type Normal Times Crisis
Servant Leadership 23.6% 19.5%
Level 5 Leadership 12.6% 21.9%
Combined 25.1% 26.9%
note: Nagelkerke pesudo R-square
used

Limitations
The key limitation of this study is the reliability of the dependent variable of perception
of leader success in bringing the organization out of crisis. In addition, the snowballing technique
used to generate participants may not yield a representative sample of the population. Another
limitation is the single source bias that is a result of each participant rating all the aspects of their
leader. There could be a halo effect that effects each of the individual items in the instrument.
Finally, this research does not account for situational variables.
Opportunities for future research
There are a number of opportunities for future research. The dependent variable of leader
success could be solidified by determining leader success from an independent objective source,
and then evaluating leader behavior from followers. The relationship between the constructs of
level 5 leadership should be evaluated to determine if there is a relationship between professional
will and personal humility.
 References
Auxier, W. (2013). The Relationship of Servant Leadership Attributes to Sales Performance of
Salespersons in the Healthcare Industry in 2011. Digital Commons: Andrews University.
Brown, S., & Bryant, P. (2015). Getting to Know the Elephant: A Call to Advance Servant
Leadership through Construct Consensus, Empirical Evidence, and Multilevel
Theoretical Development. Servant leadership: Theory and Practice, 2(1), 10-35.
Chiniara, M., & Beintein, K. (2016). Linking servant leadership to individual performance:
Differentiating the mediating role of autonomy competence and relatedness need
satisfaction. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 121-141.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. Why some companies make the leap. . . and others don't. New
York, NY: HarperCollins.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great. Why some companies make the leap... and others don't. New
York, NY: HarperCollins.
Collins, J. (2001). Level 5 leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce resolve. Harvard
Business Review, 136-146. Retrieved from
http://elibrary.kiu.ac.ug:8080/jspui/bitstream/1/481/1/Leve%205%20Leadership%20Jim
%20Collins.pdf
Collins, J. (2005, July-August). Level 5 leadership. The triumph of humility and fierce resolve.
Harvard Business Review, 79(1), 66-76.
Collins, J. (2009, September 21). From Good to Great: What defines a Level V leader?
Retrieved from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-KyQ90XByY
Collins, J. (2011, March 25). Our problem is not a lack of Level 5... Retrieved from YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at9-u8xv4vE
Collins, J., & Hanson, M. (2011). Great by choice: Uncertainty, chaos, and luck— Why some
thrive despite them all. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Collins, J., & Rose, C. (2009, March 4). Level 5 Good to Great . Retrieved from YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=wfaZ4pw99hc
Covert, J. (2011). The 100 Best Business Books of All Time: What They Say, Why They Matter,
and How They Can Help You. New York, NY: Portfolio / Penguin.
Crippen, C. (2005). Inclusive Education: A Servant-Leadership Perspective. Education Canada,
45(4), 19-22.
DeGroot, T., Kiker, D., & Cross, T. (2000, December). A Meta-Analysis to Review
Organizational Outcomes Related to Charismatic Leadership. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, 17(4), 356-372.
Dennis, R., & Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of the servant leadership assessment
instrument. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(4), 600-615.
Drury, S. (2004). Employee perceptions of servant leadership: Comparisons by level and with
job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University.
EL-Amin, A., & Claesson, A. (2013). Assessing the state of servant leadership, teacher morale,
and student academic performance outcomes in a Florida elementary school district.
Grand Canyon University.
Finnie, W., & Abraham, S. (2002). Getting from good to great: A conversation with Jim Collins.
Strategy and Leadership, 30(5), 10-14.
Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 79-90.
Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership. A journey into the nature of legitimate power and
greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.
Hammer, C. (2012). Mental toughness, servant leadership, and the collegiate distance runner.
Cheney, Wash: Eastern Washington University.
Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D., Chonko, L., & Roberts, J. (2009). Examining the Impact of Servant
Leadership on Sales Force Performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 29(3), 257-275.
Lichtenwalner, B. (2010). Servant leadership lessons: Jim Collins at Chick-Fil-A leadercast.
Retrieved from http://modernservantleader.com/servant-leadership/servant-leadership-
lesson-jim-collins-at-chick-fil-a-leadercast/
Magoni, F. (2003). Pyramids and paradigms. Pastoral Forum, 20(1), 14.
May, R. (2006, January 31). Why "Good to Great" Isn’t Very Good. Business Pundit. Retrieved
from http://www.businesspundit.com/why-good-to-great-isnt-very-good/
Morris, J., Brotheridge, C., & Urbanski, J. (2005, October). Bringing humility to leadership:
Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58(10), 1323-1350.
Neindorf, B., & Beck, K. (2008). Good to Great, or Just Good? Academy of Management
Perspectives, 24(4).
Nwogu, O. (2004). The Role of Follower Self-esteem, Emotional Intelligence and Attributions
on Organizational Effectiveness. The 2004 Proceedings of the Servant Leadership
Roundtable. Virginia Beah, VA: Regent University.
Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership
theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377-393.
Patterson, K. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent
University.
Patterson, K., Redmer, T., & Stone, A. (2003). Transformational leaders to servant leaders versus
Level 4 leaders to Level 5 leaders—The move from good to great. CBFA Annual
Conference. Viriginia Beach, VA: Regent University.
Peterson, S., Galvin, B., & Lange, D. (2012, Autumn). CEO Servant Leadership: Exploring
Executive Characteristics and Firm Performance. Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 565-596.
Rego, A., Owens, B., Leal, S., Melo, A., Cunha, M., L., G., & Ribeiro, P. (2017). How leader
humility helps teams to be humbler, psychologically stronger, and more effective: A
moderated mediation model. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(3), 639-658.
Reid, W. (2012). Development of an Instrument to Measure Level 5 Leadership. Virginia Beach,
VA: Regent University. Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/35/70/3570905.html
Reid, W. (2017). Service & Humility in Leadership. Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice,
4(2), 27-52.
Reid, W., West, G., Winston, B., & Wood, J. (2014, Spring). An instrument to measure level 5
leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies(8), pp. 18-31.
Renick, B., & Smunt, T. (2008). From Good to Great to... Academy of Management
Perspectives, 24(4).
Serfontein, K., & Hough, J. (2011). Nature of the relationship between strategic leadership,
operational strategy, and organizational performance. SAJEMS NS, 14(4), 393-406.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2000). The Lifeworld of leadership: Creating culture, community, and
personal meaning in our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shelley, M. (2006, Spring). The Good to Great Pastor. An Interview with Jim Collins.
Leadership Journal, 27(2). Retrieved from
http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2006/spring/7.48.html?paging=off
Stone, A., Russell, R., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant leadership: A
difference in leader focus. The Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
25(4), 349-361.
van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of
Management, 37(4), 1228-1261. doi:10.1177/0149206310380462
Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadrship: A review and synthesis. Journal of
Management, 37(4), 1228-1261.
Wicks, W. (1997). Shared values: A history of Kimberly-Clark. Greenwich, CT: Greenwich.
Winston, B. (2003). Extending the servant leadership model. Coming full circle. Servant
Leadership Roundtable. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University.
Winston, B., & Fields, D. (2015). Seeking and Measuring the Essential Behaviors of Servant
Leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 36(4), 413-434.
Wong, P., & Davey, D. (2007). Best Practices in Servant Leadership. Paper presented at Regent
University's Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, (pp. 1-15). Virignia Beach, VA.