This article was downloaded by: [Michigan State University]

On: 31 December 2014, At: 13:53

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Leadership in

Education: Theory and Practice
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tedl20

Examination of leadership practices of

principals identified as servant leaders
Tim Taylor , Barbara N. Martin , Sandy Hutchinson & Michael Jinks
Published online: 17 Sep 2007.

To cite this article: Tim Taylor , Barbara N. Martin , Sandy Hutchinson & Michael Jinks (2007)
Examination of leadership practices of principals identified as servant leaders, International
Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 10:4, 401-419

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603120701408262

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 INT. J. LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION,
OCTOBER–DECEMBER 2007, VOL. 10, NO. 4, 401–419

Examination of leadership practices of principals

identified as servant leaders
TIM TAYLOR, BARBARA N. MARTIN, SANDY HUTCHINSON
and MICHAEL JINKS
bmartin@cmsu.edu
Dr.
0000002007
BarbaraMartin
International
10.1080/13603120701408262
TEDL_A_240711.sgm
1360-3124
Original
Taylor
2007
00 and
& Article
Francis
(print)/1464-5092
Francis
JournalLtd
of Leadership
(online)
in Education

The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership practices of principals identified as
servant leaders. The conceptual framework used to access the leadership behaviours was the
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 13:53 31 December 2014

leadership practices advocated by Kouzes and Posner. Statistical analysis included a

multivariate test to determine if the demographic variables were significantly related to the
overall self-assessed rating and a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine which
practices the servant leaders were utilising. The research findings revealed that no demo-
graphic variable was significantly related to the overall self-assessment of servant leadership
rating. The findings also revealed that public school principals identified as servant leaders
were rated significantly higher by their teachers in the five leadership areas highlighted by the
Leadership Practices Inventory. The implications for leadership preparatory programmes are
significant.

Introduction

Leadership was defined by DeSpain (2000) as ‘an imperfect art practiced by

those who lead in which the leader defines reality for his or her followers while
creating and nurturing a vision of a new, better reality to come’ (p. ix). He
went on to say ‘The leader subsequently nurtures and serves the organisation,
the followers, and the dreams of the vision as all seek to attain the new reality’
(p. ix). Jean-Marie (2004) noted ‘That a leader demonstrates a selfless desire
to both serve and prepare others’ (p.49). Likewise, Bolman and Deal (1995)
stated ‘Heart, hope, and faith, rooted in soul and spirit, are necessary for
today’s managers to become tomorrow’s leaders’ (p.12). Bolman and Deal
(2001) further asserted ‘Leadership is an ethic, a gift of oneself to a common
cause, a higher calling’ (p. 106). From these writers and others it becomes

Tim Taylor is the Superintendent of Hollister R-V Public Schools, 1798 State Highway BB, Hollister,
MO 65672, USA. He has been a classroom teacher and a middle school principal. His research interests
are in leadership and spirituality.
Barbara N. Martin is an Associate Professor in Educational Administration at University of Central
Missouri. Email: bnm919f@smsu.edu. She has been a classroom teacher, a Director of Special
Education and a building level principal. She has experience in research, presentation and publication in
the areas of educational leadership, online learning, cultural diversity and rural education.
Sandy Hutchinson is an Associate Professor and Coordinator of the doctoral programme at University of
Central Missouri. She has experience in research, presentation and publication in the areas of educational
leadership and gender.
Michael Jinks is an Assistant Professor at University of Central Missouri. He recently retired as a School
Superintendent. His research interests are in the areas of leadership, superintendence and school board
relationships.

International Journal of Leadership in Education

ISSN 1360–3124 print/ISSN 1464–5092 online © 2007 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/13603120701408262
 402 T. TAYLOR ET AL.

obvious that there is a change in the leadership paradigm for the 2lst century.
Senge (l995) suggested that the traditional perspective of leaders promoted
the view that leaders were people who established direction, held the deci-
sion-making capacity and were responsible for followers. He proffered that
this essentially Western cultural view was deeply rooted in an individualistic
and non-systemic view of the societal world culture. He further suggested,
however, that the new perspective of leadership should be that of designer,
steward and teacher. He suggested that servant leadership opened up a new
caring paradigm of leadership because it builds on relationships and focuses
on service to others. DuFour (2001) recommended that principals who
embrace their role as servant leader will focus on creating school settings in
which people are working towards a shared vision and are honoring collective
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 13:53 31 December 2014

commitments to self and others. Hunter (2004) agreed that a servant leader
is one who consciously chooses to lead through service to others. Moreover,
as Barton (2003) postulated, ‘Spirit is a belief in and connection to some-
thing greater than oneself. It is this connection to leaders’ heart and intuition
that reveals his/her capacity for spiritual leadership’ (p. 6). As Drury (2005)
argued, ‘Servant leadership is a relatively new term for most people, and is
often confused with only acts of service, or leadership that only serves, when
in fact, this leadership style is more’ (p. 10).
This search for more effective organisational leadership is an ongoing
challenge for any progressive organisation or school system dedicated to
success. This task becomes increasingly important when these organisations
are held accountable for demonstrating that success, whether it is measured
by a growth in profit, organisational growth or by an increase in achievement
scores. The demand for effective organisational leadership coupled with the
fact that servant leadership is attracting a broader audience throughout a
wide variety of organisations has necessitated a study of this emerging
leadership style (Autry 2001, Bennis 2003, Kouzes and Posner 2002, Page
and Wong 1998).
There are many different opinions that serve to explain why servant lead-
ership continues to receive increased recognition. Laub (1999) referred to the
primary change as the growing trend towards more caring leadership utilising
a team approach, creating a learning environment in which personal growth
and employee fulfillment are emphasised. Therefore, due to the growing
popularity of servant leadership, it was imperative to take steps to not only
explore its meaning but to examine the effectiveness this leadership model
provides. Although there have been a number of research studies conducted
on the concept of servant leadership, prior to this research few were found
which served to assess the effectiveness of this leadership style quantitatively.
This study, utilising the building level principal as the unit of analysis,
was designed to explore the leadership practices of principals who utilised
servant leadership, then compare and contrast them with principals who did
not utilize servant leadership and to a normative data set of business
managers. The following research questions were investigated: (1) does the
utilisation of servant leadership by public school principals’ impact on the
perceived effectiveness of the principal’s leadership in the area of challenging
the process; (2) does the utilization of servant leadership by public school
principals’ impact on the perceived effectiveness of the principal’s leadership
 LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF SERVANT LEADERS 403

in the area of inspiring a shared vision; (3) does the utilisation of servant
leadership by public school principals’ impact on the perceived effectiveness
of the principal’s leadership in the area of enabling others to act; (4) does the
utilisation of servant leadership by public school principals’ impact on the
perceived effectiveness of the principal’s leadership in the area of modelling
the way; (5) does the utilization of servant leadership by public school
principals’ impact on the perceived effectiveness of the principal’s leadership
in the area of encouraging the heart?

Conceptual organizers
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 13:53 31 December 2014

Leadership style development

Yukl (2006) argued that most definitions of leadership reflect the conjec-
ture of a process whereby intentional influence is exerted to facilitate tasks
and relationships within an organisation. ‘Leadership has been defined in
terms of traits, influence, relationships, and occupation of an administra-
tive position’ (p. 2). Furthermore, Melrose (1998) described leadership as
much more than a position one is in, but as a combination of something
one is (one’s character) and something one does (one’s skills and compe-
tence). An individual’s leadership style is very personal. As Spears (1998)
pointed out, ‘leadership has to do with who you are—your character, your
motivation and your relationships with people’ (p. 2). Greenleaf (1991,
1995) described leadership style development as an evolving process in
which the characteristics of a leader are the result of constant personal
growth and commitment to the growth of others. S. M. Covey (1989) and
S. R. Covey (2004) suggested that this continual examination of one’s
belief system is like an ongoing journey that allows individuals to reflect on
spirituality, professional interests and emotional needs by expanding their
human potential. Although an individual’s leadership style, as these
authors pointed out, should be tailored to fit each individual leader’s
personality, experience and background, Greenleaf (1991, 1995) advo-
cated that effective leadership must be developed in order to meet the
individual needs of the organisation. This can present a major challenge to
the leader who desires to lead in a manner that coincides with his or her
personal convictions concerning moral leadership but who may feel
compelled to use an alternative leadership style because of organisational
or community expectations. Walter (1998) acknowledged this challenge
and cautioned leaders about both internal and external forces with which
they will be faced, often causing division and a growing lack of interper-
sonal trust within organisations.
A major complexity in the development of an individual’s style of lead-
ership is simply the existence of many variations of styles. These range from
the traditional authoritarian model to empowerment, participatory, transfor-
mational and distributed leadership, which incorporate the concept of
service into the leadership philosophy (Gronn 2002, Page and Wong 1998,
Yukl 1999, 2006). The goal of transformational leadership as articulated by
researchers is to transform people, in a literal sense, to change them in mind
 404 T. TAYLOR ET AL.

and heart and bring about changes that are permanent, self-perpetuating
and momentum building (Covey, S. R., 1991: 87). Bass (2000) implied that
transformational leaders ‘move followers to go beyond their own self-inter-
ests for the good of their group, organization or community, country or soci-
ety as a whole’ (p. 21). Later Bass stated that servant leaders ‘select the
needs of others as [their highest] priority’ (p. 33). While examining the
development of leadership styles with a vision towards the future Spears
(2001) postulated that society is beginning to see traditional autocratic and
hierarchical modes of leadership slowly yielding to a newer model. This new
leadership approach attempts to enhance the personal growth of workers
and improve the quality of the organization through a combination of team-
work, shared decision-making and ethical, caring behaviour (Jaworski
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 13:53 31 December 2014

1996). Thus, servant leadership is applied as both a philosophy and working

model (Spears 2001). It is a detour from commonly accepted and historical
practices, where the focus tended to be based upon rationale processes. As
described by Greenleaf (1970, 1995), ‘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’ (p. 13). Page and Wong (1998)
contended that the world is crying out for such an ethical and effective
leadership that serves others.
Bolman and Deal (2001) further viewed leadership as a subtle process of
mutual influence. They suggested that leadership is a process involving
fusing thought, feeling and action to produce a cooperative effort that serves
the values and purposes of both the leaders and the led. Leadership is about
relationships. It exists only in the relationships and in the imagination and
perception of the engaged parties. They further explained that leadership
involves identifying with a spiritual centre and learning to lead by heart
(Bolman and Deal 1995). The challenge of leadership is to raise above the
day-to-day management concerns and focus on the larger purpose of work
and the organisation. Blanchard (1998) supported the sentiments of Bolman
and Deal by suggesting that leadership begins on the inside, with a focus on
the heart. Leaders must first be servants to their organisations. They must
have a clear vision, respond to their followers’ needs, serve as a performance
coach and focus on spiritual significance.
Fairholm (1998) stated that spiritual leadership helps followers by
empowering and maintaining a climate that helps followers freely accept the
challenge to excellence. Spiritual leadership also provides a holistic, inte-
grated virtual environment. Leaders ensure that value systems are integrated
and holistic in nature so that values are not sacrificed. Leadership that
focuses on values suggests that leadership is or can be a part of the routine
actions of many people in the organisation, not just the preserve of a few at
the top of the organisational chart. Wenger (2000: 231) labeled this type of
leadership distributed, which raised the possibility that all organisational
members may be a leader at some stage. Gronn (2002) suggested that
distributed leadership encompassed but was not limited to three leadership
practices: collaboration, intuition and relationships. Fairholm (1998)
further proposed five aspects that defined a quality spiritual/value-based
leadership style that included a focus on quality, vision, innovation, service
and productivity improvement.
 LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF SERVANT LEADERS 405

Servant leadership

Servant leadership may be viewed as an extension of transformational

leadership. A number of noted leadership authors, including Spears
(1998, 2001), have claimed that servant leadership is a concept compati-
ble with and enhances other leadership models. Followers’ emotional
attachment to the leader and motivational arousal of followers as a conse-
quence of the leader’s behaviour is generally considered a result of trans-
formational leadership (House et al. 1988, Leithwood and Duke 1999,
Leithwood and Jantzi 1990, Yukl 2006). Yammarino and Bass (1990)
argued that transformational leaders elevate the interests of their followers
and motivate their followers to go beyond their self-interests for the good
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 13:53 31 December 2014

of the group. This is a concept of servant leadership supported by the

research (Laub 1999). Conversely, the traditional image of a leader is a
person who is in charge and in control of others. In contrast, the image of
a servant is one who is submissive, takes orders and does as they are told.
Lopez (1995) saw the combining of opposites in servant leadership as a
paradox that ‘provides a framework within which many individuals are
helping to improve the way in which we treat those who do the work
within our many institutions’ (p. 2). This concept was further emphasised
by Wong (1997), who referred to servant leadership as an ‘open’ style of
leadership. Wong (1997) suggested that today’s rapidly changing social
and economic conditions call for a new kind of leadership, which he felt
would be ‘capable of maximizing opportunities and optimizing resources’
(p. 1). This open style of leadership requires humility and integrity,
because leaders must be willing to vacate their leadership position to
anyone who has demonstrated superior ability. According to Wong (1997)
this open leadership style allows a number of leaders in an organisation to
rise to the top by demanding self-denial of the positional leader in order to
serve the interests of the group. Blanchard (1998) described this open
collaboration as a manager’s willingness to acknowledge not having all the
answers. This collaboration allows leaders to have the freedom to turn to
the collective wisdom of the group for the purpose of gaining knowledge
from employees, customers or suppliers (Lee and Zemke 1995). Building
on the concept of empowerment, Block (1996) emphasised the impor-
tance of creating a sense of ownership and responsibility for outcomes at
the bottom of the organisation. By emphasizing service to others, personal
development and shared decision-making servant leaders help to meet the
needs of everyone in the organisation that in turn enables the leader to
grow and mature as well. As postulated by Winston and Patterson (2005),
‘Servant leadership is an action-oriented state of mind that compels lead-
ers to provide followers with what the followers need in order that the
followers might be able to do what needs to be done.
Maynard and Mehrtens (1993) saw this new servant led organisational
model as anything but hierarchical. The servant-led organization should
be built on a style of leadership where relationships are less structured,
employees with good ideas are applauded and self-esteem is nurtured
(Walter 1998). Building on this concept, Block (1996) emphasised that
this servant leader partnership does not actually eliminate the idea of
 406 T. TAYLOR ET AL.

hierarchy, it simply eliminates the leaders need to use an unusual amount

of power and control. A servant leader who convinces others to challenge
their limits is one who makes the goals irresistible and the consequences
as painless as possible (Bethel, 1995: 147).
Conversely, in a traditional hierarchy the organisational structure is
often compared to a pyramid and is based on the intellectual notion of
order and clear power (Frick 1995). Sergiovanni (1992) referred to this
model of leadership thinking as being upside down. This traditional model
shows subordinates serving their leaders, but in a servant-led organisation
the leaders ought to be serving the organisation. In an effort to describe
the servant-led organisation many researchers have compared it to
reversing the hierarchical pyramid. The leader is now at the base of the
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 13:53 31 December 2014

organisation and the organisational roles are reversed. The leader is now
supporting the organisation and the responsibility of leading is dispersed
among the entire organisation. Utilising the inverted pyramid approach
enables all levels to become responsible and the job of management to be
responsive to all levels (Page and Wong 1998). This creates a very differ-
ent working environment and unique employee relationships. The leader
works for the people and the real purpose of being a manager is to help
them accomplish their goals. The true servant leader is required to be self-
less. They should not strive to ascend the career path in their management
chain, rather, they should be committed to the organisation’s success.
Yukl (1999), who has advocated for a change in the leadership paradigm
of top-down leadership, postulated that distributed leadership that
required a group of people to collectively perform the leadership tasks
might enhance the effectiveness of organisations. Furthermore, as noted
earlier, Wenger (2000) postulated that leadership should be distributed
throughout the organisation. Gronn (2002) suggested that this distributed
leadership encompassed but was not limited to spontaneous collaboration,
intuitive relationships and organisational practices. Moreover, Lightfoot
(1998) noted that a true servant leader using collaboration and authentic-
ity must put the needs of the organisation ahead of his or her personal
desires. Servant leaders, therefore, should commit themselves to the
success of their subordinates and to the organisation, which may or may
not involve them being elevated to a position of leadership. Stanley (1997)
suggested that when people in every segment, especially the top, feel
support and encouragement from the segments beneath them they are
more effective and their work performance is better. Barton (2003)
asserted that the personal characteristics of a spiritual leader are like those
of an effective leader: boundless energy, self-confidence as a risk taker,
integrity, a vision, concern for others and a good sense of humour.
Bolman and Beal (2001) further argued, ‘Successful leaders embody their
group’s most important values and beliefs’ (p. 102).

Leadership effectiveness

Researchers have promoted a myriad of theories on what constitutes effec-

tiveness within a leadership paradigm. The effectiveness of leadership has
 LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF SERVANT LEADERS 407

often been determined by the organisational culture, cohesiveness, goal

attainment and follower satisfaction (Yukl 2006) rather than solely on
achievement, as is the case with school effectiveness (DuFour and Eaker
1998). Kouzes and Posner (2002) recommended that effective leadership
should be viewed as a relationship of service to purpose and to people.
Bolman and Deal (2001) reported that the results of research efforts by
numerous investigators (Kouzes and Posner 2002, Spears 2001, Tichy and
Devanna 1990) revealed a consensus on three characteristics of effective
leadership. The characteristics are that effective leaders help establish a
vision, have the ability to passionately communicate the vision to others and
have the ability to inspire trust and build relationships. According to Tibaldo
(1994) a number of studies demonstrated the relationship between demo-
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 13:53 31 December 2014

cratic, participative leadership and effective principal leadership. Earlier

Bailey and Adams (1990) noted that effective principals have to make a
conscious choice for leadership. Kouzes and Posner (2001) examined over
17,000 business leaders and concluded that leadership is an observable,
learnable set of practices regardless of profession. And although there were
many variations in leaders, the personal best leadership experiences all had
similar patterns. Kouzes and Posner (1997, 2001) further found that when
leaders were at their personal best they were (1) challenging the process, (2)
inspiring a shared vision, (3) enabling others to act, (4) modelling the way
and (5) encouraging the heart. These ‘best practices’ have been identified as
the five domains of leadership. The first domain, challenging the process,
examines the leader’s ability and willingness to change the status quo. This
examines the leader’s willingness to look for innovative ways to improve the
organisation (Kouzes and Posner 1997). The second domain, inspiring a
shared vision, examines the leader’s belief that they can make a difference in
the organisation. This includes the leader’s ability to envision the future,
creating an ideal and unique image of what the organisation can become.
The third domain, enabling others to act, examines the leader’s ability to
foster collaboration and team building. This includes a leader’s practice of
involving subordinates in the decision-making process striving to maintain
an atmosphere of trust and dignity. The fourth domain, which is centred on
the concept of setting a good example for others, is modelling the way. In
this domain leaders seek to create standards of excellence and to set an
example for others to follow. The last domain, encouraging the heart,
involves recognising subordinates for the individual contributions they
make. The practice of encouraging the heart allows all members of the
organisation to be considered valued members of a team who shares in the
rewards of their efforts (Kouzes and Posner 1997: 5–7).

Research design and methodology

Participants

For the first phase of this study a representative sample of the total popula-
tion of principals in the state were selected. This resulted in 330 elementary
principals, 151 middle school principals and 264 high school principals
 408 T. TAYLOR ET AL.

receiving the survey. From that sample 112 principals returned the
completed ‘Self-assessment of servant leadership profile’ (SASLP) survey
for a return rate of 15%. The scores for the 112 principals on the self-assess-
ment of servant leadership (SASL) instrument ranged from 85 to 168. Rank-
ing each SASL score on a continuum from the lowest to the highest score
the median split was identified as falling between 145 and 146. The median
split was utilised to divide the principals into two groups, servant leaders and
non-servant leaders. The principals who rated themselves at 145 or lower
were identified as non-servant leaders. The principals who rated themselves
at 146 or higher were identified as servant leaders. The non-servant leader
scores ranged from 85 to 145 and the servant leader scores ranged from 146
to 168. The median split divided the principals into two groups containing
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 13:53 31 December 2014

56 principals. Next, a minimum of three teachers from each of the princi-

pal’s schools, giving a total of 336, were randomly selected from the faculty
of these 112 principals to continue with the second phase of the study. Each
of the three randomly selected teachers was given the Leadership Practices
Inventory (LPI) (Kouzes and Posner 1997, 2001) and asked to assess their
principals’ effectiveness. Of the possible 168 teachers for the identified
servant leaders 100 returned the survey for a return rate of 59%. For the
identified non-servant leader 150 teachers returned the LPI for a return rate
of 89%.

Instrumentation

Two instruments were administrated in this study. During the first phrase
the ‘self-assessment for servant leadership profile’ was administered. This
survey instrument (Page and Wong 1998) was developed through an exten-
sive study of the literature on servant leadership that led to the establishment
of an exhaustive list of 200 descriptors of servant leaders. The authors, to
create a 99 item instrument employing a Likert scale that ranges from (1)
strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree, narrowed down the original list of
200 items. These 99 items were grouped into 12 distinct categories: (1)
integrity, (2) humility, (3) servant-hood, (4) caring for others, (5) empower-
ing others, (6) developing others, (7) visioning, (8) goal setting, (9) leading,
(10) modelling, (11) team building and (12) shared decision-making. It is
important to note that these 12 categories have been heavily emphasized in
the servant leadership literature and can be directly linked to the character-
istics of servant leaders identified by Spears (1995, 2001).
Page and Wong (1998) conducted a pilot study in which the alpha values
for each sub-scale were calculated as well as the total assessment score. The
alpha coefficients were: total (0.94), integrity (0.80), humility (0.66),
servant-hood (0.76), caring for others (0.71), empowering others (0.77),
developing others (0.92), visioning (0.57), goal setting (0.77), leading
(0.84), modelling (0.76), team building (0.82) and shared decision-making
(0.80). Doctoral student Frank Hamilton conducted a second study
utilizing the SASLP during the spring of 1999. Hamilton’s (1999) results
were consistent with the original pilot study conducted by Page and Wong
(1998). The following are the results for the 12 categories of servant
 LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF SERVANT LEADERS 409

leadership analysed: integrity (0.79), humility (0.65), servant-hood (0.76),

caring for others (0.71), empowering others (0.77), developing others
(0.91), visioning (0.60), goal setting (0.77), leading (0.84), modeling (0.76),
team building (0.82) and shared decision-making (0.80).
For the purpose of this study, utilising raw data that were obtained from
the study conducted by Hamilton (1999), the SASLP was reduced to 24
items. The raw data for each item were then critically examined and the new
instrument was designed to equally represent each of the 12 categories of
servant leader characteristics. A comparative analysis of the original 99 item
instrument with the 24 item instrument was conducted. The result of this
comparative analysis showed a positive correlation of 0.95 between the total
scores of the two tests. An additional analysis on the instruments resulted in
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 13:53 31 December 2014

an alpha reliability score of 0.96 for the original 99 item instrument and 0.92
for the new 24 item instrument.
The second phase in this study utilised the Leadership practices inventory
(LPI) (Kouzes and Posner 1997, 2001). This survey instrument was
designed to give leaders critical feedback on the leadership they provide for
their organization. Kouzes and Posner’s (1997) research led to the identifi-
cation of five elements that are critical to a majority of these best leadership
experiences: (1) challenging the process, (2) inspiring a shared vision, (3)
enabling others to act, (4) modelling the way and (5) encouraging the heart.
The LPI comprises a 30 item survey designed to represent these five
elements of effective leadership. In developing the LPI Kouzes and Posner
(1997) conducted a number of tests to determine whether the inventory had
sound psychometric properties. The results of these tests indicated that the
LPI has a high degree of internal reliability, with each of the six statements
pertaining to each leadership practice being highly correlated with one
another (Kouzes and Posner 1997, p. 6). Also, all five leadership practices
have internal reliability scores on the observer version that are consistently
above the 088 level (Kouzes and Posner 2000, 2001). The test–retest reli-
ability is routinely in the 90+ range (Kouzes and Posner 2000, 2001). Addi-
tionally, the LPI has both face validity and predictive validity. Face validity
means that the results make sense to people and predictive validity means
that the results are significantly correlated with various performance
measures and can be used to make predictions about leadership effectiveness
(Kouzes and Posner 1997: 7).
Richardson et al. (1996) expanded Kouzes and Posner’s research on
business managers by asking the question what are the characteristics of
principals that make them leaders? The results of this research revealed that
teachers differed very little from business managers in their perceptions of
the ideal attributes of principals. The only difference was that teachers
expressed the need for a principal who was ‘caring’ as an important attribute,
compared with ‘intelligent’ for business managers. The perception of
teaching as a nurturing or compassionate profession could help explain why
teachers thought principals should be ‘caring’ while the business managers
needed to be ‘smarter than the competition’ (Richardson et al., 1996). Over-
all, the similarities between business employees’ perceptions of managers
and teachers’ perceptions of principals’ characteristics were similar. Thus
the LPI instrument was utilised in the inquiry.
 410 T. TAYLOR ET AL.

Data analysis

Phase one The results of the SASLP were rated on a continuum scale
ranging from principals who predominantly utilised the characteristics of
servant leadership to those who predominantly did not utilise the character-
istics of servant leadership. The dependent variables were the overall scores
on the SASLP and the independent variables consisted of the demographic
variables. A multivariate test was conducted to check whether the demo-
graphic variables (prior educational experience, administrative experience,
gender, ethnic background, school building level and personal level of
education) were significantly related to the overall self-assessed rating.
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 13:53 31 December 2014

Phase two Next the data obtained from the LPI were analysed using descrip-
tive statistics and univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA). The indepen-
dent variables identified were the group of principals who utilised servant
leadership and the group of principals who did not utilise servant leadership.
The variables were dichotomous and categorical in nature. The dependent
variables were the five leadership practices: (1) challenging the process, (2)
inspiring a shared vision, (3) enabling others to act, (4) modelling the way
and (5) encouraging the heart. The scores on the LPI enabled the researcher
to compare and contrast the results of the servant leader and non-servant
leader groups. The use of normative data for the LPI enabled the researcher
to compare the sample population with normative mean scores. The norma-
tive data was based on 17,908 subjects, and provided means for each of the
leadership practices (Kouzes and Posner 2001).

Discussion of the findings

Phase one

During phase one of the study 745 instruments were distributed and 112
were returned for a 15% return rate. The total possible SASLP score for the
24 item instrument fell in the range 24–168. The scores for the 112 princi-
pals who successfully completed the SASLP instrument ranged from 85 to
168. Ranking each SASLP score on a continuum from the lowest to the
highest score the median split was identified as falling between 145 and 146.
The median split was utilised to divide the principals into two groups,
servant leaders and non-servant leaders. The 56 principals who rated
themselves at a 145 or lower were identified as non-servant leaders. The 56
principals who rated themselves at 146 or higher were identified as servant
leaders.
Demographic information was also obtained from the participants
during the first phase. A multivariate test was conducted to determine
whether the demographic variables were significantly related to the overall
self-assessed rating. Principals successfully completing the demographic
survey included 73 males and 38 females. The ethnic background of the 112
principals included 108 Caucasians and 4 that failed to note any specific
ethnic background. The participants consisted of 43 elementary principals,
 LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF SERVANT LEADERS 411

32 middle school principals and 37 high school principals. In the category

administrative experience 32 principals had less than 5 years experience, 34
principals had 5–10 years, 18 had 10–14 years and 26 had 15 or more years.
An examination of the academic degrees held by the study participants
revealed that no participants were in the BA or BA +30 categories, 28 were
in the MA category, 13 were in the MA +30 category, 52 had specialist
degrees and 16 had a doctorate.
A χ2 test conducted on the demographic variables [administrative expe-
rience (n = 110) p = 0.292, gender (n = 111) p = 0.126, ethnic background,
school building level (n = 112) p = 0.324, and academic degrees (n = 109)
p = 0.143] showed no significant difference between non-servant leaders and
servant leaders. In addition, a multivariate test was conducted to determine
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 13:53 31 December 2014

whether these demographic variables were significantly related to the overall

self-assessed rating. The χ2 test revealed that no demographic variable was
significantly related to the overall self-assessment rating.

Phase two

In the second phase of the study the teacher responses to the LPI surveys
were analysed. An examination of the mean differences of servant leaders
and non-servant leaders using an analysis of variance revealed a significant
difference between the two groups of principals and how teachers perceived
them for each of the five ‘best leadership practices’. A comparison of the
mean data for each principal group is outlined in Table 1.
The findings of this inquiry revealed that public school principals who
rated themselves high in terms of their perception of their use of the charac-
teristics of servant leadership were also rated significantly higher by their
teachers for all of the five best leadership practices. From the overall results
it maybe concluded that servant leaders, as identified using the SASLP, are
perceived by their teachers as more effective leaders in the areas of challeng-
ing the process, inspiring a shared vision, enabling others to act, modelling
the way and encouraging the heart. Additionally, it may be concluded that
the style of servant leadership occurs across a myriad of personal and
professional characteristics. Additionally, when the scores of the school lead-
ers were compared with the normative data (based on business managers)

Table 1. Leadership practices inventory servant leader/non-servant leader mean

data comparison

Leadership practice Servant leader Non-servant leader Mean difference Significance

Challenging 51.00 (6.9) 46.70 (8.9) 4.30 0.004*

Inspiring 50.90 (6.7) 45.40 (9.6) 5.50 0.001a
Enabling 53.60 (5.5) 51.00 (6.8) 2.60 0.032a
Modeling 54.40 (5.6) 50.20 (8.1) 4.20 0.001a
Encouraging 51.30 (9.5) 46.70 (10.8) 4.60 0.021a

n = 56 servant leaders and 56 non-servant leaders Standard deviations are given in parentheses.
a
The difference between the means is significant at the 0.05 level.
 412 T. TAYLOR ET AL.

overall the participants, both those labelled servant leaders and those who
were below the median split, scored higher for all leadership practices.
Perhaps one explanation for this finding is that the perception of education
as a nurturing or compassionate profession could help explain why teachers
thought their principals were exhibiting these five effective practices
(Richardson et al., 1996). The implication for principals is clear: the better
a principal understands teachers’ expectations, the more likely it is that a
principal can fulfil the expectations of the role. Valid and reliable data on
teacher expectations will assist principals to understand more thoroughly
how those expectations can influence teacher behaviour, which could
ultimately affect student achievement (Richardson et al., 1996). However,
these findings must be framed within the limitations of this study and, thus,
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 13:53 31 December 2014

cannot be generalised to the total population of school leaders. Specifically,

these findings are examined in the following discussion for the five leader-
ship behaviours: challenging the process, inspiring a vision, enabling others
to act, modelling the way and encouraging the heart. The top three
leadership behaviours, as revealed by this data set, were modelling the way,
enabling others to act and encouraging the heart. These leadership
behaviours appear to fall into a pattern that articulates that servant leaders
lead by example and thus enable others to lead.
Specifically, modelling the way was highest rated for the servant leader
group (54.40) and second highest for the non-servant leader group (50.20).
The mean difference of 4.20, was statistically significant (F = 11.78, P =
0.001). Again, the normative data for modelling the way was lower, at 47.41.
Leaders who model the way create standards of excellence and then set an
example for others to follow (Kouzes and Posner 2001). These servant lead-
ers apparently establish principles guiding the way teachers should be
treated and how goals should be pursued. By setting an example for others
the servant leader will allow others to emerge as leaders, supporting the
scope of distributed leadership (Gronn 2002).
Following the pattern that servant leaders lead by example and thus
enable others to act, the second highest area for the servant leader group and
the highest for the non-servant leader group was enabling others. Both
groups of school leaders were rated higher for this behaviour than the busi-
ness managers norm group (47.93). The servant leader mean score was
53.60 and the non-servant leader mean score was 51.00, a mean difference
of 2.60, which was statistically significant (F = 4.84, P = 0.032). Enabling
others to act fosters collaboration by striving to create an atmosphere of
trust, supporting the idea of mutual respect. This serves to strengthen subor-
dinates, making each member of the organisation feel that he/she is a vital
part of the organisation (Kouzes and Posner 2001). The servant leader by
their actions create high levels of trust in their school setting, which in turn
enhances the collaboration needed to meet the needs of students.
While modelling the way and engaging others to lead, the servant
leader also apparently encourages the heart of their followers. That behav-
iour was rated third highest for the servant leader group and was tied at
third for the non-servant leader group. The servant leader mean score was
51.30 and the non-servant leader mean score was 46.70, a mean difference
of 4.60, which was statistically significant (F = 5.65, P = 0.021). The
 LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF SERVANT LEADERS 413

normative value for encouraging the heart was 44.74. Effective leaders
recognise that individual contributions make up the effort of the total
organisation. These leaders recognise that in a winning team all the
members need to share in the rewards and take extraordinary steps to
recognise the individual contributions that are made to the organisation
(Kouzes and Posner 2001), thus enhancing the organisations effectiveness.
Yukl (1999) would argue that this element of servant leadership parallels
his proposition that distributed and collective leadership is the most
effective way to lead in the new century.
While most research on servant leaders has emphasised the inspiration
and vision of servant leaders (Bolman and Deal 1995, Spears 2001, Tichy
and Devanna 1990), this data set shows that challenging the process and
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 13:53 31 December 2014

inspiring a shared vision were ranked lowest of the five behaviours. In

fact, challenging the process was rated fourth highest for the servant
leader group and tied for third highest in the non-servant leader group.
The servant leader group mean score was 51.00 and the non-servant
leader mean score was 46.70, a mean difference of 4.30, which was statis-
tically significant (F = 8.75, P = 0.004). The normative value for chal-
lenging the process was 44.32. The effective leadership characteristic
challenging the process encompasses searching for opportunities to
change the status quo and demonstrate a willingness to look for innova-
tive ways to improve the organisation through risk taking (Kouzes and
Posner 2001). Thus, based on this data set, the school leader who models
servant leadership is perceived by teachers to seek inventive ways to
improve the school setting.
Finally, inspiring a shared vision was lowest rated for both the servant
leader and non-servant leader groups. The servant leader mean score was
50.90 and the non-servant leader mean score was 45.40, a mean difference
of 5.50, which was statistically significant (F = 13.43, P = 0.001). Again, the
normative value based on business managers’ behaviours for inspiring a
shared vision was 41.83. Inspiring a shared vision is a characteristic preva-
lent in leaders who believe they can make a difference. These leaders are able
to envision the future, creating images of what the organisation can become.
The leaders’ excitement and enthusiasm enlists others to join the leader in
his or her vision (Kouzes and Posner 2001). The data suggests that while
school leaders appear competent in developing and implementing a shared
vision, the behaviours most valued by followers are modelling the way,
enabling others and encouraging the heart.

Analysis of the normative mean data comparison

Additional analysis of the LPI revealed a caveat regarding the normative data
as compared with the data set for school leaders. Not only were the servant
leader mean scores higher than those of the non-servant leaders, but were
also higher than those of the normative data for each of the five leadership
practices. A conclusion one might draw from that data, within the limita-
tions of a small sample size of school leaders, is that the effective leadership
characteristics measured by the LPI are perhaps representative of more
 414 T. TAYLOR ET AL.
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 13:53 31 December 2014

Figure 1. Comparison of LPI mean and normative data. The normative data was
based on 17,908 business managers (Kouzes & Posner, 2001). The servant and non-
servant leaders were public school leaders

individuals in the profession of education than business managers, which the

normative data represents. As Richardson et al. (1996) noted in their
examination of principals using this same instrument, one possible reason
for this result is that education is often perceived to be a compassionate
profession that deals with children rather than the bottom line. Whatever the
explanation, the contrast between educational leaders and business leaders
is constrained by the sample size and should be interpreted within that
limitation. Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the LPI mean
comparison and normative data.
Next, the data were compared on a normative percentile scale (Kouzes
Figure 1. Comparison of LPI mean and normative data. The normative data was based on 17,908 business managers (Kouzes & Posner, 2001). The servant and non-servant leaders were public school leaders

and Posner 2001). The percentile rankings were determined by the percent-
age of people completing the LPI. In ranking the normative percentile data
Kouzes and Posner considered a high score to be at or above the 70th
percentile, a low score to be at or below the 30th percentile and a moderate
score to fall between 31 and 69 per cent. Kouzes and Posner (1997) used
the high, moderate and low LPI percentile rankings as benchmark numbers.
They suggested that an individual who scored in the low or moderate range
should strive to change their leadership practices so as to move him/her
closer to higher range percentile scores, which would indicate improvement
as a leader. The combined servant leader mean scores of the principals
participating in this study fell in the high range, with the non-servant leaders’
scores falling below them in each of the five areas. Again, the leadership
behaviours measured by the LPI appear to represent behaviours valued by
teachers in their principals, but the results must be examined within the
limitations of the school leader sample size. Figure 2 displays the results of
these findings.
 LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF SERVANT LEADERS 415
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 13:53 31 December 2014

Figure 2. Comparison of servant leaders and non-servant leaders to norms of LPI.

The normative data was based on 17,908 business managers (Kouzes & Posner,
2001). The servant and non-servant leaders were public school leaders

Implications for practice

Figure 2. Comparison of servant leaders and non-servant leaders to norms of LPI. The normative data was based on 17,908 business managers (Kouzes & Posner, 2001). The servant and non-servant leaders were public school leaders

Although the writings on servant leadership have increased in the past few
years, there has still been limited research conducted in a systematic, quan-
titative manner (Page and Wong 1998, Yukl 2006). In fact, in today’s major
textbooks on management and organisational behaviour servant leadership
still remains a theory under-represented in the texts (Fielder and House
1988, Yukl 2006). As Page and Wong (1998) postulated, the popular appeal
of servant leadership has not translated into academic respectability because
of this lack of a significant research base. If servant leadership is relevant and
an effective means of leadership, as indicated by the results of this research,
educational leadership programmes should be adapted to include the study
and practical application of the principles and practices of servant leader-
ship. Moreover, as Yukl (2006) noted, ‘People should prepare themselves to
lead and accept the opportunity when offered. The result will be more
people who serve as moral agents in society’ (p. 420).
Utilising the five best leadership practices (Kouzes and Posner 2001) as
a framework, higher education preparatory programmes should integrate
servant leadership characteristics (Spears 2001) and practices into leader-
ship and teacher curricula. Educational institutions should also take steps to
enhance educational leaders’ skills in modelling, enabling and encouraging
their followers. While the argument could be made that one of the most
critical components of effective leadership that attracts followers is the
 416 T. TAYLOR ET AL.

ability to see clearly the best mission and vision for the organisation (Spears
2001). This data, however, shows that in order to have that vision and to
share it with their followers the leader must first be an example of effective
leadership so others will model themselves on that behaviour. By under-
standing their purpose as a leader the servant leader can guide others
through appropriate modelling towards that shared vision. Thus, in a lead-
ership programme the development of a leadership platform is imperative.
To be a model for others one must first understand oneself and one’s lead-
ership. Additionally, this setting of an example for others to follow allows the
servant leader to enable and encourage others to emerge as leaders. Some-
times that requires challenging an organisation’s processes, structures and
the notions of best practices. By incorporating readings, discussions and
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 13:53 31 December 2014

activities on collaboration and servant and distributed leadership into

leadership preparatory programmes aspiring leaders will be allowed to
understand how those theories and processes utilised by the school leader
can encourage and enable all participants to be viable members of the organ-
isation. Educational institutions should also attempt to foster collaboration
by striving to create an atmosphere of trust. Within this environment of trust
student empowerment activities and problem-based projects should be
provided that serve to support the concept of leadership being a team effort
(Kouzes and Posner 2000). While most research on leadership has focused
on the relationship between leader and follower, this theory of servant lead-
ership focuses not only on that relationship but also on the intra-individual
processes which provide insight into developing better leadership (Yukl
2006: 16). S. M. Covey (1994) advocated a team or group approach to lead-
ership, claiming that it creates a collective energy.
Currently in leadership programmes the theory of transformational
leadership is not only defined and discussed but often is the linchpin for
additional theories. As noted by Yukl (2006: 262), with this theory, as with
servant leadership, the followers feel trust in, loyalty to and respect for the
leader and they are motivated beyond their perceived potential. The findings
of this investigation continue to support the notion that leaders are what they
say and do. Furthermore, it could be argued that servant leadership, much
like transformational leadership theory, transforms followers by modelling
effective leadership behaviour, by enabling others to move beyond what they
thought possible and by encouraging others to make extraordinary contribu-
tions to the organisation.
Explicitly, in the practice of modelling educational preparatory
programmes should establish and promote an exemplary standard of excel-
lence, in both performance and in the treatment of others. Leaders who
model the way create standards of excellence and then set an example for
others to follow (Kouzes and Posner 2001). To model a type of leadership
which exhibits personal integrity and the work ethic desired of subordinates
the servant leader must set a high standard for the treatment of everyone in
the organisation. When a leader genuinely cares about his or her followers or
students he or she is likely to be respected and will more likely be followed
(Maxwell 1996). A sincere love of others will promote open, honest commu-
nication and will foster a sincere effort to understand each other’s point of
view (Kouzes and Posner 2001).
 LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF SERVANT LEADERS 417

Central to the practice of encouraging the heart is the concept of stew-

ardship or service. According to the servant leadership philosophy leadership
is a position of servant-hood and leaders earn followers only by virtue of their
selfless commitment to serving the needs of others (DePree 1992). A large
part of stewardship is taking the time to encourage the heart by committing
to serve the needs of others through purpose (Murphy 2002). This type of
empowering leadership, which is developed through the utilisation of
servant leadership, fosters autonomy and choice and enables employees to
develop a sense of ownership in the decision-making process. As Spears
(2002) noted, ‘Servant-leadership, like stewardship, assumes first and fore-
most a commitment to serving the needs of others’ (p. 4). Winston and
Patterson (2005), in support of that sentiment, argued that ‘While serving
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 13:53 31 December 2014

the needs of the followers, the servant leader sets the environment of service
that should facilitate others serving followers, peers, and leaders’ (p. 27).
Thus, a service learning component should become a part of leadership
preparatory programmes.
The data provided by this inquiry can also be used as a justification for
additional inquiries on the servant style of leadership. Because of the critical
importance of effective leadership, implementation of the principles of
servant leadership into the daily leadership practices of public school princi-
pals is certainly an endeavour worthy of consideration and further research.
Lastly, servant leadership should be the focus of in-service training for other
practicing educational personnel. This caring style of leadership should not
be utilized only by those who are in administrative roles, but should also be
nurtured and cultivated in every classroom as well. It has become obvious
that there is a need for a different type of leader for the 21st century. This
study suggests that the new perspective of leadership should be that of stew-
ard, servant and, perhaps, even sage to followers. As noted by Murphy
(2002), this construct of leader as steward will enhance the sense of purpose
and perhaps the ethics of future leaders. Moreover, it is suggested that the
leader who embraces their role as servant leader may create schools in which
commitment to self and others are the daily practice of leaders throughout
and in turn will transform their followers as well as the organisation.

References

Autry, J. A. (2001) The Servant Leader (Roseville, CA: Prima Publishing).

Bailey, G. D. and Adams, W. F. (1990) Leadership strategies for nonbureaucratic leadership. NASSP
Bulletin, 74(52), 21–28.
Barton, M. D. (2003) School spirit. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 69(2), 5–10.
Bass, B. M. (2000) The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3)
18–40.
Bennis, W. (2003) On Becoming a Leader (New York: Basic Books).
Bethel, S. M. (1995) Servant-leadership and corporate risk taking: when risk taking makes a difference,
in: L. C. Spears (ed.) Reflections on Leadership: How Robert Greenleaf’s Theory of Servant Leadership
Influenced Today’s Top Management Thinkers (New York: John Wiley & Sons), pp. 135–148.
Blanchard, K. (1998) Servant-leadership revisited, in: L. C. Spears (ed.), Insights on Leadership: Service,
Stewardship, Spirit, and Servant-leadership (New York: John Wiley & Sons), pp. 21–28.
Block, P. (1996) Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self-interest (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers).
 418 T. TAYLOR ET AL.

Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T. E. (1995) Leading with Soul: An Uncommon Journey of the Spirit (San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).
Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T. E. (2001) Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and leadership (3rd edn)
(San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).
Covey S. M. (1989) The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Covey, S. M. (1994) First Things First (New York: Covey Leadership Center).
Covey, S. R. (1991) Principle-centered Leadership (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Covey, S. R. (2004) The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness (New York: Free Press).
DePree, M. (1992) Leadership Jazz (New York: Bantam Doubleday Publishing).
DeSpain, B. C. (2000) The Leader is the Servant: The 21st Century Leadership Model (Mexico City: Grupo
Editorial Iberoamerica), p. ix.
DuFour, R. (2001) In the right context. Journal of Staff Development, 22(1), 17.
DuFour, R. and Eaker, R. (1998) Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best Practices for Enhancing
Student Achievement (Bloomington, IN: National Education Service).
Drury, S. (2005) Teachers as Servant Leaders, in: B. E. Winston (ed.) Proceedings of the Servant Leader-
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 13:53 31 December 2014

ship Roundtable (Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University School of Leadership Studies), pp. 1–17.
Available online at: www.regenteduc/conference (accessed 21 February 2006).
Fairholm, G. W. (1998) Perspectives on Leadership: From the Science of Management to its Spiritual Heart
(Westport, CT: Quorum Books).
Fielder, F. E. and House, R. J. (1988) Leadership theory and research: a report of progress, in: C. I.
Cooper and I. Robertson (eds) International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
(New York: Wiley), pp. 73–92.
Frick, D. (1995) Pyramids, circles, and gardens: stories of implementing servant leadership, in: L. C.
Spears (ed.) Reflections on Leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s Theory of Servant Leadership
Influenced Today’s Top Management Thinkers (New York: John Wiley & Sons), pp. 257–281.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1970) The Servant as Leader, 4(4) (Indianapolis, IN: The Robert K. Greenleaf Center).
Greenleaf, R. K. (1991) The Servant as Leader, 3(1) (Indianapolis, IN: The Robert K. Greenleaf Center).
Greenleaf, R. (1995) Reflections from experience, in: L. C. Spears (ed.) Reflections on Leadership: How
Robert K. Greenleaf’s Theory of Servant Leadership Influenced Today’s Top Management Thinkers
(New York: John Wiley & Sons), pp. 22–36.
Gronn, P. (2002) Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 13(20), 423–451.
Hamilton, F. (1999) College theme residence halls as a model for retention, satisfaction and commu-
nity. Unpublished manuscript (Tampa, FL: University of South Florida).
House, R. J., Woycke, J. and Fodor, E. M. (1988) Charismatic and noncharismatic leaders: differences
in behavior and effectiveness, in: J. A. Conger and R. N. Kanungo (eds) Charismatic Leadership:
The Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).
Hunter, J. C. (2004). The World’s Most Powerful Leadership Principle: How to Become a Servant Leader
(Colorado Springs, CO: WaterBrook Press).
Jaworski, J. (1996) Synchronicity: The Inner Path of Leadership (San Francisco, CA: Edits Publishers).
Jean-Marie, G. (2004) Black women administrators in historically black institutions: Social justice
project rooted in community. Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, 2(2), 37–57.
Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z. (1997) Leadership Practices Inventory [LPI]: Participant’s Workbook (2nd
edn) (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer).
Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z. (2000) The Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership (San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer).
Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z. (2001) Leadership Practices Inventory [LPI]: Facilitator’s Guide (2nd
edn) (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer).
Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z. (2002) The Leadership Challenge (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).
Laub, J. A. (1999) Assessing the Servant Organizations: Development of the Servant Organizational
Leadership Assessment (SOLA) Instrument. Ph.D. thesis, Florida Atlantic University.
Leithwood, K. and Duke, D. L. (1999) A century’s quest to understand school leadership, in: J.
Murphy and K. Seashore-Louis (eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Administration (2nd
edn) (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass), pp. 45–72.
Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (1990) Transformational leadership: how administrators can help reform
school culture, paper presented at the 1990 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Boston, MA. April.
Lee, C. and Zemke, R. (1995) The search for spirit in the workplace, in: L. C. Spears (ed.) Reflections on
Leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s Theory of Servant Leadership Influenced Today’s Top Manage-
ment Thinkers (New York: John Wiley & Sons), pp. 99–112.
 LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF SERVANT LEADERS 419

Lightfoot, C. (1998) Leadership. Available online at: www.altavista. org/leader.html (accessed 7 June
2000).
Lopez, I. O. (1995) Becoming a servant-leader: the personal development path, in: L. C. Spears (ed.)
Reflections on Leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s Theory of Servant Ieadership Influenced Today’s
Top Management Thinkers (New York: John Wiley & Sons), pp. 149–160.
Maynard, H. B. and Mehrtens, S. E. (1993) The Fourth Wave: Business in the 21st Century (San Fran-
cisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler).
Maxwell, J. (1996) Developing the Leader Within You (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson).
Melrose, K. B. (1998) Servant Leadership: The Power to do Good. Available online at: http://
forums.msn.com/Women/Z-Leadership-7.html (accessed 4 July 2000).
Murphy, J. (ed.) (2002) The Educational Leadership Challenge: Redefining Leadership for the 21st Century,
National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, Vol. 101A (Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press).
Page, D. and Wong, T. P. (1998) A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership. Unpub-
lished manuscript (Langley, Canada: Trinity Western University).
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 13:53 31 December 2014

Richardson, M. D., Lane, K. E. and Flannigan, J. L. (1996) Teachers’ Perceptions of Principals’ Attributes,
Clearinghouse, Vol. 69, Issue 5, Item number 9606250566 (Washington DC: Heldref).
Senge, P. M. (1995) Robert Greenleaf’s legacy: a new foundation for twenty-first century institutions, in:
L. C. Spears (ed.), Reflections on Leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s Theory of Servant Leadership
Influenced Today’s Top Management Thinkers (New York: John Wiley & Sons), pp. 217–240.
Sergiovanni, T. (1992) Moral leadership: Getting to the Heart of School Improvement (San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass).
Spears, L. (1995) Reflections on Leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s Theory of Servant Leadership Influ-
enced Today’s Top Management Thinkers (New York: John Wiley & Sons).
Spears, L. C. (1998) Insights on Leadership: Service, Stewardship, Spirit, and Servant-leadership (New
York: John Wiley & Sons).
Spears, L. (2001) On Character and Servant-leadership (Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center for Servant
Leadership). Available online at: http://greenleaf.org/lea…/on-character-and-servant-leadership-
ten-characteristics.html (accessed 17 January 2002).
Spears, L. (2002) Focus on Leadership: Servant-leadership for the 21st Century (New York: John Wiley).
Stanley, M. F. (1997) Servant Leadership in Fire Service: It’s Never Lonely at the Top When You’re Leading
from the Bottom, Golden Hour Motivational Resources. Available online at: www.mikestaley.com/
servant.html (accessed 1 November 1999).
Tibaldo, L. J. (1994) The Relationship of Leadership Style Behaviors of Principals to the Existence of Effective
School. Ph.D. thesis, Western Michigan University.
Tichy N. M. and Devanna, M. (1990) The Transformational Leader (revised edn)(New York: John Wiley
& Sons).
Walter, P. F. (1998) The Six Jewels of the Servant Leader. Available online at: www.autohuna.com/
increase/6jewels.htm (accessed 25 May 2000).
Wenger, E. (2000) Commenter of practice and social learning systems. Organization 7(2), 225–246.
Winston, B. and Patterson, K. (2005) An Integrative Definition of Leadership, Working Papers of the
Regent University School of Leadership Studies, pp. 1–67. Available online at: www/
regents.educ/htm (accessed 25 February 2005).
Wong, P. T. (1997). The challenge of open leadership, position paper for the Graduate Program in Coun-
seling Psychology, Trinity Western University. Available online at:www.twu.ca/cpsy/Faculty/
wong/Leadership/openleader.html (accessed 7 April 2000).
Yammarino, F. J. and Bass, B. M. (1990) Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership and its
effects among naval officers: some preliminary findings: in K. E. Clark and M. B. Clark (eds)
Measures of Leadership (West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America).
Yukl, G. (1999) An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership
theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285–305.
Yukl, G. (2006) Leadership in Organizations (6th edn) (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall).