See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/361472312

Servant Leadership for Schools

Preprint · June 2022

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25870.02886

CITATIONS READS
0 1,039

1 author:

Melinda Bier
University of Missouri - St. Louis
20 PUBLICATIONS 989 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Youth Empowerment in Action (YEA) View project

SERVANT LEADERSHIP oriented CHARACTER focused EMERGING EDUCATIONAL LEADERS (CEEL) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Melinda Bier on 22 June 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Servant Leadership for Schools
Melinda C. Bier
University of Missouri, St. Louis
Center for Character & Citizenship
Submitted for Review to Journal of Character Education

The importance of a healthy K-12 education system cannot be overstated. In today’s world it is a pre-requisite
to social justice, democratic community, a thriving economy, and a flourishing society. Likewise, the
importance of the school principal (Louis & Murphy, 2018; Smylie, Murphy, & Karen, 2020), for it is the
principal who is most responsible for establishing the vision and overall ethos of the school (Bier, et al., in
press). Being the principal of a school is not only a critically important role, it is also an incredible rewarding
position to hold. In a 2007 national poll by the University of Chicago, School Administrators ranked in the top 5
of the most satisfying ways people make a living. In 2015 a survey of 25,000 users of the CareerBliss website
School Principals were in first in rating their overall job satisfaction (Costa, 2015).
Unfortunately, as personally and professionally fulfilling as working in schools can be, retention of both
principals and teachers is a serious and growing problem for school districts across the U.S., although it is most
intense for those serving the poorest and lowest performing students (Hanushek, Rivkin, & Schiman, 2016;
School Leaders Network, 2014).
According to the Alliance for Excellent Education (2014), 23% of principals and 16% of teachers do not
return to their placements from one school year to the next at a cost of nearly $3 billion per year. An often-cited
Gallup poll reported that 7 out of 10 schoolteachers said they feel emotionally disconnected and/or dissatisfied
with their workplace environments. In fact, of the surveyed professionals, teachers were least likely to feel their
opinions counted at work, and the least likely to feel that their supervisor created an “open and trusting
environment.” These findings are consistent with more than a decade of research on teacher turnover and
retention in which the most often cited reason for teacher dissatisfaction was lack of administrator support
(Boyd, Grossman, Ing, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2011; Burkhauser, 2017; Zumwalt & Craig, 2005). These
teachers reported a desire to have principals more actively engaged in mentoring but found a lack of support for
their development and growth as professionals (Clifford, Behrstock-Sherratt, & Fetters, 2012; Johnson, Kraft, &
Papay, 2012; Kraft, Marinell, & Yee, 2016; Rockoff, 2008). It seems that the oft quoted business saying that
‘people don’t quit jobs, they quit their bosses’ may hold true in education as well – teachers don’t quit their
schools they quit their administrators. There is a nationally recognized need for new approaches to school
leadership to meet the current needs of our schools and students (Cherkowski & Walker, 2016; Levin, Bradley,
& Scott, 2019; Murphy, 2002; Snodgrass Rangel, 2018). Many have recognized the need for new more
supportive approaches to the leadership of schools if schools are to meet the many challenges of the 21st century
(Hargreaves 2003; Walker & Sackney, 2007). This article argues that teachers, their students, and the
institution of K-12 education, would be better served by principals educated and skilled in the practices of
servant-leadership (SL) – a leadership philosophy that prioritizes ethical decision making, the building of
community and the optimal development of all involved.

Leadership Research Literature

After reviewing what amounted to the first 50 years of leadership literature, Fiedler and House (1988)
concluded that the two major categories of leader behavior are task-accomplishment and interpersonal
relationships. This is consistent with earlier research establishing leadership behaviors as those oriented toward
employee consideration and task-focused initiating structure (Fleishman, 1953), and more recent scholarship
indicating that the three salient components of effective leadership are those focused on people, tasks, and
organizational change (Yukl & Mahsud, 2010). A variety of theories have emerged in the leadership literature
(Dinh et al., 2014), but few of them encompass these three foci, with most instead emphasizing the performance
dimension. For instance, the predominant leadership theory in both the business and educational literature for
1
the past twenty years has been transformational leadership (Lee. 2014; Lowe & Gardner, 2001). This approach
focuses on organizational tasks and change while lacking commitment to the well-being of people within the
organization or stakeholders beyond the organization (Bass, 1997; Carlson & Perrewe, 1995; Stephens et al.,
cited in Yukl, 1999).

In fact, a major criticism of transformational leadership theory is that it lacks a moral imperative
(Huizanga, 2016; Schneider, 2011). While incorporating modern organizational concepts of worker autonomy,
shared leadership, consensus and participative decision-making, the theory emphasizes a leader’s prioritization
of organizational goals, such as increasing shareholder profit for corporations, crime elimination in law
enforcement, or increasing academic achievement in schools. Thus transformational leadership allows, if not
encourages, the manipulation and exploitation of internal as well as external resources, including people and
communities, in the service of achieving these goals. Beyond this criticism, this theory has recently been
questioned for its theoretical basis and methodological validity (Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). These
issues, combined with a recognized need for leadership to be more concerned with the good of the broader
society (Nohria & Khurana, 2010), has led leadership scholars to search for alternative paradigms that might
better meet the needs of modern society as it seeks to ameliorate the causes and consequences of globalization,
social injustice, environmental degradation, and poverty.
Servant Leadership and Social Justice
It has become abundantly clear that injustice – in the form of differential opportunity for males and females and
systems of racially biased exclusion from power and resources – is entrenched in the structure and policies of
our society. Additionally, these historical and unjust dynamics are commonly reflected in the goals and
processes of our organizations, including private business, public education, and governmental entities. A
commitment to social justice, therefore, requires a willingness to do things differently in how one
conceptualizes the mission of an organization, how processes are crafted with an eye to consequences, and how
administrators relate to employees, those served by the organization, and the larger community. I submit that
Servant Leadership (SL) is the only widely explicated leadership style that holds leaders to a social justice
perspective of equity, inclusion, empowerment, and community health, while including all the progressive
structures that have made transformational leadership popular and effective.
Servant-leadership Philosophy
Although the concept of servant leadership is ancient, having been expressed by every major religion since 570
BCE, the term servant-leader as a specific leadership style is credited to Robert Greenleaf, a retired AT&T
executive (Spears, 2005; Frick, 2013). Greenleaf articulated his conception of servant-leaders and servant-
institutions in a series of essays: The Servant as Leader (1970), Institution as Servant (Greenleaf, 1976) and
Servant-leadership (1977).
Greenleaf conceptualized Servant-leadership as a virtue-based philosophy and style of leadership in
which leaders focus on relationships and persuasion rather than command and control. Greenleaf centered the
moral authority, rather than the positional authority, of the individual as the only legitimate justification for
leadership (Lanctot & Irving, 2007; McMahone, 2012; Page & Wong, 2000; Poon, 2006).
a new moral principle is emerging which holds that the only authority deserving ones allegiance is that
which is freely and knowingly granted by the led to the leader in response to, and in proportion to, the
clearly evident servant statue of the leader (p.10, 1977 ).
Since the publication of Greenleaf’s essays Servant-leadership has been practiced in innovative and successful
corporate settings including Southwest Airlines, Marriot International, and Starbucks.
The servant-leader seeks what will bring about the highest good for the people in the community, and
pursues that good in the face of obstacles, not for personal reward, but for the growth and well-being of the
members of the community.

2
 Servant leadership promotes the valuing and development of people, the building of community, the
practice of authenticity, the providing of leadership for the good of those led and the sharing of power
and status for the common good of each individual, the total organization and those served by the
organization (Laub, 1999, p. 81).

Servant-leaders take a holistic approach to work and see themselves as stewards of the people and the resources
entrusted to them (Van Dierendonck, 2011).
Servant-leadership and Organizational Performance
Servant-leaders concern themselves with organizational performance metrics, not just for the sake of success,
but also because a failing organization cannot serve. Having risen from pole digger to Director of Management
Development in what was, at the time, the largest corporation in the world, Robert Greenleaf had an abiding
interest in how things get done in organizations. His philosophy of leadership stresses that anyone in the
organization can be a servant leader. Such leadership is based on an individual’s foundation of character,
emphasizing the virtues of integrity, humility, and courage, (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011) and involves
behaviors such as empowering, empathic healing, putting others first, and retaining a focus on the good of the
community (Liden et al., 2008) even at the expense of self-interest. Servant-leaders build the organization by
building others, by remaining attuned to needs and changes in their environments, and by humbly recognizing
that the best and most serving answers have not yet been discovered (Greenleaf, 1977; Liden et al., 2014; Van
Dierendonck, 2011).
Servant-leadership has emerged as the most promising and validated stakeholder-focused model of
leadership. Initial studies of its effects on employee motivation and organizational performance have been quite
promising (e.g., Liden et al., 2008; Liden et al., 2014; Peterson, Galvin, & Lange 2012). Although other
‘positive’ theories of leadership have been proposed, such as ethical leadership (Brown, Trevino, & Harrison,
2005) and authentic leadership (Walumbwa, 2009), only servant-leadership features a holistic emphasis on
performance, people, and the good of our broader society (Lemoine, 2015). Servant-leadership can be
understood as a form of leadership which prioritizes the minimization of harm and the maximization of gains to
stakeholders, internal and external.
Although its performance-emphasis is outweighed by its prioritization of employee and stakeholder
concern, both servant-leadership and its broader stakeholder focus have nonetheless been repeatedly
demonstrated to be more strongly related to performance - and even profitability - than more goal-focused
alternatives (De Luque et al., 2008; Liden et al., 2008).
Servant-leadership, Character Education, and Educational Leadership
Servant-leadership, with its explicit moral imperative, and commitment to stakeholder development, and the
good of the broader society is the leadership philosophy most consistent with the conceptual framework of
school based character and virtue development advocated at the Center for Character and Citizenship in which
the work described here is being done. Servant-leadership is also consistent with the research literature on best
practices of effective school principals (Leithwood, Begley, & Cousins, 2005). This research found that
principals have a powerful but indirect impact on student achievement and well-being as it is mediated through
the principal’s influence on teachers and school climate (Clifford, Behrstock-Sherratt, & Fetters, 2012).
Servant-leadership, school leadership and business management research findings reflect a consensus that the
best leaders "create vision and value congruence across the individual, empowered team, and organization
levels and, ultimately, foster higher levels of both organizational commitment and productivity” (Fry et al.,
2007 p.4).
Theory of Change
While the concept is ancient, and the business term servant-leadership is more than 40 years old, serious
academic scholarship and empirical investigation on SL is relatively new. As researchers have sought to
develop and validate measures of SL they have variously parsed the specific foundational virtues, and
operationalized and measured them in varying configurations and models. The servant-leadership model
articulated here is adapted from Van Dierendonck and Patterson’s (2015) model of SL that proposes a leader’s
sense of compassionate love encourages virtuous attitudes of humility, gratitude, forgiveness and courage that,
3
in turn, motivate leadership practices of empowerment, stewardship and future-mindedness/foresight. These
attitudes and behaviors promote follower’s personal well-being, sense of community, professional productivity
and organizational commitment. Our theory of change posits that SL virtues and their constituent practices can
be cultivated through explicit professional development. This includes reflection and practice experiences and
that will engage and motivate pre and in-service school leaders to form the intention to practice servant-
leadership.
Virtuous
Attitudes Leader Practice: Positive Outcomes for
Loving Empowerment Leaders,
Cultivated:
Leadership Foresight Followers and,
Humility
Purpose: Stewardship Organizations
Courage
To Serve
Forgiveness
Gratitude

Greenleaf’s description of the path to servant-leadership is reflected in the path to the principalship.
School principals typically begin their careers as teachers (Department for Professional Employees, 2019), and
people generally choose a career in teaching for moral reasons (Fray & Gore, 2018). A recent systematic
review of empirical studies investigating why people choose teaching found 70 studies published between the
years 2007 and 2016. Looking across these studies the researchers found that altruism and intrinsic motivations
were the most commonly identified factors influencing an individual’s decision to become a teacher (Fray &
Gore, 2018). Altruism as a motivator included several factors: service to others, the desire to help and support
students, and to make a difference by contributing to society. Intrinsic motivations include a passion for
teaching and interest in the subject matter, intellectual stimulation or participation in something interesting,
personal development, as well as a desire to work with children or young people. Many teachers felt called to
teach and made their decisions to teach while still in their youth (Fray & Gore, 2018).
Evidence of Promise for Servant-leadership
In a systematic review of the research on servant-leadership, Lemoine et al. (2015) have identified over 100
high-quality peer-reviewed articles published studying the antecedents and impacts of SL. These studies
empirically demonstrate strong relationships between SL virtues (i.e., love, humility, foresight, forgiveness and
courage) and related behaviors and positive outcomes for leaders, followers / employees, and organizations.
The findings revealed that Servant-leaders scored higher on measures of trust, empathy, integrity, competence
and agreeableness. The followers of servant-leaders reported higher commitment to their leader, higher self-
efficacy, higher customer orientations, higher inside and outside of role behaviors, higher job satisfaction, more
organizational citizenship behaviors, higher creative behaviors, less job stress, less turnover intention, and less
burnout (Babakus, Yavas, & Ashill, 2011; Parris, & Peachey, 2013; Van Dierendonck, 2012). These studies
also found strong relationships between servant-leadership and higher organizational commitment,
organizational trust, performance expectations, team interdependence, team psychological safety, and
perceptions of procedural justice (Lemoine et al., 2015). More recent studies have demonstrated a relationship
between SL and positive personal and family outcomes for employees. Tang, Kwan, Zhang, & Zhu (2016)
found servant-leader employees experienced less emotional exhaustion and work-to-family conflict and higher
levels of personal learning and work-to-family positive spillover. Hayden (2011) and more recently Lemoine
(2015) both found support for a central claim of servant-leadership – that servant-leadership reproduces itself in
followers. This process by which a virtuous leader must self-cultivate virtue in his or her own self and then
model it to family and the world is consonant with the great wisdom traditions in the world. For example, a
paragon of Zen Buddhism wrote the following advice 2500 years ago:
Cultivate virtue in yourself,
And virtue will be real.
Cultivate it in the family
And virtue will abound.
Cultivate it in the village,

4
 And virtue will grow.
Cultivate it in the nation,
And virtue will be abundant.
Cultivate it in the universe,
And virtue will be everywhere.
Lao-tzu, c. 500 BC

The virtues of servant-leadership

Servant-leadership is commonly recognized to be a virtue-based model, but different scholars have
conceptualized differently the virtues most centrally involved. In our model, SL requires facility with: noble
purpose, humility, courage, forgiveness, gratitude, empowering others, foresight, and stewardship. While each
of these virtues is significant in itself, it is more important to remember the ways in which these psychological
capacities and dispositions work together to form a well-integrated character. For example, to exemplify noble-
purpose you need the courage to pursue lofty goals; and to exemplify gratitude you need the humility to
recognize the myriad benefits you have received from others. In the following section I briefly describe each of
the virtues in our servant leadership model and the role that virtue plays in the life of a school leader.
Noble Purpose: A person’s sense of purpose refers to the long-term motivating goals about which
someone is passionate and to which they are committed (Steger & Dik, 2010). A sense of purpose is “personal,
internalized and self-imposed, and cannot be mandated by others” (Shaw, 2012, p.27) although others can help
one discover and articulate their own sense of purpose. Knowing and pursuing one’s purpose is thought to be a
psychosocial resource that energizes people and helps them overcome life’s challenges and adversity. Recent
research indicates that people with a strong sense of purpose are happier as well as being physically and
mentally healthier (Bronk, 2014). A noble purpose extends this idea of a highly motivating intention to
accomplish something meaningful by requiring that the goal not only be valuable to oneself but that it also
benefits others. A noble purpose drives a person to make a positive difference in the world (Damon, 2008
p.28). Having a personal purpose that serves the needs of others is at the heart of Servant Leadership. In his
influential essay, The Servant as Leader, Robert Greenleaf (1970, p.1) addresses purpose in leadership, stating
“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.” Greenleaf describes the purpose of servant-leaders to be
the ethical stewardship of the organization and all its stakeholders, including the interests of the larger
community. This was the thesis of his second ground breaking essay The Institution as Servant (1976).
Clearly, Greenleaf saw the leadership of institutions as a moral endeavor. This is certainly true of
school leadership, which most people agree carries with it a moral imperative to create great schools. As Fullan
(2003) tells us,
Moral purpose of the highest order is having a system where all students learn, the gap between high and
low performance becomes greatly reduced, and what people learn enables them to be successful citizens
and workers in a morally based knowledge society (pg 29).
In Moral Leadership: Getting to the Heart of School Improvement, Thomas J. Sergiovanni (1996) describes
schools as
places where people are committed to purposes, a cause, a vision of what the school is and can become,
beliefs about teaching and learning values and standards to which they adhere,.… Once in place an idea
structure constitutes the basis of leadership practice based on professional and moral authority.
(Sergiovanni, 1992, Pg 71)
A school leader’s noble purpose is central to their professional commitment and intricately woven into their
personal values and sense of self, their goals, and their holistic identity. It is critical that educational leaders take
5
the time to clearly articulate and regularly reflect on how the work they do fulfills their personal sense of purpose
and their vision for the school. Articulating your purpose starts with knowing yourself. Many authors and
researchers have devised clever sounding strategies and interventions for leading one’s self through aspects of the
purpose discovery process, including: Your User's Manual (Silver, 2018), Your Racial Autobiography (Gooden, &
O'Doherty, 2015), Start with Why? (Sinek, 2009), Living for your Eulogy (Brooks, 2014), and The Purpose Retreat
(Leider, 2015). Some components of the purpose discovery process we use for educational leader development
involve 1) identifying the people you most admire and why, 2) examining your sociopolitical and racial identity; 3)
identifying the key events in your past that brought you to where you are, 4) identifying your core values and
narrowing them down to the 3 to 5 that are most meaningful to you, and 5) identifying your signature strengths
(Niemiec & McGrath, 2019). These are helpful, even fun, techniques to get one started although it is important to
remember that knowing one’s self and cultivating one’s noble purpose is an on-going endeavor that requires
periodic reflection. In fact, Baruti K. Kafele (2015), school principal and author, recommends that school
principals start everyday asking themselves if their purpose is driving all that they say and do. He recommends this
because purpose serves as the constant reminder of what you are about as a school leader and will enable leaders to
stay focused on the school vision as opposed to spending their time reacting to crises and putting out fires.
As a servant leader of a school the principal’s role requires more than knowing and reflecting on their individual
purpose. They must also facilitate a sense of purpose among all those in the school community. Albert Schweitzer
once said: At times our own light goes out and is rekindled by a spark from another person. Each of us has cause to
think with deep gratitude of those who have lighted the flame within us.
A school leader is in the privileged position to be that spark for followers. Leaders can provide formal
and informal opportunities for followers to discover, articulate and make connections between their personal
purpose(s) and their particular role in the school. Most importantly, school leaders must ensure that everyone
can see the alignment of their individual purposes with the shared purpose, vision and mission of the school.
Oliver Wendel Homes Jr. is quoted as saying that many people die with their music still in them.
You can find a curated list of readings and free resources related to the self-cultivation of noble purpose, and
supporting adult stakeholders such as teachers and non-certified staff through the purpose discovery and
alignment process. Additionally, you can find ideas for preparing students to discover their own noble purpose
at www.cultivatingvitues.org
Humility: The term humility comes from the Latin humus, meaning earth or soil. This may account for
some colloquial perceptions of humility as being associated with lowness - meekness, self-abasement, and low
status. However, experts from myriad fields attest that humility actually refers to the quality of being grounded
in the sense of having a realistic perspective (Treasurer, 2018). Humility requires self-awareness such that one
has the ability to honestly assess one’s own capabilities, achievements and talents, without ego exaggeration or
self-deprecation. As C.S. Lewis said Humility is not a matter of thinking less of yourself, it is a matter of
thinking about yourself less. Historically, the quality of humility was revered. The philosopher Emmanuel
Kant described humility as a meta-attitude enabling a moral agent to have a proper perspective on themselves
(Owens, Rowatt, & Wilkins, 2012). The famous poet Alfred Tennyson considered humility the highest virtue,
the mother of them all.
Humility requires a leader to acknowledge and value the strengths and contributions of others without
feelings of jealousy or negative comparison driven by insecurity. Far from being self-abasing, humility in
leaders is associated with confidence and courage. Humility is the virtue that enables leaders to avoid our all
too human weakness to become arrogant, selfish and self-protective. All of these are known to be forms of
weakness making one prone to a dangerous thoughtlessness (Patterson, 2003). Humility enables leaders to be
good listeners by encouraging them to be open to the perspectives of others, and recognize the legitimacy of
perspectives other than their own. Humility opens a person to the influence and insights of others, showing
itself to be a competitive advantage (Vera & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004). Psychologists recognize humility as a
tempering force – helping guard against “excessive self-focus or inflated estimation of one’s own knowledge

6
and abilities” (Owens et al. 2012, p. 261). Greenberg (2005) argues that humility helps maintain a balance
between personal worth and a realistic recognition of ones limitations.
Lastly, humility requires teach-ability, that is, an openness to not only listen but to learn from others,
and try new perspectives (Tangney, 2002; Templeton, 2011). This quality of teachability is associated with
continual self-improvement (Verdorfer, 2016). Research demonstrates that “situational triggers, drivers,
consequences, and contingencies of humility” confirm that humility itself can be learned (Grant, 2021). Robert
Greenleaf (2003) provided the following advice to leaders:

Your understanding of yourself, of the other people involved, and of the area in which the problem lies
is limited. Therefore, the search for understanding—an intellectual pursuit—is the most practical of
ideas ... But it is a difficult idea to hold onto when one bears the weight of responsibility for action,
especially if the need is urgent. It is difficult to seek to understand when the heat is on…develop the firm
habit of seeking to understand when the heat is not on…. Learn how to seek to understand now, when
the heat is not on; make it a firm habit, and try to be aware that this will only serve you well if the habit
is firmly enough fixed so that you can manage it when the going is rough…”----- (pp. 112-113)

Humility can “positively influence performance through enhanced learning, more comprehensive
decision-making, follower empowerment, and employee retention” (Owens, et al. 2012, p.266). Of special
interest to educators – “humble leaders model how to grow to followers” – creating a culture of growth (Owens
& Hekman, 2012 p. 801).
Supporting followers’ growth may involve sharing institutional power with them, which requires
humility on the part of the leader to trust that their perceptions, concerns, and judgments are not the only ones
worth attention. In schools, leaders demonstrate humility by actively seeking out and listening to the
perspective of all stakeholders, especially those with less institutional power. Two types of humility are
particularly important for school leadership – intellectual humility and cultural humility. The intellectual
humility of the servant-leader requires granting that all people in the organization have legitimate ‘knowledge,’
at times more accurate and/or relevant than your own. Further, cultural humility requires that you recognize
that there are limitations to your perception and inevitably bias in your unquestioned cultural assumptions. For
that reason, both intellectual humility and cultural humility are needed for educational leaders to grow beyond
their limited perceptions, and overcome their biased assumptions. Actively cultivating and expressing the virtue
of humility is central to servant leadership in schools (Tangney, 2002).
Owens and Hekman (2012) caution that traditional leadership strengths of intelligence, resolve, and
persuasion must be exhibited as well as humility, or humility may be misinterpreted as weakness and
indecision. The need to establish a perception of competence first may be especially complicated for new school
leaders who must deal with other cultural dynamics. This includes younger leaders of older faculty and racial /
cultural minority leaders in majority racial / cultural organizations. Humility in schools, as elsewhere, requires
confidence and courage of the leader, but it is an essential ingredient in virtuous leadership, and especially so in
servant leadership. Leaders must have the humility to listen and understand and the courage to act.
Courage: Unlike humility, courage is understood by modern and ancient scholars, and lay people alike,
as a universally desirable quality—everyone wants to be courageous (Lopez, O’Byrne, & Peterson, 2003).
While universally valued, arguments over its definition have been documented as far back as Plato and Socrates
(Pury & Lopez, 2009). Aristotle thought that without courage we would never accomplish anything, believing
it to be the greatest quality of the mind. This sentiment was echoed by the modern poet and novelist Maya
Angelou, who said:
Courage is the most important of all the virtues, because without courage you can't practice any other
virtue consistently. You can practice any virtue erratically, but nothing consistently without courage.

In this article we will describe courage as requiring 3 essential elements: (a) there is a willing,
intentional act; (b) it involves substantial danger, difficulty, or risk to the actor; and (c) it is primarily motivated

7
by the desire to bring about a morally worthy result (Rate, 2010, p. 62). Yet it is important for readers to
recognize that a virtue like courage is not a simple thing that can easily be defined universally, across context.
The exemplars of courage that may first come to mind, such as someone running into a burning building
to rescue a stranger, do not in themselves well render the virtue in its variety. Context matters because it
defines what kind of courage is required and there are many kinds of courage to choose from. For
example, the courage needed to fight in a war is not the same courage needed to admit that you are
suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and need help. The courage to speak your mind
is not the same courage as that needed to admit your flaws. The courage to know yourself deeply and
honestly is not the same courage as that needed to open yourself up empathetically to other people’s
pain. The question of a person ‘having courage’ as if it is a generic thing is too simplistic, as we all need
to be able to embody specific kinds of courage in specific situations. The challenge, to borrow from
Aristotle, is to have the right kind of courage, to the right degree, embodied in the right way, and
directed toward the right ends, much of which will be defined by the context-person interplay. (Bier &
Sherblom, 2020, p.vi)

Robert Greenleaf (1991) defined courage as an important characteristic that distinguishes the servant-leader
from other leaders. Within the organizational context, courage is about challenging conventional models of
working behaviors (Hernandez, 2008); and as such, it is essential for innovation and creativity. In an
organizational sense courage includes daring to take risks and trying new approaches to old problems
(Greenleaf, 1991) - not being satisfied with the status quo. Additionally, of interest to us, being ethical in an
organization often requires courage to do the right thing, as ethics is not always given priority over expedience,
individual interest or collective profit. As Dumbledore so cogently observed: It takes a great deal of bravery to
stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends. (Rowling, 1998).

In schools, it takes courage for principals to address their own biases and that of teachers, for example,
in race-based disparities in discipline (Treasure, 2018). Having difficult and personally uncomfortable
conversations take courage, and if the conversation is about something negative, like the teacher’s cultural
insensitivity in relation to students and/or their parents, the conversation may try a leader’s self-control as well
(Treasure, 2009). Because servant-leadership requires considering everyone’s interest, including the broader
society beyond the organization, courage will be needed to stay true to the school’s broad mission in the face of
narrower self-interest. In her book Everyday Courage for School Leaders, Cathy Lassiter (2017, p.13)
describes courage as having 4 domains.
1. Moral courage: Standing up and acting when injustices occur, human rights are violated, or when
persons are treated unjustly.
2. Intellectual Courage: Challenging old assumptions and understandings and acting on new learnings,
understandings, and insights gleaned from experience and/or educational research.
3. Disciplined Courage: Remaining steadfast, strategic, and deliberate for the greater good in the face
of inevitable setbacks and failures.
4. Empathetic Courage: Acknowledging personal bias, intentionally moving away from it in our
practice, and seeking to vicariously experience the trials and triumphs of others.
Principals practicing the Servant Leadership mandate to challenge the status quo can expect to run into
situations that require them to operate fairly frequently in one or more of Lassiter’s courage domains. The
internal psychological characteristics that enable courageous behavior include inner convictions or values, duty,
selflessness, integrity, humor, valor, loyalty, and independence (Hannah, Sweeny, & Lester, 2007; Putnam,
2004). While courage is not a well-researched virtue, there are a small number of studies that indicate that
engaging in courageous acts increases the likelihood of engaging in subsequent courageous acts (Costa, 2015),
in keeping with Aristotle’s conception of developing character habits. Additionally, several studies indicate that
8
seeing oneself as a courageous person, even retroactively labeling actions taken in the past as courageous, leads
to positive beliefs about oneself that make courageous acts more likely in the future (Boyd and Ross 1994;
Finfgeld, 1999; Hannah et al., 2007). Worline and Streen (2004) found that observers of courageous acts in the
workplace feel inspired to engage in their own acts of courage. Given that the students are watching (Sizer &
Sizer, 1999) it is a school leader’s duty to model courage and promote a school culture that supports courageous
acts by all stakeholders.
Forgiveness involves the ability to forgive others when you feel offended by something they have said
or done, or been hurt by decisions or possibly even mistakes they made (Verdoold & Van Dierendonck, 2010).
Forgiveness has been documented to be an element for easing tensions among social animals, such as primates,
including humans (de Waal, 1989; de Waal & Sherblom, 2018). Forgiveness is one of the inter-personal moral
virtues, an integral part of the ability to build lasting relationships, professionally and personally. Given that
almost all interactions between people provide the possibility—intentionally or unintentionally—for offense to
be taken and/or harm to be done, the ability to forgive is essential to building and keeping healthy relationships.
As young children on the playground most of us experienced the need to repair the hurt feelings or physical
injuries that we have caused our playmates or that they have caused us. Our parents teach us the process for
getting past these transgressions – a process in which the offending child indicates they are sorry and the hurt
child forgives them.
In Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification forgiveness is reported to be
facilitated, even enabled, by one’s capacity to empathize. Drawing attention to the connection between thought
and feeling in a situation, the authors conclude “People who experience empathic affect for their transgressors
and who adopt the cognitive perspective of their transgressors tend to forgive specific transgressors more
readily than do people who do not experience empathy or engage in perspective-taking” (p. 435). The strength
and history of the relationship is also important: “partners are more willing to forgive one another for
transgressions if their relationship is characterized by high satisfaction, commitment, and closeness” (p. 435).
Forgiveness usually involves 3 psychological conditions that facilitate embodying forgiveness
(McCullough, 2008). First, the ways a victim perceives a transgressor as worthy of care. Second, a victim’s
perception of the value of the relationship, that is, whether the relationship is worth working for. Third, and
last, the extent to which the victim perceives they can feel safe in the relationship going forward once this issue
is resolved. These predict people’s likelihood of engaging in forgiveness. A person’s empathy level predicts
forgiveness among friends as well as among co-workers (Bateson, Ahmad, Lishner, & Tsang, 2002).
Expressing remorse in asking forgiveness and voicing sincere sympathy for the suffering caused helps rebuild
trust and relationship safety (Nadler & Liviaton, 2006).
Research has demonstrated that individuals who rank high on measures of forgiveness tend to have
better physical and psychological health. They report higher life satisfaction and fewer physical maladies
(Bono & McCullough, 2006). They have fewer maladaptive habits, such as cognitive rumination and emotion
suppression, and possess healthier coping strategies leading to less tobacco, alcohol, and drug use (Kendler et
al. 2003). Forgiving-individuals are better at maintaining relationships with partners, have stronger social
supports, and experience more relational closeness and commitment (Karremans & Van Lange
2004; McCullough et al. 2009; Karremans et al. 2005).
Interpersonal forgiveness is easiest when the wrong-doer expresses a desire to repair the relationship,
acknowledges their offense or mistake, expresses remorse, and takes responsibility for ameliorating the negative
impact of their actions such as paying restitution. However, the ability to forgive may be most important when
this type of satisfactory resolution is unlikely. It is important to know that forgiveness and its benefits do not
have to include talking to the transgressor, nor restitution, foregoing the imposition of social or legal
consequences, nor maintaining a relationship with the transgressor. This is called intrapersonal forgiveness and
involves the person hurt or offended by someone else’s action making the decision to engage in the internal
process of letting go of negative feelings and of any intention to seek vengeance against the perceived wrong-
doer. This requires acknowledging to oneself the negative feelings that the offensive act generated – feelings of
fear, anxiety, anger, neglect, shame, hurt, betrayal, etc. It is also important to remember that forgiveness is a
9
process – a process that takes time and intention as well as having a repertoire of techniques to facilitate
forgiving.
Educational leaders need to be mindful that forgiveness is essential for maintaining an atmosphere of
trust - a process for letting go of blame may be necessary to keep a school running effectively. In addition to
establishing a forgiving climate, school leaders need to model self-forgiveness. No educators can do everything
right all the time, and leaders must model strategies for forgiving their own mistakes as well as the mistakes of
others. For servant-leaders it is important to create a culture where people feel accepted, are free to take some
productive chances, even make mistakes, and know that they will not be rejected (Ferch, 2005).
Leaders can enable this type of virtuous interaction by initiating and supporting organizational
structures, systems and resources such as restorative practices that are aligned with forgiveness (Madsen et al.,
2009). Restorative justice and other reconciliation oriented approaches focus on the positive benefits of being
able to let-go and move-on. Research identifies many school-based benefits, including repairing relations,
instilling trust in the school community’s ability to deal with problems without breaking down, and the
lessening of on-going peer violence among students (Sherman, et al. 2005). Other kinds of practices that can
provide healing opportunities for self and others need to be identified (Ferch & Spears, 2011).
Healing relations between people within an organization in an ongoing way will require forgiveness, and
the leader must model this herself, and possibly guide this healing process among colleagues (McCullough, et
al. 2009). When clustered together - humility, forgiveness and gratitude - represent an orientation to leadership
that ‘‘includes effectively handling oneself in a non-egocentric, positive and offense-resistant manner’’
(Grahek, Thompson, & Toliver, 2010, p. 272).
Gratitude involves a feeling of thankful appreciation for and recognition of the good things one
receives or has received (Rahm, Tobias & Heise, Elke 2019). Gratitude is historically and etymologically
related to thankfulness, thoughtfulness, and spiritual grace. Watkins et al. (2009) define gratitude as an emotion
that comes about when a person realizes something good has happened to them (or something bad averted) and
they believe that someone has brought it about. McCullough et al. (2001) argued that gratitude is a moral
emotion and motivator, citing Adam Smith’s famous Theory of Moral Sentiments.
Gratitude has benefits for the individual - “Grateful individuals tend to be agreeable, emotionally stable, self-
confident but less narcissistic, and non-materialistic” when compared with their peers (Watkins, et al. 2009,
p.439). There is evidence that an attitude of gratitude is related to a greater sense of well-being and happiness
(e.g., Watkins et al. 2003; Emmons and McCullough, 2003; McCullough, et al. 2002). Gratitude supports social
relations, and stable relationships predict happiness. Additionally, gratitude enhances a person’s likelihood of
engaging in prosocial behavior (Watkins, 2009). Further, research suggests that gratitude promotes effectively
dealing with stress, and enhances personal growth (Emmons and Mishra, 2011). Gratitude requires other
capacities to be embodied, such as paying better attention to transcend your usual mindset of taking things for
granted. Gostick and Elton (2020) show how practices of gratitude boost employee engagement, reduce
turnover, and lead to members of the organization expressing more gratitude among themselves, strengthening
their bonds.
In schools we demonstrate gratitude through recognition and celebration (not rewards), letting others
feel seen and known while promoting a sense of camaraderie and collective belonging. Feelings of gratitude
between staff will support reciprocity and mutuality, encouraging a sense of interconnectedness (Michie, 2009).
Feelings of gratitude in teacher-student relationships can improve students’ feelings of belonging, and
sense of connection to the teacher. Inculcating a school culture open to expressing gratitude provides
opportunities for positive interaction among community members generally. With its panoply of positive
effects, gratitude is an essential characteristic of servant-leadership (Van Dierendonck, 2011).
Empowering others characterizes servant-leaders, as they take an active interest in the growth and well-
being of everyone in the organization. Greenleaf said that “serving and service…are what produce the result in
personal growth in those being served” (2003, pp. 132-133). Empowerment, therefore, can be thought of as a
motivational concept focused on enabling people and encouraging personal development (Conger, 2000). The
10
servant-leader’s belief in the intrinsic value of each individual is the central issue in empowerment; it is all
about recognition, acknowledgment, and the realization of each person’s ability to learn (Greenleaf, 1998).
Of special interest to educational leaders, empowering everyone in a school creates a culture of mutual
care-giving, a sense that we are all-in-this-together, and that leadership has everyone’s best interest at heart
(Spreitzer, 1996). To be a leader who empowers others well requires the development of a number of
supporting virtues. For example, to empower someone requires you understand their strengths and weaknesses
(or, as-yet under-developed areas). This is so that your leadership meets them where they are – building on
their strengths and what they have to offer the organization, and providing mentoring and support to further
develop them where they need it (Konczak, Stelly, & Trusty, 2000). If an educational leader wishes to
empower others, it may also require that leader to practice a little non-attachment, that is, become less attached
to their own conception of process and outcome.
The virtue of Foresight / Future-mindedness is important for leaders, and Greenleaf instructed servant-
leaders “to nurture their abilities to dream great dreams” (Spears, 2003, pp.18-19). This is vital for the
organization because someone needs to attend to the proverbial big-picture, and most members are preoccupied
with day-to-day concerns. Greenleaf saw foresight and future-mindedness as enabling the servant-leader “to
understand the lessons from the past, the realities of the present, and the likely consequence of a decision for the
future” (Spears, 2003, pp.18-19). The ability to look at a problem or an organization from this future-oriented
perspective means that a servant-leader must think beyond day-to-day operational realities and short-term goals
to the future they want to create, which Greenleaf notes “is deeply rooted within the intuitive mind” (Spears,
2003, p.19).
Bazerman (2014) argues that leaders must cultivate their power of noticing: to see latent opportunities,
avoid threats, and prepare for the future. Additionally, Bazerman points out that sometimes the hardest thing to
notice is what did not happen, and that we need to intentionally look for gaps, absences, and disruptions. This is
perhaps especially important with regard to social justice concerns. Who is not ‘at the table’? Whose voice is
not being heard? Educational leaderships can ask: are there opportunities for team-building that were
overlooked? Were there opportunities to publicly value the work of teachers or students that was passed up?
Did we remember to notice people’s contributions? Did we do things to make those contributions more likely
and welcome?
Stewardship was Robert Greenleaf’s chosen term for the relationship and responsibility stakeholders
should feel in holding their institutions in trust for the greater good of society. Where leadership usually
implies a single leader in a hierarchy, stewardship implies a group shared activity (Goodlad, 2008; Smith,
quoted in Yontz, 2012). Block (1993) relates that the conceptual framework of stewardship has a rich history:
Historically, stewardship was meant to protect a kingdom while those rightfully in charge were away, or,
more often, to govern for the sake of an underage king. The underage king for us is the next generation.
It is the willingness to be accountable for the well-being of the larger organization by operating in
service, rather than in control, of those around us. (p. xx)

Discussing stewardship of not-for-profit leadership, Brinkerhoff (2004) wrote that “organizations actually
belong to the communities they serve, and leaders have temporary stewardship over their assets” (p.3).
A servant-leader’s sense of stewardship ensures that the servant-leader does not accept mediocre
performance, but keeps everyone focused on achieving organizational objectives within the constraints of
shared organizational values. Stewardship also implies a style of power use – favoring persuasion, openness,
and discourse to one-sided uses of control. This is in keeping with being a good listener, sharing power, and
empowering those in your organization (Block, 1993). Stewardship also requires patience, self-discipline,
courage, and thrift (Welchman, 1999).
A servant-leader must be self-aware, which, as Greenleaf noted can be frightening because you never
know what you may discover about yourself (Spears, 2003, p. 17). As Greenleaf put it: “Awareness is not a
giver of solace – it is just the opposite. It is a disturber and an awakener” (Spears, 2003, p. 17). At the same
time, however, this awareness is required for understanding ethics and values, and being able to view most
situations from a more integrated, holistic position (Spears, 2003, p. 17) and to know that you are appropriately
11
embodying those values. Leaders should not only act as caretakers, but also as role models (Hernandez 2008).
Servant-leaders, as Stewards of an organization that is meant to outlast them, must operate on a longer timeline,
continually renewing the vision and mission as well as the staff, such that the organization is prepared to
continue without the Steward. “The success of a leader is best gauged by what happens after they are gone.
Does the organization continue to operate with high principles and moral clarity?” (Sisodia, 2018 p. 23)
In schools, servant-leaders are committed to the long-term health of the school and its community
(Varrati, Lavine, & Turner, 2009). Exploring exactly how stewardship should be embodied requires
appreciating what is precious in each school – the vision, history, people, and relationships in the school (Smith,
1999; Yontz, 2012). Stewards need to safeguard their schools’ existing democratic processes, while increasing
rich diversity, and the ongoing challenge of renewing community (Yontz, 2012). It may be hoped that this
might address the growing problem with teacher attrition and retention concerns (Smith, 1999). Goodlad
(2008) notes that school is the only society-wide institution specifically charged with enculturating children into
the democratic process. As Yontz concludes “Without stewards of schools safeguarding this purpose, our
shared way of life is at risk” (2012, p.60).
Best Test: Follower Well-being and More Servant-leaders
Greenleaf saw successful servant-leadership as socially just and self-replicating. In what has come to be called
the credo of servant-leadership, Greenleaf stated:
The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being
served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants?
And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not be further
deprived? (2003, p.134)
In schools, as principals are servant-leaders to teachers, the teachers themselves feel more supported in
cultivating servant-leader virtues. They, in turn, are more likely to serve other teachers and staff similarly, and
embody the servant relationship with students. Engendering such a culture, in which servant-leadership is
modeled at all levels, Greenleaf argues, becomes self-perpetuating.
Conclusion
For leaders to be virtuous leaders they must make a commitment to do so, identifying the moral domain as
central to the well-being of those in their organization, central to the mission of their organization, and central to
their style of leadership. I have argued here that servant-leadership is the best available model of virtuous
leadership, considering as it does the moral good of workers in the organization, the mission of the organization,
and the impact on the broader society, especially on those with less power and resources. Servant-leadership is
more ethically comprehensive than other leadership styles in the sense that it foregrounds ethical issues and
highlights the need for moral relations with everyone in the organization and everyone with whom the
organization interacts. Servant-leadership is also more particular in its moral demands than most approaches, in
that such leaders are expected to actively model the process of personal and professional growth and support
similar growth opportunities for those they serve as leader. It is hoped that leaders in various sectors of society,
including educational leadership, will make being virtuous a part of their leadership identity, and a pronounced
aspect of their organizational mission.

References:

Alliance for Excellent Education (2014, July 24). Teacher turnover high in low income schools. The Alliance
for Excellent Education Archives. Washington, D.C. https://drwilda.com/tag/alliance-for-excellent-education/

Babakus, E., Yavas, U., & Ashill, N. J. (2011). Service Worker Burnout and Turnover Intentions: Roles of
Person-job Fit, Servant Leadership, and Customer Orientation. Services Marketing Quarterly, 32(1), 17–31.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332969.2011.533091

Bass, B.M. (1997). The ethics of transformational leadership. KLSP: Transformational Leadership, Working
Papers. Retrieved August 3, 2006, from http://www.academy.umd.edu/publications/klspdocs/bbass_pl.htm
12
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Collier Macmillan.

Bateson, C.D., Ahmad, N., Lishner, D.A., Tsang, J. (2002). Empathy and altruism. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez
(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology pp. 485-498 New York: Oxford University Press.

Bazerman, M. (2014). The power of noticing: What the best leaders see. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Bier, M.C. & Sherblom, S. A. (2020). Special Issue Guest Editor’s Introduction. Virtuous leadership as a
complex developmental and contextual dynamic. Journal of Character Education, Vol 16, (1) pp. v-xi.

Bier, M.C., Sherblom, S.A., Berkowitz, M. & Sterling, E. (in press). How a Servant Leader’s Ethos of Service
and Stewardship Can Support Teachers’ Professional Ethos in Twenty-First Century Schools. In Handbook of
teacher ethos. New York: Springer Nature.

Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Bono, G., McCullough, M.E., & Root, L.M. (2008). Forgiveness, feeling connected to others, and well-being:
Two longitudinal studies, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (2), pp. 182-195.

Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The influence of school
administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 303–333.

Boyd, J., & Ross, K. (1994). The courage tapes: A positive approach to life’s challenges. Journal of Systemic
Therapies, 13, 64–69.

Brinckerhoff, P.C. (2004). Nonprofit stewardship: A better way to lead your mission-based organization.
New York: Fieldstone Alliance.

Brooks, D. (2014). Should you live for your resume... or your eulogy. [Video]. YouTube.
https://youtu.be/MlLWTeApqIM

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for
construct development and testing. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 97(2), 117-134.

Burkhauser, S. (2017). How much do school Principals matter when it comes to teacher working conditions?
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 126–145.

Caldwell, C., Ichiho, R., & Anderson, V. (2017). Understanding level 5 leaders: the ethical perspectives of
leadership humility. Journal of Management Development 36 (5) pp. 724-732.

Carlson, D.S. & Perrewe, P.L. (1995). Institutionalization of organizational ethics through transformational
leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(10), pp. 829-839.

Cherkowski, S., & Walker, K. (2016). Purpose, passion and play. Journal of Educational Administration
54(4), 378–392. http://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-10-2014-0124

13
Clifford, M., Behrstock-Sherratt, E., & Fetters, J. (2012). The Ripple Effect: A Synthesis of Research on
Principal Influence to Inform Performance Evaluation Design. A Quality School Leadership Issue
Brief. American Institutes for Research.

Conger, J.A. (2000). Motivate performance through empowerment. In E.A. Locke (Ed.), The Blackwell
handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp. 137-149). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Costa, C.D. (2015), The 10 happiest jobs in America. March 8th USA Today
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2015/03/08/cheat-sheet-happiest-jobs/24509095/

Damon, W. (2008). The Path to Purpose: Helping Our Children Find Their Calling in Life. New York:
Free Press.

de Luque, M., Washburn N.T., Waldman, D.A., House, R.J., (2008). Unrequited profit: How stakeholder and
economic values relate to subordinates’ perceptions of leadership and firm performance. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 53, 626–654.

Department for Professional Employees (2019). Fact Sheet 2019 School Administrators: An Occupational
Overview. Publisher: Author.
https://www.dpeaflcio.org/factsheets

Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and
research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership
Quarterly, 25(1), 36-62.

Emmons, R.A., & McCullough, M.E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation
of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377-
389.

Emmons, R.A., & Mishra, A. (2011). Why gratitude enhances well- being: What we know and what we need to
know. In K. M. Emmons, T. B. Kashdan, & M. F. Steger (Eds.), Designing positive psychology. Taking stock
and moving forward (pp. 248–262). Oxford University Press.

Ferch, S. (2005). Servant-leadership, forgiveness and social justice. The International Journal of Servant-
Leadership, 1, 97-113.

Ferch, S. R., & Spears, L. C. (2011). The spirit of servant-leadership. (Eds.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist
Press.

Fiedler, F. E., & House, R. J. (1988). Leadership Theory and Research: A Report of Progress. In C. I. Cooper &
I. Robertson (Eds.) International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 73-92). New
York: Wiley.

Finfgeld, D. (1999). Courage as a process of pushing beyond the struggle. Qualitative Health Research, 9,
803–814. doi:10.1177/104973299129122298

Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(1), 1.

Fray, L., & Gore, J. (2018). Why people choose teaching: A scoping review of empirical studies, 2007–
2016. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 153– 63.
14
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.06.009

Frick, D. M. (2013). Implementing Servant leadership: Stories from the field. D.B. Reinhart Institute for
Ethics in Leadership. Ladysmith, Wisconsin: Publishers Express Press.

Fry, L. W., Matherly, L. L., Whittington, J. L., & Winston, B. E. (2007). Spiritual leadership as an integrating
paradigm for servant leadership. In Integrating Spirituality and Organizational Leadership 23464, pp. 1–24.
Mumbai, Maharashtra: Macmillan Publishers India Limited.

Fullan, M. (Ed.). (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Gooden, M. A., & O'Doherty, A. (2015). Do you see what I see? Fostering aspiring leaders' racial
awareness. Urban Education, 50(2), 225–255.

Goodlad, J. I. (2008). A nonnegotiable agenda. In J. I. Goodlad, R. Soder, and B. McDaniel (Eds.), Education
and making of a democratic people, (pp. 9-28). San Francisco: Jossey Bass

Gostick, A. & Elton, C. (2020). Leading with gratitude. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Grahek, M.S., Thompson, D.A., & Toliver, A. (2010). The character to lead: A closer look at character in
leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(4), 270-290.

Grant, A. (2021). Think again. New York: Penguin

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Indianapolis, IN: Robert K. Greenleaf Center.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1976). The institution as servant (rev. ed.). Newton Center, MA: Robert K. Greenleaf
Center.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). The Servant as Leader. Retrieved from

http://media.johnwiley.com.au/product_data/excerpt/52/07879745/0787974552.pdf

Greenleaf, R. K. (1991). The servant leader. Indianapolis, IN: Robert K. Greenleaf Center

Greenleaf, R. K., (1998) The power of servant-leadership. In Spears, L. C. (Ed.). The power of servant-
leadership:Essays. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Greenleaf, R.K. (2003). The servant leader within: A transformative path. (Eds.) Hamilton Beazley, Julie
Beggs, & Larry Spears. New York: Paulist Press.

Grenberg, J.M. (2005). Kant and the ethics of humility. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Hannah, S., Sweeny, P., & Lester, P. (2007). Toward a courageous mindset. Journal of Positive Psychology 2,
129-135.

Hanushek, E. A., Rivkin, S. G., & Schiman, J. C. (2016). Dynamic effects of teacher turnover on the quality of
instruction. Economics of Education Review, 55, 132–148.

Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. Teachers
College Press.
15
Hayden, R. W. (2011). Greenleaf’s “Best Test” of Servant leadership: A multilevel analysis. Theses,
dissertations, & student scholarship: Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication Department.
University of Nebraska.

Hernandez, M. (2008). Promoting stewardship behavior in organizations: A leadership model. Journal of

Business Ethics, 80, 121–128.

Huizinga, R. B. (2016). An understanding of Humility-Based leadership impacting organizational

climate. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 9(1), 34-44.

Jensen, D. (2014). Churn: The high cost of principal turnover. Retrieved from website School Leaders
Network https://connectleadsucceed. org.

Johnson, S. M., Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2012). How context matters in high-needs schools: The effects of
teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teachers
College Record, 114, 1–39.

Kafele, B. K. (2015). The Principal 50: Critical Leadership Questions for Inspiring Schoolwide Excellence
. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Kindle Edition.

Karremans, J.C. & Van Lange, P.A.M. (2004). Back to caring after being hurt: The role of forgiveness.
European Journal of Social Psychology 34, 207-227.

Karremans, J.C. & Van Lange, P.A.M. , & Holland, R.W. (2005). Forgiveness and its associations with
prosocial thinking, etc. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31, 1315-1326.

Kender, K.S. Liu, X. Gardner, C.O. McCullough, M.E., Larsen, D.B., & Prescott, C.A. (2003). Dimensions of
religiosity and their relationship to lifetime psychiatric and substance abuse. American Journal of Psychiatry
160, 496-503.

Konczak, L. J., Stelly, D.J., & Trusty, M.L. (2000). Defining and measuring empowering leader behaviors:
Development of an upward feedback instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 301-313.

Kraft, M. A., Marinell, W. H., & Yee, D. (2016). School organizational contexts, teacher turnover, and student
achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Educational Research Journal, 53, 1411–1449.

Lanctot, J. D., & Irving, J. A. (2007). Character and leadership: Situating Servant leadership in a proposed
virtues framework. The 2007 Proceedings of the Servant leadership Roundtable at Regent University,
Virginia Beach, VA.

Lassiter, C. (2017). Everyday courage for school leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Laub, J. (1999). Assessing the Servant Organization: Development of the Servant Organizational Leadership
Assessment (SOLA) Instrument. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(02), 308.

Laub, J. (2004). Defining Servant leadership: A Recommended Typology for Servant Leadership Studies. In
The Servant leadership Roundtable (pp. 1–23).

Leider, R. (2015). The power of purpose. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler.

16
Leithwood, K., Begley, P. T., & Cousins, J. B. (2005). Developing expert leadership for future schools. New
York: Routledge.

Lemoine, G. J. (2015). Closing the Leadership Circle: Building and Testing a Contingent Theory of
Servant leadership. Georgia Institute of Technology. Retrieved from
http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9781107415324A009

Levin, S., Bradley, K., & Scott, C. (2019). Principal Turnover: Insights from Current Principals. Report from
The National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a
multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161-177.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence
on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1434-1452.

Lopez, S., O’Byrne, K., Peterson, S. (2003). Profiling courage. In Positive psychological assessment: A
handbook of models and measures. Washington,D.C.: American Psychological Association

Louis, K. S., & Murphy, J. F. (2018). The Potential of Positive Leadership for School Improvement: A Cross-
Disciplinary Synthesis. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 2(2–3), 164–
180.
http://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.2790

Madsen, S.R., Gygi, J., Hammond, S.C., & Plowman, S.F. (2009). Forgiveness as a workplace intervention: The
literature and a proposed framework. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 10, 246-262.

McCullough, M.E. (2008). Beyond revenge: The evolution of the forgiveness instinct. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

McCullough, M.E., Emmons, & Tsang, J. (2002). The grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical
topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 112-127.

McCullough, M.E., Kilpatrick, S.D., Emmons, R.A., and Larson D.B. (2001). Is gratitude a moral affect?
Psychological Bulletin127, 249-266.

McCullough, M.E., Root, L.M., Tabak, B.A., and van Oyen Witvliet, C. (2009). Forgiveness. In Oxford
handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed.) S.J. Lopez & C.R. Snyder (Eds.) pp. 427-435, Oxford University
Press.

McMahone, M. (2012). Servant leadership as a teachable ethical concept. American Journal of Business
Education, 5(3), 339–346. Retrieved:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Servant+Leadership+As+A+Teachable+Ethic
al+Concept#0

Michie, S. (2009). Pride and gratitude. How positive emotions influence the prosocial behaviors of
organizational leaders. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15, 393-403.

Murphy, J. (2002). Reculturing the Profession of Educational Leadership: New Blueprints.

17
Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 65–82.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X02382004

Nadler, A. & Liviatan, I. (2006). Inter-group reconciliation. Personality and social psychology Bulletin 32,
459-470.

Niemiec, R.M. & McGrath, R.E. (2019). The power of character strengths. VIA Institute on Character.

Nohria, N., & Khurana, R. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of leadership theory and practice. Harvard Business
Press.

Owens, B.F. & Hekman, D.R. (2012). Modeling how to grow: An inductive examination of humble leader
behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes. The Academy of management Journal, 55 (4), pp. 787-818.

Owens, B., Rowatt, W. & Wilkins, A. (2012). Exploring the Relevance and Implications of Humility in
Organizations. The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship.
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734610.013.0020.

Page, D., & Wong, P. T. P. (2000). A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership. In S.
Adjibolooso (Ed.), The human factor in shaping the course of history and development (pp. 69-110). Ann
Arbor, Michigan: University Press of America. Retrieved from http://www.drpaulwong.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/09/Conceptual-Framework.pdf

Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in
Organizational Contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-
1322-6

Patterson, K. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Proceedings of the Servant leadership
Roundtable, http://www.regent.edu.

Peterson, S.J., Galvin, B., Lange, D. (2012). CEO Servant leadership: Exploring executive characteristics and
firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 565-596.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01253.x

Poon, R. (2006). A model for servant leadership, self-efficacy and mentorship. In Servant leadership
Research Roundtable (p. 13). Retrieved:
http://www.regentuniversity.org/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2006/poon.pdf

Pury, C.L.S. & Lopez, S.J. (2009). Courage. In Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed.) S.J. Lopez
& C.R. Snyder (Eds.) pp. 375-403, Oxford University Press.

Putnam, D. (2004). Psychological courage. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Rahm, T., & Heise, E. (2019). Teaching happiness to teachers-development and evaluation of a training in
subjective well-being. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 2703.

Rate C. R. (2010). Defining the features of courage: A search for meaning. In C. L. S. Pury & S. J. Lopez
(Eds.), The Psychology of Courage: Modern Research on an Ancient Virtue. (pp. 47–66). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

18
Rockoff, J. (2008, March). Does mentoring reduce turnover and improve skills of new employees? Evidence
from teachers in New York City. NBER Working Paper Series, No. 13868.

Rowling, J.K. (1998) Harry Potter and the sorcerer’s stone. Scholastic Publishing.

Sasagawa, M., & Amieux, P. S. (2019). Dispositional humility of clinicians in an interprofessional primary care
environment: a mixed methods study. Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 12, 925.

School Leaders Network. (2014). Churn: The high cost of principal turnover. School Leaders Network
Press.

Schneider, S. K., & George, W. M. (2011). Servant leadership versus transformational leadership in voluntary
service organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.

Seligman, M. & C. Peterson (2004). Character Strengths and Virtues: a handbook and classification, Oxford
University Press

Seligman, M. E., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: empirical
validation of interventions. American psychologist, 60 (5), 410.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Shaw, P.L. (2012) Taking charge: Leading with passion and purpose in the Principalship. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Sherman, L.W., Strang, H., Angel, C., Woods, D., Barnes, G.C., & Bennett S., et al. (2005). Effects of face-to-
face restorative justice on victims of crime in four randomized, controlled trials. Journal of Experimental
Criminology 1, 367-395.

Silver, A. (2018) Your User's Manual: A Guide for Purpose and an Anxiety Free Life in the 21st Century. Seren
Dagderiven: ISBN Canada

Sinek, S. (2009). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. New York: Penguin.

Sisodia, R. (2018) Servant Leadership is Conscious Leadership. In Blanchard, K., & Broadwell, R. (Eds.)
Servant Leadership in Action (pp. 1–30).
http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Sizer, T., Sizer, N.F. (1999) The students are watching: Schools and the moral contract. Boston: Beacon
Press.

Smith, W.F. (1999). Serving as moral stewards of the schools. In W.F. Smith & G.D. Fenstermacher (Eds.)
Leadership for educational renewal. (pp. 155-185). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smylie, M., Murphy, J., & Karen, S. L. (2020). Caring School Leadership. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Corwin.

Smylie, M. A., Murphy, J. F., & Louis, K. S. (2020). Stories of Caring School Leadership. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.

19
Snodgrass Rangel, V. (2018). A review of the literature on principal turnover. Review of Educational
Research, 88(1), 87–124.
http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317743197

Spears, (2003). Understanding the growing impact of servant leadership. Pp.13-27 In The servant leader
within: A transformative path. Hamilton Beazley, Julie Beggs, & Larry Spears (Eds.). New York: Paulist
Press.

Spears, L.C. (2005). The understanding and practice of servant leadership. In Servant leadership Research
Roundtable (pp. 1-8). Retrieved: https://search.proquest.com/docview/2221125245?pq-origsite=gscholar

Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment.

Academy of management journal, 39(2), 483-504.

Steger, M. F., & Dik, B. J. (2010). Work as Meaning: Individual and Organizational Benefits of Engaging in
Meaningful Work. In P.A. Linley, S. Harrington, & N. Page (Eds.). Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology
and work. Pp. 131-142, Oxford University Press.

Tang, G., Kwan, H. K., Zhang, D., & Zhu, Z. (2016). Work–family effects of servant leadership: The roles of
emotional exhaustion and personal learning. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(2), 285-297.

Tangney, J.P. (2002). Humility. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Templeton, J.M. (2011). Worldwide laws of life: 200 eternal spiritual principles. Kindle Locations 3844-
4849.

Treasurer, B. (2009). Courageous leadership: Modeling the way. Leader to Leader, 2009, 52, 13-17.

Treasurer, B. (2018). The Leadership Killer: Reclaiming Humility in an Age of Arrogance. Little Leaps Press,
Inc.

Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4),
1228–1261.

Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I.A.P.M. (2011). The Servant leadership Survey: Development and validation
of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 249–267.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9194-1 (published online 2010)

Van Dierendonck, D., & Patterson, K. (2015). Compassionate love as a cornerstone of Servant leadership: An
integration of previous theorizing and research. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 119–131.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2085-z

Van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic—transformational leadership
research: Back to the drawing board? Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 1–60.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2013.759433

Varrati, A., Lavine, M. E., & Turner, S. L. (2009). A New Conceptual Model for Principal Involvement and
Professional Collaboration in Teacher Education. Teachers College Record, 111(2), 480–510.

20
Vera, D., & Rodriguez-Lopez, A. (2004). Strategic virtues: Humility as a source of competitive advantage.
Organizational Dynamics, 33 (4SPEC.ISS.), 393-408.

Verdoold, A. & Van Dierendonck, D. (2010). Development of a leadership forgiveness measure. The
International Journal of Servant Leadership, 6, 285–292.

Verdorfer, A. P. (2016). Examining mindfulness and its relations to humility, motivation to lead, and actual
servant leadership behaviors. Mindfulness, 7 (4), 950–961.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0534-8

de Waal, F. (1989). Peacemaking among primates. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

de Waal, F. & Sherblom, S.A. (2018). Bottom-Up Morality: The basis of human morality in primate nature.
Journal of Moral Education, 47 (2), pp. 1-11. DOI:10.1080/03057240.2018.1440701

Walker, K., & Sackney, L. (2007). Anti-egoistic school leadership: Ecologically based value perspectives for
the 21st century. In Values education and lifelong learning (pp. 255-278). Springer, Dordrecht.

Walumbwa, F.O. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical
leadership and work group psychological safety. J. Applied Psychology Vol. 95 (5) pp. 1275-1286.

Watkins, P.C., Van Gelder, M., & Frias, A. (2009). Furthering the science of gratitude. In Oxford handbook of
positive psychology (2nded.) S.J. Lopez & C.R. Snyder (Eds.) pp. 437-445, Oxford University Press.

Watkins, P.C., Woodward, K., Stone, T., & Kolts, R.L. (2003). Gratitude and happiness: Development of a
measure of gratitude, and relationships with subjective well-being. Social Behavior and Personality, 31(5),
431-452.

Welchman, J. (1999). The virtues of stewardship. Environmental Ethics, Winter, 411-423.

Worline, M.C., & Streen, T.A., (2004). Bravery. In C. Peterson & M. Seligman (Eds.) Character Strengths
and Virtues pp. 213-228. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Yontz, B. D. (2012). Continuing the conversation: Ensuring responsible stewardship of schools. Education in a
Democracy, 4, 55–77.

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership

theories. The leadership quarterly, 10 (2), 285-305.

Yukl, G., & Mahsud, R. (2010). Why flexible and adaptive leadership is essential. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 62(2), 81.

Zumwalt, K., & Craig, E. (2005). Teachers’ characteristics: Research on the demographic profile. Studying
teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education, 111-156.

21

View publication stats