SERVANT LEADERSHIP: A MODEL FOR ORGANIZATIONS DESIRING A WORKPLACE SPIRITUALITY CULTURE by Rebecca L. Herman JANICE M. SPANGENBURG, Ph.D.

, Faculty Mentor and Chair JIM MIRABELLA, D.B.A., Committee Member DAVID BOUVIN, D.B.A., Committee Member Kurt Linberg, Ph.D., Dean, School of Business & Technology

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University September 2008

3329873 Copyright 2008 by Herman, Rebecca L. All rights reserved

3329873
2008

 Rebecca L. Herman, 2008

Abstract The purpose of this quantitative correlational research was to see to what degree a relationship exists between organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality for a diverse group of adults working in a variety of organizational settings. Using the Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA), the independent variable, organizational servant leadership, was measured by the degree to which valuing people, developing people, building community, displaying authenticity, providing leadership, and sharing leadership (Laub, 1999) were present from the organizational members perspective. Using the Dimensions of Spirituality at Work (DSW), the dependent variable, workplace spirituality, was measured by the degree to which conditions for community, meaning at work, inner life, work unit community, work unit values, individual and the organization, and organization values (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000) were present from the organizational members perspective. Pearsons coefficients of correlation test was selected to determine the magnitude and direction of the relationship between organizational member perceptions of servant leadership and workplace spirituality. The results were significant at the 0.01 level and there was a positive correlation between employee perceptions of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality. For this sample, servant-led organizations had higher levels of workplace spirituality. This research also sought to learn if there was a relationship between demographics and five areas in this study were found to have a significant correlation. For servant leadership, the role in the organization and educational level was a significant determinant. For workplace spirituality, the organization classification, role in the organization, and race were significant. Organizations desiring a workplace spirituality culture should consider the servant

leadership model. Hiring leaders and organizational members who possess the qualities of a servant leader and by developing training programs to further develop servant leadership behaviors in organizational members is one approach to implementing this model. This study also indicates that there is a gap in what top leaders perceive their leadership style and prevalent organizational culture to be and what others within the organization perceive. Educating organizational members on servant leadership and workplace spirituality might raise awareness and understanding.

Dedication I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me (Philippians 4:13). This work is dedicated to the greatest Servant Leader of all time, my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. When I thought I could not do this, He lifted me up and gave me strength to persevere. My prayer is that this work will bring glory to Him.

iii

Acknowledgments There have been numerous individuals who have contributed to my ability and determination to complete this work. I do not believe it will be truly possible to adequately acknowledge and thank these individuals but I hope they each know how important they have been throughout this journey. First, my heartfelt appreciation to my faculty mentor and chair, Dr. Janice M. Spangenburg. She joined me in this journey after I had struggled to complete the proposal for over one and a half years. Her encouragement and support were unwavering and she enabled me to achieve each milestone and complete this doctoral journey. I also wish to thank my terrific committee members. Dr. James Mirabella provided expert guidance with his watchful eye on methodology and data analysis. Dr. David Bouvin provided insight and support toward the overall content. Additional gratitude goes out to the fine Capella faculty that I had the pleasure of learning from during my studies. This dissertation would not have been possible without the ability to adequately collect data on servant leadership and workplace spirituality. My sincere gratitude to those who came before me, who designed and tested instruments, and to those who allowed me to use them for my research. Specifically, my appreciation to Dr. James Laub who granted permission for me to use the Organizational Leadership Assessment and to Dr. Donde Ashmos and Dr. Dennis Duchon for allowing me to use the Dimensions of Spirituality at Work. I also wish to thank all those who took time out of their busy schedules to participate in this study by completing the online survey. Those who surround us daily also make it possible to stay the course throughout the long doctoral challenge. My professional colleagues were a wonderful source of iv

support and inspiration. Many of them had already completed a similar journey and were very encouraging to let me know it could and would be accomplished. My dear friends also picked me up on a daily basis. Whether they were local friends, far away friends, or sisters in Alpha Omicron Pi, they all cheered me onward. In addition, I could not have done this without the ongoing prayers from my Christian brothers and sisters at Community Bible Church and especially the Tuesday morning small group and the awesome Worship Team. A special thanks to my Pastor, Barry Minkow, for his interest in my study. Last but certainly not least, my everlasting thanks to my family. My parents taught me early on that I could accomplish anything on which I set my mind. Throughout this journey they continually asked how it was going and assured me I could and would get it done. Finally, to my son Trevor, I am grateful to him for giving up time with me and trying to understand what it was all about. He was only seven when I embarked on this journey and it probably seems like I have always been going to school. My hope is that I have instilled upon him the value of education but more importantly, demonstrated that you can persevere and achieve whatever dreams you have. I thank Trevor for his personal sacrifices and I look forward to having more time with him.

Table of Contents Acknowledgments.................................................................................................. iv List of Tables ....................................................................................................... viii List of Figures ......................................................................................................... x CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 Introduction to the Problem .................................................................................... 1 Background of the Study ........................................................................................ 2 Statement of the Problem........................................................................................ 3 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 4 Rationale ................................................................................................................. 5 Research Questions................................................................................................. 6 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 6 Definition of Terms................................................................................................. 7 Assumptions and Limitations ................................................................................. 9 Nature of the Study ............................................................................................... 10 Organization of the Remainder of the Study ........................................................ 11 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 12 Introduction........................................................................................................... 12 Workplace Spirituality .......................................................................................... 12 Organizational Servant Leadership....................................................................... 27 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................. 43 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 46 vi

Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................. 46 Research Design.................................................................................................... 47 Variables ............................................................................................................... 48 Research Questions and Hypotheses .................................................................... 50 Sample................................................................................................................... 54 Instruments............................................................................................................ 55 Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 58 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 59 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................. 62 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS .................................................................................................. 63 Research Design Overview................................................................................... 63 Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 64 Sample Characteristics.......................................................................................... 64 Research Question 1 ............................................................................................. 67 Research Question 2 ............................................................................................. 71 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................. 89 CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS................... 90 Research Summary ............................................................................................... 90 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 92 Conclusions........................................................................................................... 99 Limitations of the Study...................................................................................... 101 Recommendations............................................................................................... 101

vii

List of Tables Table 1: Comparison of Servant Leadership and Inspiring Leadership ............................. 4 Table 2: Summary of Variables ........................................................................................ 49 Table 3: Sampling Frame Information.............................................................................. 55 Table 4: Laub's (2003) OLA Score Ranges and Organizational Categories .................... 61 Table 5: Sampling Frame Response Rates........................................................................ 65 Table 6: OLA and DSW Descriptive Statistics................................................................. 68 Table 7: OLA and DSW Pearsons Correlation................................................................ 70 Table 8: Organizational Classification Descriptive Statistics........................................... 72 Table 9: ANOVA Table for Organization Classification ................................................. 73 Table 10: Type of Organization Descriptive Statistics ..................................................... 74 Table 11: ANOVA Table for Type of Organization......................................................... 75 Table 12: Length of Service Descriptive Statistics........................................................... 75 Table 13: ANOVA Table for Length of Service .............................................................. 76 Table 14: Role in Organization Descriptive Statistics...................................................... 77 Table 15: ANOVA Table for Role in Organization.......................................................... 78 Table 16: Gender Descriptive Statistics............................................................................ 79 Table 17: ANOVA Table for Gender ............................................................................... 79 Table 18: Age Descriptive Statistics................................................................................. 80 Table 19: ANOVA Table for Age .................................................................................... 81 Table 20: Ethnicity Descriptive Statistics......................................................................... 81 Table 21: ANOVA Table for Ethnicity ............................................................................ 82 Table 22: Race Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................... 83 viii

Table 23: ANOVA Table for Race ................................................................................... 84 Table 24: Education Descriptive Statistics ....................................................................... 85 Table 25: ANOVA Table for Education........................................................................... 86 Table 26: Geographic Location Descriptive Statistics...................................................... 87 Table 27: ANOVA Table for Geographic Location ......................................................... 87 Table 28: Summary Table for Demographic Topic Results ............................................. 88 Table 29: Organization Health Levels of Prior Studies ................................................... 94 Table 30: Summary Table for Demographic Topic Results ............................................. 96

ix

List of Figures Figure 1: OLA organizational health levels...................................................................... 68 Figure 2: Scattergram of OLA mean and DSW mean. ..................................................... 69 Figure 3: OLA mean by highest level of education.......................................................... 97 Figure 4: DSW mean by race............................................................................................ 98

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem Organizations are striving to remain competitive and sometimes simply survive due to economic uncertainty and volatility (Yeo, 2003). Managers are forced to enact cost-cutting measures such as downsizing, reengineering, layoffs, and moving work offshore. Such actions require accomplishing the same amount of work with fewer human resources and with staff that are insecure, demoralized, and lifeless (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Cash, Gray, & Rood, 2000; Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Laabs, 1995). Other organizations are performing well and reaching for even greater levels of success that require unleashing the full capability of their human resources (Goldstein & Behm, 2004). The problem, in both scenarios, is discovering methods to fully develop an organizations capabilities through people (Chien, 2004). While managers are reaching for higher productivity, employees are searching for ways to find meaning in their work (Cash et al., 2000; Garcia-Zamor, 2003). The workplace accounts for a significant percentage of peoples lives; thus, employees are looking for it to sustain them through personal, social, and community fulfillment (Looby & Sandhu, 2002). Organizational culture has the ability to maximize productivity through the fulfillment of employees (Jurkiewicz & Giacalone, 2004). Such a culture, workplace spirituality, embodies humanistic practices and embraces individuals bringing their minds, bodies, and spirits to work (Garcia-Zamor, 2003).

Leadership is being challenged by social and political unrest, rapid advances in technology, forces of globalization, and societys dismay over gross corporate misconduct (Gardner & Schermerhorn Jr., 2004). In this business environment, there is a need for a leadership model that reflects something more meaningful from within the individual leader (Fernandez, 2004). Kouzes and Posner (2004) recommended the need to become a credible leader by clarifying personal values and life standards. Leaders who know themselves and act authentically not only position themselves for personal success but also empower others to lead within their organizations. Such leaders are committed to personal development and continuous learning and strengthen their followers determination by focusing on everyday learning opportunities. Employees desire to feel that they are a part of something substantial and that provides meaning. When this occurs, employees find enthusiasm for their future and that of their organization. One method of achieving this is through a united vision where employees are empowered by their leaders to work toward the vision and within a value system that is congruent with their own (Sosik, 2005).

Background of the Study Proponents of scientific management recommended organizational models high in specialization and although such models led to improved efficiencies, they also led workers to feel isolated and even alienated from their co-workers (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000). As such, work has become detached and no longer part of community life. This has caused meaning to disappear from work and motivation to become an issue (Chalofsky, 2005). Todays work life is stressful, chaotic, ambiguous, and employees 2

spend a greater proportion of their time at work (Bell & Taylor, 2003; Guillory, 2001). The combination of isolation, alienation, stress, chaos, and a greater percentage of time at work has shifted employee views and expectations of the workplace. Employees desire wholeness at work by deriving a deeper meaning from their work that will not only anchor them but also integrate their lives (Lips-Wiersma, 2002; Wheatley, 1999). To respond to this need, organizational leaders must understand what is necessary to bring greater meaning of work to their employees. Nurturing a culture of workplace spirituality has the potential to address the aforementioned concerns of todays workplace. This culture has several core elements: it provides meaning, purpose, and community; it operates with personal and company values that are congruent; it assists in the integration of the whole person and achieving authenticity; and provides opportunities for optimal human development (Butts, 1999; Gull & Doh, 2004; Kale & Shrivastava, 2003; Looby & Sandhu, 2002; Mitroff & Denton, 1999; Turner, 1999). This study will examine how employees find meaning in their work lives and the role of the workplace as a source of community and propose a leadership model for organizations desiring a culture of workplace spirituality.

Statement of the Problem Recent research into workplace spirituality identified a particular type of leadership as paramount for enhancing the overall experience level of spirit at work. This leadership, called inspiring leadership, was placed as a central factor for fostering workplace spirituality. The remaining factors included appreciation and regard, personal fulfillment, sense of community, organizational integrity, strong organizational 3

foundation, and positive workplace culture (V. Kinjerski & Skrypnek, 2006, p. 285). Previously, Fairholm (2000) declared a need for spiritual leadership as business leaders were seeking meaning and congruence with their inner life and that such a leadership model was actually servant leadership. Based on the servant leadership constructs of values people, develops people, builds community, displays authenticity, provides leadership, and shares leadership (Laub, 2004), there is an apparent alignment of these constructs with the inspiring leadership factors (Table 1). Thus, through a literature review and quantitative survey research, this study examined why servant leadership has become such an important leadership model and why it may be a logical choice for organizations desiring a culture of workplace spirituality.

Table 1: Comparison of Servant Leadership and Inspiring Leadership

Servant Leadership Values People Develops People Builds Community Displays Authenticity Provides Leadership Shares Leadership Inspiring Leadership Appreciation and Regard Personal Fulfillment Sense of Community Organizational Integrity Strong Organizational Foundation Positive Workplace Culture

Purpose of the Study The purpose of this quantitative correlational research was to see to what degree a relationship exists between organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality for a diverse group of adults working in a variety of organizational settings. The independent variable, organizational servant leadership, was measured by the degree to 4

which valuing people, developing people, building community, displaying authenticity, providing leadership, and sharing leadership (Laub, 1999) were present from the organizational members perspective. The dependent variable, workplace spirituality, was measured by the degree to which conditions for community, meaning at work, inner life, work unit community, work unit values, individual and the organization, and organization values (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000) were present from the organizational members perspective.

Rationale This study was conducted to gain an understanding of the relationship of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality. There are three primary reasons that this study was warranted. First, servant leadership theory is still in developmental stages and has primarily been concerned with developing constructs and comparing it to other leadership models (Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2004); thus, there is a need to study additional real-world applications of this model (Russell & Stone, 2002). Second, workplace spirituality research is also in its infancy (V. M. Kinjerski & Skrypnek, 2004) and is a worthwhile subject warranting additional research (Neal & Biberman, 2004) to gain an understanding of the components of workplace spirituality so leaders can enable and encourage spirituality within their employees and workplaces (Harrington, Preziosi, & Gooden, 2001).Third, it fills a research gap regarding what leadership styles are most congruent for workplace spirituality (Mitroff & Denton, 1999). Finally, it contributes to the overall body of knowledge on leadership theories.

Research Questions Research questions must be very focused and framed to define specifically what, how, why, and who is being studied (Meadows, 2003a) and should be fine tuned to ensure that they are clear, specific, answerable, interconnected, and substantively relevant (Robson, 2002). The following research questions were posed:

Research Question 1 Is there a positive correlation between employee perceptions of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality? In other words, do servant-led organizations have higher levels of workplace spirituality?

Research Question 2 Does a relationship exist between demographics (organization classification, type of organization, length of service, position in organization, gender, age, ethnicity, race, education geographic, and location) and the respondents perception of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality?

Significance of the Study This correlational study resulted in a new understanding of the relationship of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality. It advances servant leadership theorys real-world application by determining its applicability to workplace spirituality. This study also advances empirical research on workplace spirituality so that organizational leaders can better understand how they might encourage and nourish 6

spirituality within their workplaces. In addition, it fills a research gap regarding what leadership styles are most congruent for workplace spirituality by evaluating servant leadership as a preferred leadership model. Finally, by examining the relationship of servant leadership and workplace spirituality, it contributes to the overall body of knowledge on leadership theories.

Definition of Terms Leader. A leader is a visionary who partners with others in seeking change to realize the vision (Laub, 2004). Leadership. A reciprocal process within a group context that occurs when a leader influences group members to make intentional change toward a shared purpose and goal attainment (Burns, 1978; Kotter, 1999; Laub, 2004; Northouse, 2001). Meaning of work. Employees find meaning of work when they can realize their full potential while doing work for which they have a passion and when they can be of service to others as this gives meaning to their lives (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Guillory, 2001; Mitroff & Denton, 1999; Wheatley, 1999). Organizational culture. A pattern of dynamic relationships and the informal communication and structure of an organization (Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Schneider, 2000). Culture is also a given groups accumulated shared learning that includes emotional, behavioral, and cognitive elements of the members entire psychological functioning (Schein, 1992).

Servant leader. A leader who is servant first. Such leaders naturally want to serve and eventually aspire to lead and in doing so, help those who follow them to grow as individuals (Greenleaf, 1998). Servant leadership. A form of leadership that places the self-interest of the leader behind what is best for those being led and is characterized by valuing and developing people, providing and sharing leadership all in the context of authenticity and building community for the greater good (Laub, 1999). Servant Organization. An organization in which members value and practice the characteristics of servant leadership so that it truly becomes the organizational culture (Laub, 1999). Spiritual Organization. An organization that achieves a high level of workplace spirituality through the use of its structure, strategies, and culture to inspire and expand its competencies and abilities (Sanders III, 2003). Workplace community. A group of people who have common interests, values, and share a sense of purpose and whose members become loyal, feel wholeness when together, and find harmony (Klenke, 2005). Effective workplace communities assist members in reaching their potential and provide interesting with a nurturing attitude and open communication (Chalofsky, 2005; Fairholm, 2000; Mauro, 2002). Workplace spirituality. An organizational culture that provides community and meaning of work as well as a greater sense of purpose by recognizing that organizational members have an inner life that must not be separated from work but integrated and nourished within the workplace (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Sanders III, 2003).

Assumptions and Limitations Assumptions There are several assumptions with regard to this proposed research. The first assumption is that the researcher made every effort to conduct the study and present the results without bias. It is also assumed that the participants understood the statements presented for rating in the survey and were honest in their responses. Another assumption is that an effective and objective method of gathering data may be achieved through a valid and reliable survey instrument and that convenience sampling is an acceptable method for survey studies.

Limitations The scope of this research was limited to the six servant leadership constructs as defined in the Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) survey instrument. Additionally, workplace spirituality measures were limited by the seven factors specified in the Dimensions of Spirituality at Work (DSW) survey instrument. The sample was limited by the ability of the electronic mail to reach participants and their ability to use a computer to complete the survey. Another limitation was that the targeted sample consisted of mostly white collar workers who are college educated. In addition, due to the use of convenience sampling, findings from this study are not generalizable to all applications of servant leadership or workplace spirituality.

Nature of the Study This studys research was descriptive and used a relational design, also known as a correlational study, to measure relationships between the variables of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality as well as determining if there was any influence with selected control variables (Cooper & Schindler, 2003; Robson, 2002). An advantage of fixed designs is their ability to go beyond individual differences and identify patterns and processes that can then be linked to organizational or group features. Another advantage is that the data can be statistically analyzed (Robson, 2002). Scholarly directions in educational leadership research have been departing from a scientific path toward one of a humanistic and moral endeavor. A current concern is that there are few sustained programs of empirical research and that this will impact researchers in future generations (Heck & Hallinger, 2005). Quantitative research remains a valid method for conducting leadership research because its primary purpose is the creation of knowledge by confirming an existing theory or by conducting further tests (Borland Jr., 2001). As such, quantitative research provides insight into leadership subjects and themes that need further and more in-depth investigation that can best be accomplished through subsequent qualitative research (Meadows, 2003c). Therefore, this research examined servant leadership and workplace spirituality from a quantitative perspective to learn if there were any significant relationships. This lends to the creation of knowledge on this topic and establishes a framework for subsequent qualitative inquiry.

10

Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter 2 is a literature review concerning the topics of servant leadership and workplace spirituality. Chapter 3 describes the methodology that was used in this study. Chapter 4 describes the data that was collected using the methodology described in Chapter 3. Chapter 5 draws conclusions based on the data that was presented in Chapter 4 and provides recommendations for future study.

11

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction In this review of the literature, workplace spirituality and organizational servant leadership are examined to provide a theoretical backdrop and understanding for this research. For workplace spirituality, the purpose is to examine the factors that contribute to or comprise this phenomenon by reviewing organizational culture, work as community, meaning of work, and workplace spirituality itself. Regarding organizational servant leadership, the purpose is to review why servant leadership has become an important leadership model and why it is a logical choice for organizations desiring a culture of workplace spirituality. This is accomplished through a study of why the model is effective, the constructs of this leadership theory, and the longevity and progression of servant leadership.

Workplace Spirituality The purpose of this section is to utilize a literature review to examine how employees find meaning in their work lives and the role of the workplace as a source of community. To accomplish this, there is an examination of organizational culture and work as community. Next is a review of the meaning of work and workplace spirituality. Finally, there is an evaluation of the ability of workplace spirituality to aide employees in finding meaning in their work and, ultimately, the affect on organizational performance.

12

Organizational Culture According to Schneider (2000), culture is a pattern of dynamic relationships and the informal communication and structure of an organization (Kotter & Heskett, 1992). Culture is also a cognitive construct that depends on beliefs and attitudes (Ruchlin, Dubbs, Callahan, & Fosina, 2004) and a given groups accumulated shared learning that includes emotional, behavioral, and cognitive elements of the members entire psychological functioning (Schein, 1992). Culture is learned behavior traits, member characteristics, and a philosophy about how business should be conducted ("The emergence of organizational culture and symbolic intercourse," 2000). The subject of organizational culture is important because it is a powerful, yet often unconscious, group of forces that determine both collective and individual behavior (Schein, 1999). Humans communicate with symbols in four basic methods: spoken language, written language, body language, and artifacts. From a functionalist perspective, culture is forged from a series of traits that combine to form organized social relationships. Relationships form groups and groups form expectations of thought and conduct, otherwise known as norms. Cultural norms include habits, behaviors, values, and customs ("The emergence of organizational culture and symbolic intercourse," 2000). Schein (1999) identified three levels of culture: artifacts, espoused values, and shared tacit assumptions. Level one is the observable level. Artifacts are what can be seen, heard, and felt while being a part of the environment. The second level is espoused values or the stated strategies, goals, and philosophies of the organization. Finally, level three concerns the shared tacit assumptions of the organization. This includes the deeper meanings and those that can only be found by looking beneath the surface toward the 13

historical values, beliefs, and assumptions of the founders and determining what influence still exists (pp. 15-20). Witte and Muijen (1999) established a framework as a conceptual model for understanding organizational culture. The broad, environmental influencing factors such as professional associations, national culture, stakeholders, and business are viewed as an outside frame. Just inside is another frame representing the influencing factors that are closer to the organization such as leadership, vision, pressure, and crisis. In the center of the framework is the impact of the individual organizational members where the organizational culture forms and develops. This influence includes processes, interactions between individuals and the organization, and specific outcomes (pp. 498-499). Organizational culture includes the values, norms, and social relationships within organizations. Individual organizational members, the leadership vision of the organization, and environmental factors all influence culture and culture, in turn, influences modes of operating, strategy and goals. Therefore, to achieve organizational effectiveness requires and understanding of the role that culture plays in organizations (Schein, 1999). Workplace community is an extension of culture and next is an examination of work as community and why there is a need for workplace community.

Work as Community The Industrial Era changed not only workplaces but also communities. A community is a group of people who have common interests, values, and share a sense of purpose. Through mutual participation, members of communities become loyal, feel wholeness when together, and find harmony (Klenke, 2005). Previously, family, work, 14

leisure, and even religion were intertwined. The Industrial Era required people to work in factories or offices and they had to commute away from their homes and change their lifestyles. This caused work to become detached and no longer part of community life. Thus, meaning began to disappear from work and motivation became an issue (Chalofsky, 2005). Effective workplace communities assist employees in reaching their potential by providing employee development programs (Chalofsky, 2005). Such communities also provide interesting work by creating an environment that is employee focused, operates with a nurturing attitude, has open communication, and values innovation and creativity (Chalofsky, 2005; Fairholm, 2000; Mauro, 2002). Of paramount importance to defining workplace community is the organization in which it resides. A strong, ethical, integrity rich, and values-based organization is needed to provide a foundation for community with its member employees. Organizations must be socially responsible and strive to make a difference while providing pride in the mission and vision through a common purpose and meaningful work. Employees need to feel that the organizational goals are of mutual benefit and of a cooperative nature to enable their buy-in. In addition, employees desire not only to be involved and functioning in a democratic organization but also to have collective responsibility for organizational outcomes. As such, workplace community organizations foster high expectations for quality products and continuous improvement (Chalofsky, 2005; Fairholm, 2000; Mauro, 2002; Willis, 1999). Feeling a connection and unity with others is important for workplace communities. Teamwork, cooperation, cross-functional teams, and genuine friendships identify such an environment. However, what truly sets a workplace community apart 15

from other organizations is its focus on the integration of the whole person into work life. There is an emphasis on the family and caring about members and such organizations conduct work life audits regularly. Finally, there is an interdependence between the organization and its members as well as the members with one another (Chalofsky, 2005; Fairholm, 2000). In addition to the tasks and conditions required to define a community, building a workplace community requires specific effort. Leaders should champion the effort and transform the organization into a community by creating a culture that views the organization and its members holistically. In addition, leaders need to provide positive examples of community values and thoroughly engage members to create community through encouraging activities (Fairholm, 2000; Mauro, 2002). A shift in employee utilization occurs at this point and the organization begins to use employees full capacities and intelligence (Fairholm, 2000; Willis, 1999). Finally, to reinforce the new community culture, leaders should reward employees who are truly demonstrating and living the community values (Mauro, 2002). A strong sense of community leads to employees feeling more committed, fulfilling obligations, and performing at their best, which leads to lower turnover, exceptional organizational performance, and the ability to stay ahead of the competition (Chalofsky, 2005; Mauro, 2002; Willis, 1999). Organizational culture and establishing workplace communities is only a portion of the organizational performance puzzle. As previously noted employees have an additional need of bringing meaning to their work; therefore, next is an examination of meaning of work and the connection to workplace spirituality. 16

The Meaning of Work In a quest for order and efficiency, the proponents of scientific management and bureaucracy recommended organizational models high in specialization. Although such models led to improved efficiencies, they also led workers to feel isolated and even alienated from their co-workers (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000). In the machine model of organizations, employees are simply replaceable parts of the machine, are treated as objects versus people, and feel a lack of trust (Lips-Wiersma, 2002; Wheatley, 1999). In addition, the overall nature of work has changed (Konz & Ryan, 1999). Work life is stressful, chaotic, ambiguous, and employees spend a greater proportion of their time at work (Bell & Taylor, 2003; Guillory, 2001). The combination of isolation, alienation, stress, chaos, and a greater percentage of time at work has shifted employee views and expectations of the workplace. Employees want to discover wholeness at work by deriving a deeper meaning from their work that will not only anchor them but also integrate their lives (Lips-Wiersma, 2002; Wheatley, 1999). As such, personal development is no longer separated from work and employees desire personal stability from within and workplace responses that are values-based (Guillory, 2001; Konz & Ryan, 1999). To respond to this need, organizational leaders must understand what is necessary to bring greater meaning of work to their employees. A literature review revealed five common themes within three broader category perspectives. The first category is the perspective of the individual and the first theme is that of realizing personal potential. Employees need to realize their full potential as a person (Mitroff & Denton, 1999) through continuous learning (Guillory, 2001) and developing and becoming who they are 17

by maintaining integrity and gaining self-knowledge (Lips-Wiersma, 2002). This requires greater empowerment and opportunities to unlock and develop their creative energies (Guillory, 2001; White, 2001). The second theme is that of interesting and purposeful work. Employees want work that is interesting and driven from an inner passion (Guillory, 2001; Mitroff & Denton, 1999) so that they may express themselves through creativity, achievement, and influence in the workplace (Lips-Wiersma, 2002) and achieve higher levels of job satisfaction (White, 2001). In addition, employees desire work that not only has purpose and is important (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Wheatley, 1999) but also work that is connected to what they inwardly feel is true and natural for themselves (Peppers & Briskin, 2000). The second perspective is the organization and the third theme involves being a member of an organization that is effective and with congruent values. Employees are more likely to find meaning of work within an organization that is considered ethical (Mitroff & Denton, 1999) and one that operates in a supportive and dignified atmosphere (Wheatley, 1999; White, 2001). It is important that the organization has a unified vision and purpose because employees want to feel the unity that derives from sharing values (Konz & Ryan, 1999; Lips-Wiersma, 2002); however, it is critical that the employees personal values are in alignment with the organizations practiced values (Guillory, 2001). The fourth theme is that of community. Employees long for an organization that provides them with good colleagues (Mitroff & Denton, 1999) where they feel connected to one another and belong to a special community within the organizational culture 18

(Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Konz & Ryan, 1999; Lips-Wiersma, 2002; Wheatley, 1999; White, 2001). As previously discussed, workplace communities that are effective assist employees in reaching their personal potential in environments that are employee focused (Chalofsky, 2005); thus, meaning of work and workplace communities are fully intertwined. The third category perspective and fifth theme involves service to the greater good. Employees are not superficial; instead, they desire to be of service to their communities, future generations, and humankind (Mitroff & Denton, 1999). Through serving others, employees feel as though they are making a difference and contributing to something larger than themselves (Lips-Wiersma, 2002; Peppers & Briskin, 2000). Through this, they are able to be involved in work that gives meaning to their lives (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Wheatley, 1999). The nature of work has changed and employees desire and require more meaning in their work from the individual, organizational, and service perspectives. Employees also need balance in their lives (Lips-Wiersma, 2002) and to function as integrated people where mind, body, and spirit work together (Guillory, 2001). When this does not happen or when their life is out of balance, a loss of equilibrium occurs and they must compartmentalize and separate significant parts of themselves; thereby, relinquishing their ability to realize their full potential at work (Mitroff & Denton, 1999). When employees are not realizing their full potential, it is difficult for organizations to achieve optimal performance. Next is a look at a form of organizational culture that brings integration and balance to individuals personal and work lives.

19

Workplace Spirituality Although workplace spirituality is very difficult to define, there are core elements that are common in organizations that embrace a culture of workplace spirituality. First, employees find both meaning and purpose in their work and feel that their organizations are true communities (Butts, 1999; Gull & Doh, 2004; Kale & Shrivastava, 2003; Looby & Sandhu, 2002; Mitroff & Denton, 1999; Turner, 1999). Second, organizational members find that there is a congruency with personal and company values and that their organizations are optimistic and focused on ethics, virtues, and principles that provide them with a deeper level of motivation (Butts, 1999; Harrington et al., 2001; Kale & Shrivastava, 2003; Looby & Sandhu, 2002; Mitroff & Denton, 1999; Turner, 1999). The third element concerns connectivity and an integration with members inner self and the outside world. As such, employees are capable of being genuine and experience authenticity in their lives (Gull & Doh, 2004; Harrington et al., 2001; Kale & Shrivastava, 2003; Mitroff & Denton, 1999; Turner, 1999). The final core element enables personal and human development to the extent that members of the organization have the opportunity of reaching their highest potential (Butts, 1999; Gull & Doh, 2004; Turner, 1999). Thus, organizations that embrace workplace spirituality are also increasing the meaning of work level for their employees. In fact, there is an increased likelihood that employees will find true meaning at work when their values and spiritual aspirations are congruent with those of the organization (Harrington et al., 2001). An examination of workplace spirituality requires a comparison of formalized religion with spirituality and the concerns of same. Harrington et al.(2001) believed that even when spirituality is defined as sacred values; it is distinct and not synonymous with 20

religion. Religion has as an institutional connotation with a system of attitudes that is outward looking and uses formal rites and scripture to provide answers (Cash et al., 2000; Kale & Shrivastava, 2003). Spirituality reaches beyond the rules of religion (Krishnakumar & Neck, 2002) and is broadly inclusive and nondenominational (Mitroff & Denton, 1999). Spirituality continuously asks questions, is intrinsic, and originates from the inside. Finally, spirituality is more mysterious and deals with deep motivations and emotional connections (Cash et al., 2000; Kale & Shrivastava, 2003; Krishnakumar & Neck, 2002). A concern is that the Supreme Court and the EEOC support nondifferentiation of spirituality and formal religion. This fact could affect an employers ability to create workplace spirituality while maintaining a workplace free of nondiscrimination and harassment as related to religious beliefs. Therefore, organizations wishing to implement workplace spirituality must establish guidelines of flexibility to ensure appropriate accommodations are enacted (Cash et al., 2000). A two-year empirical study found spirituality to be an appropriate subject for the workplace and discovered that people have four distinct orientations toward spirituality and religion. People may view spirituality and religion as synonymous, religion dominate, spirituality dominate, or neither as primary. Individual orientation will affect workplace spirituality and should be taken into account (Mitroff & Denton, 1999). Workplace spirituality is difficult to specifically define but it does have several core elements: it provides meaning, purpose, and community; it operates with personal and company values that are congruent; it assists in the integration of the whole person and achieving authenticity; and provides opportunities for optimal human development. 21

An organization that is spiritually informed can provide the workplace community necessary for spiritual growth to occur (Bell & Taylor, 2001). Next is an evaluation of the affects that a culture of workplace spirituality may have on improving organizational performance.

Affect on Employee and Organizational Performance Various definitions of motivation have three concerns in common: events or factors that channel, energize, and sustain human behavior over a period of time (Steers, Mowday, & Shapiro, 2004). Human beings share the existence of basic motivational need systems and organizations that achieve best companies to work for lists do so by motivating people at a deeper level, which results in greater than usual effort (Kets De Vries & Florent-Treacy, 2002). Such employee motivation is found in organizational cultures with high levels of workplace spirituality (Bell & Taylor, 2003; Bolman & Deal, 2001; Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Jurkiewicz & Giacalone, 2004; Loehr, 2001). One reason for workplace spiritualitys impact on employee motivation is that it increases employee energy through wholeness. Spiritual energy is at the core of every person and harnessing this energy enables the production of world-class products and services (Mitroff & Denton, 1999), valuable organizational contributions (King & Nicol, 1999), and the ability to use the energy as sustenance in the face of adversity (Loehr, 2001). Another reason for the affect on motivation is that people have exploratory and assertive needs related to personal growth through creativity and innovation (Kets De Vries & Florent-Treacy, 2002). A culture of workplace spirituality creates a humanistic work environment (Garcia-Zamor, 2003) that cultivates the emergence of creativity 22

(Butts, 1999; Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Gull & Doh, 2004; Krishnakumar & Neck, 2002; Turner, 1999). People are also motivated by their desire to be valuable and the ability to transcend their personal needs in an effort to find overall meaning in life (Kets De Vries & Florent-Treacy, 2002). By connecting with their spirit in the workplace, employees are more grounded due to the increased meaningfulness of their work (Gull & Doh, 2004). McMurray (2003) deduced that the establishment of meaning for organizational members occurs in the context of culture. A culture of workplace spirituality provides a synergistic relationship between leaders and followers (King & Nicol, 1999) that allows individuals to tap into their deepest values and discover their sense of purpose (Loehr, 2001). As employees achieve personal fulfillment (Krishnakumar & Neck, 2002; Turner, 1999), their individual needs are gratified (Burack, 1999) and there is an overall new meaning to work (Mitroff & Denton, 1999). A valuable organizational resource, in addition to a motivated employee, is a committed employee (Chen, 2004). Organizational commitment is an individuals involvement, identification with, and emotional attachment to a particular organization. Beliefs and values of employees as well as job satisfaction have been found to be closely associated with commitment (Lok, 2001). Research found that the greater people experience meaning in their work, the greater their commitment to the organization. Organizational commitment is also stronger when there is a sense of work community and an alignment of personal values with organizational values (Milliman, Czaplewski, & Ferguson, 2003).

23

Similarly, work attitudes and behaviors are influenced by organizational value systems as created by organizational culture (Vandenberghe & Peiro, 1999). Not only does organizational culture have a strong relationship to organizational commitment, the right combination also has a positive impact on performance (Jurkiewicz & Giacalone, 2004; Sambasivan & Johari, 2003) and workplace spirituality is such a culture. In fact, research demonstrated that an individuals propensity to be committed to an organization is positively related to the individuals spirituality (Milliman et al., 2003). Thus, a culture of workplace spirituality offers satisfaction and personal fulfillment, which leads to loyalty and greater organizational commitment (Bolman & Deal, 2001; Krishnakumar & Neck, 2002; Lips-Wiersma, 2002). Organizations must continually seek methods to motivate their employees who are a most valuable resource. In addition to motivation, organizations need employees who are committed to them. Workplace spirituality provides a culture that promotes meaning of work and workplace community; thus, increasing employee motivation and commitment. Next is an exploration of organizational performance and possible connections to workplace spirituality. Organizational performance has been most frequently viewed from a traditional perspective of tangible, financial results (Yeo, 2003) where economy and efficiency are carefully measured (Chien, 2004). However, a newer perspective seeks to value the intangible items such as alignment of people, organizational culture, communications, and goals (Yeo, 2003). The intangible aspects of organizational performance can be categorized into an outcome of effectiveness. As such, there are several factors that

24

generally affect organizational performance: leadership styles, organizational culture, job design, and employee motivation (Chien, 2004). Research discovered a strong correlation between profitability and the strength of an organizations culture. In many cases, companies with a culture of workplace spirituality outperformed the others by 400 to 500 percent (W. D. Thompson, 2000). One reason is that positive employee attitudes lead to higher levels of productivity. Workplace spirituality creates a humanistic work environment where employees experience increased morale (Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Turner, 1999) and enhanced attitudes toward work (Bell & Taylor, 2003; Burack, 1999). A culture of workplace spirituality encourages optimum human development, which engages the whole person, enabling optimum individual performance and highly effective organizations (Butts, 1999; King & Nicol, 1999; Krishnakumar & Neck, 2002; Milliman, Ferguson, Trickett, & Condemi, 1999). Organizations that are spiritually oriented are less likely to be involved with instances of ethical misconduct (Gull & Doh, 2004). This is accomplished through whole-system values that enable honesty and mutual trust (Burack, 1999; Butts, 1999; Krishnakumar & Neck, 2002). In all, a culture of workplace spirituality does have a direct influence on an organizations financial success (Turner, 1999) through improving the human experience at work, which improves individual performance and ultimately increases organizational performance (Bell & Taylor, 2003; Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Krishnakumar & Neck, 2002). In the long term, such cultural arrangements assist in achieving long term enterprise growth, stability, and profitability, all of which are all measurements of high performance organizations (Burack, 1999). 25

The Future of Workplace Spirituality A problem that todays organizations are facing is attempting to improve performance under difficult circumstances (Yeo, 2003). Organizations are either performing well and trying to achieve even more (Goldstein & Behm, 2004) or are forced into cost-cutting measures and are challenged to accomplish the same amount of work with fewer employees (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Cash et al., 2000; Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Laabs, 1995). To accomplish this requires motivated and committed employees who perform to their fullest potential (Gull & Doh, 2004). At the same time, employees want a workplace that provides them a sense of community and gives them true meaning to their work (Konz & Ryan, 1999). Organizations that create and maintain such a humanistic culture, workplace spirituality, have the ability to achieve their goals because they are also meeting the needs of their employees (Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Milliman et al., 1999). Workplace spirituality research is in its infancy (V. M. Kinjerski & Skrypnek, 2004) and is a worthwhile subject warranting additional research (Neal & Biberman, 2004) to understand the components of workplace spirituality so leaders can enable and encourage spirituality within their employees (Harrington et al., 2001). For instance, how can organizations effectively and authentically implement workplace spirituality (Krishnakumar & Neck, 2002)? What happens when those without spiritual beliefs enter this culture is it possible to meet all needs? Which would dominate the need for collective or individual experiences (Bell & Taylor, 2001)? What leadership styles are most congruent for this culture (Mitroff & Denton, 1999)? This research will specifically address this last question by positing that servant leadership is desirable for organizations that have or desire a culture of workplace spirituality. 26

Organizational Servant Leadership The purpose of this section is to utilize a literature review to examine why servant leadership has become such an important leadership model and why it is a logical choice for organizations desiring a culture of workplace spirituality. To accomplish this, there is a look at why servant leadership is an effective leadership model followed by an examination of the constructs of servant leadership. Next is a review of how servant leadership has withstood the test of time from biblical perspectives, the work of Robert K. Greenleaf, and the progression of modern day research.

Why Servant Leadership? Laub (1999) defined servant leadership as placing the best interests of followers ahead of the leaders self-interest. Spears (1998) called upon the writings of Greenleaf (1977; 1996) to capture the ten characteristics of the servant-leader: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community. However, the most distinguishing characteristic of servant leadership is that it views the leaders role as a servant to their followers and providing stewardship to the organization (Greenleaf, 1977; Rowe, 2003; Russell, 2001; Russell & Stone, 2002; Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002; Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004; Spears, 1998). The role of stewardship actually drives the servant leader to focus on organizational values and achieving stated objectives (Reinke, 2004). Senge (1995) observed that the term servant leadership makes one think newly because it initially sounds like opposites. More recently, Ndoria (2004) had similar thoughts that leadership and servanthood, at first glance, appear to be a contradiction of 27

terms; however, servant leadership is truly about the higher level relationship of leaders and followers. Regardless of the initial perception, servant leadership was found to be a concept with the potential to change organizations through stimulating both individual and organizational metamorphoses (Russell & Stone, 2002). In addition, reflective behaviors, such as those present in servant leadership, direct organizations toward values and goals that demonstrate respect for numerous stakeholders. Such action encourages corporate cultures that are ethically improved (Giampetro-Meyer, Brown, Browne, & Kubasek, 1998). Servant leaders were also found to be transformational leaders (Farling, Stone, & Winston, 1999). Transformational leadership generates awareness of the organization's mission and vision; develops peers and followers to higher levels of ability and potential; stimulates interest among peers and followers to view their work from new perspectives; and motivates peers and followers to look beyond self interests toward those of the team. Transformational leadership takes performance beyond what is expected (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Transformational leadership seeks to change and transform individuals. The primary concerns of transformational leadership are ethics, standards, values, and longterm goals. Such leaders employ both charismatic and visionary leadership as they assess followers' motives, learn to satisfy their needs, and treat them as the full human beings that they are (Northouse, 2001). Transformational leaders operate based on deeply held personal value systems. By sharing their values and standards with followers, they are able to not only unite their followers but also change their beliefs and goals (Humphreys, 2001).

28

The 100 Best Companies to Work For in America list is used by many organizations as a benchmark for their own achievement (Ruschman, 2001). The criteria for achieving best companies to work for in America designation includes: fairness and openness; pride in work and organization; friendliness and community; appropriate pay, benefits, and security; and opportunities for growth and advancement (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). Many companies who have made this list practice and publicly advocate servant leadership in their organization (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002) or have values that are congruent with the servant leadership model (Ruschman, 2001). Such organizations include TDIdustries, Synovus Financial, Southwest Airlines, AFLAC, and Container Store (Ruschman, 2001). Additionally, Rennaker & Novak (2006) conducted a multi-case study to learn more about servant leadership in practice. They utilized a literature review to identify organizations claiming to be servant-led (Mens Wearhouse, PPcPartners, Schneider Engineering, Southwest Airlines, Synovus, TDIndustires, and Vanguard Group) and those for which the literature identified as servant-led (Ben and Jerrys, Container Store, Herman Miller, Meridith Corporation, Schmidt Associates, ServiceMaster, Starbucks, Toro, and U.S. Cellular) (p. 8). Servant leadership is being practiced in the corporate world and the priority of service to others has enabled many outstanding for-profit organizations to thrive in very competitive markets (Ruschman, 2001). This is contrary to earlier thoughts that servant leadership might be more appropriate for nonprofit organizations (Giampetro-Meyer et al., 1998). As Whetstone noted (2002), servant leadership has been criticized for negative association with the term servant and for seeming like a rather unrealistic model of organizational leadership; however, the reality is that it is becoming more accepted and 29

publicly discussed. Servant leadership is not a passive form of leadership. It requires trust, risk-taking, and tenacity to create and maintain a servant-led organization (Ruschman, 2001).

Constructs of Servant Leadership Laub (1999) conducted a study that clarified sixty characteristics of servant leadership as derived from the literature. This was accomplished with a three-part Delphi study utilizing a panel of experts and then field testing with 828 respondents in numerous organizational types. This section will review and discuss the six constructs of servant leadership as derived from that study valuing people, developing people, building community, displaying authenticity, providing leadership, and sharing leadership (Laub, 1999, p. 67). Servant leaders truly value people (Greenleaf, 1977; Laub, 1999; Russell & Stone, 2002; Smith et al., 2004; Stone et al., 2004). Such leaders demonstrate this characteristic through encouragement (Russell, 2001), humility (Brenneman & Keys, 1998), putting others first (Whetstone, 2002), and expressing appreciation (Russell & Stone, 2002). They also believe in people (Pollard, 1997) and are receptive through non-judgmental listening (Giampetro-Meyer et al., 1998; Laub, 1999; Rowe, 2003; Spears, 2005, 1998; Whetstone, 2002). Servant leaders have a strong awareness of the human spirit (De Pree, 1992; Giampetro-Meyer et al., 1998) and demonstrate empathy toward others (Giampetro-Meyer et al., 1998; Greenleaf, 1977; Rowe, 2003; Russell, 2001; Spears, 2005, 1998). These leaders operate with an egalitarianism attitude (Rowe, 2003; Smith et al., 2004) and display respect for all stakeholders (Giampetro-Meyer et al., 1998). 30

Genuine value and concern for others carries over into a desire to develop people. Servant leaders accomplish this through a commitment to their learning and growth (Harvey, 2001; Laub, 1999; Rowe, 2003; Russell, 2001; Spears, 1998; Stone et al., 2004), developing their potential through affirmation and encouragement (Brenneman & Keys, 1998; Smith et al., 2004), and leading them towards their full capability (GiampetroMeyer et al., 1998; Pollard, 1997; Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). From the servant leadership perspective, the long-term achievement of organizational goals occurs through the growth and development of the organizational members (Stone et al., 2004). However, for the servant leader, the responsibility for the development of people extends beyond workplace contributions into the realm of intrinsic values. The servant leader seeks to cultivate not only professional growth but also personal and spiritual growth (Spears, 2005).Greenleaf (1977) emphasized that being a servant-first means ensuring that peoples needs are met and affirmatively answering the question, Do those served grow as persons? (p. 13). Servant leaders build community within their organizations (Laub, 1999; Rowe, 2003; Smith et al., 2004; Spears, 2005, 1998) by partnering with workers (Reinke, 2004). Vanourek (1988) wrote of the servant leader building institutions by welding teams of teams together (p. 306). Similarly, Greenleaf (1998) discussed the difficulty of achieving community within a large-scale organization due to the challenge of its size and recommended that numerous small-scale communities within the larger institution may be the means to synergy. Servant leaders believe they should serve in order to create value for group members through positive interpersonal relationships (Russell & Stone, 2002; Vanourek, 1988). Through service, consensus building, and value creation, servant 31

leaders bring unity to organizational members; thus, building community (Edgeman, 1998; Whetstone, 2002). Another characteristic of servant leaders is that they display authenticity (Laub, 1999; Smith et al., 2004). These leaders practice reflective behaviors (Giampetro-Meyer et al., 1998) to continually increase their self-awareness (Rowe, 2003; Spears, 1998; Whetstone, 2002). This self-awareness strengthens them by increasing their understanding of decision points involving values and ethics (Spears, 2005), how those decisions influence others (Giampetro-Meyer et al., 1998), and how they should model important values (Russell, 2001). Servant leaders have strong character and conviction to their servant nature. Their motivation is derived from intrinsic aspects and their overall self-concept as an altruistic person (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). The servant leader provides leadership by pioneering a vision for the future (Rowe, 2003; Russell, 2001; Russell & Stone, 2002; Spears, 1998), taking initiative, and clarifying goals (Laub, 1999). They move beyond current circumstances and events into conceptual thinking. Related to this is their ability to learn from the past, understand the present, and discern future consequences of decisions. This makes servant leaders abundant in foresight (Spears, 2005, 1998). Servant leaders do not thrive on position or status but rather on relationships (Reinke, 2004). Thus, the challenge for the servant leader is in creating a strategic vision that is sustainable for their organization and the community (Banutu-Gomez, 2004) while remaining sensitive to their followers desires (Harvey, 2001). With their follower-centric focus, servant leaders build trust and credibility (Edgeman, 1998; Farling et al., 1999). This is important because servant

32

leaders rely on persuasion and consensus building to make decisions and accomplish goals (Showkeir, 2001; Spears, 2005). In addition to providing leadership, servant leaders also share leadership (Laub, 1999; Smith et al., 2004). The primary method for accomplishing this is through the empowerment of people (Russell, 2001; Russell & Stone, 2002). Empowering members of the organization requires trust on the part of the leader. He or she must believe that those empowered will take the appropriate actions toward what is important for the organization (Edgeman, 1998; Stone et al., 2004). This correlates to how servant leaders value people by applying egalitarianism and respect toward all stakeholders (GiampetroMeyer et al., 1998; Rowe, 2003; Smith et al., 2004). This respect and trust enables the servant leader to develop people by allowing them to make mistakes as well as admit to them and learn from them (Edgeman, 1998). At the same time, the servant leader freely grants privileges to organizational members thus facilitating the development of community (Smith et al., 2004). In many ways, sharing leadership is a culmination of several of the aforementioned characteristics of servant leadership: values people, develops people, and builds community.

The Test of Time Laub (2004) proclaimed that the paradigm of servant leadership has always existed and that the choice before every leader has always been to lead by serving personal interests first or those of others first. This section will review the progression of servant leadership as a model and theory. The biblical foundations will be examined as will the work of Robert Greenleaf and the progression of modern research. 33

Biblical foundations. Leader as servant as well as service and servanthood are very common themes in Judeo-Christian teaching (Greenleaf, 1998). A keyword search of the New King James Version of the Bible located 896 instances of servant, 284 of serve, and 101 of service (BibleGateway.com, 2007). Numerous servant leadership authors (Boyum, 2006; Drury, 2004; Korac-Kakabadse, Kouzmin, & Kakabadse, 2002; Laub, 1999; Ledbetter, 2003; McMinn, 2001; Ndoria, 2004; Reinke, 2004; Russell, 2000, 2003; Sanders III, 2003; Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002; Wallace, 2006; Wong & Page, 2003) present Christian and Judeo-Christian references as well as direct Scripture references. Overall, there is as a strong foundation for servant leadership from a biblical and religious perspective (Boyum, 2006; Reinke, 2004). Jesus Christ epitomized what it means to be a servant leader and personified leadership through servanthood. Jesus did not operate on a personal agenda but on the will and mission of his Father as indicated in John 6:38 (NIV), For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me (Wilkes, 1998). Kirkpatrick (1988) declared that the life and servanthood of Jesus should be studied as a fundamental component of leadership in all leadership training programs. Scripturally, a very important passage regarding servant leadership is Matthew 20: 25-28 (NIV) (Blanchard, 2001; Russell, 2003):
25

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave - 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.

34

Russell (2003) identified three important aspects of that passage as it relates to servant leadership. First, leadership is placed in a worldly perspective (Matthew 20:25). The implication is that worldly leaders operate from power and authority. Second, true greatness is not achieved with power but through service (Matthew 20:26-27). Third, Jesus came to earth to serve and to be a true servant leader, including the ultimate service to humanity through his crucifixion (Matthew 20:28). Blanchard (2001) noted that, as a servant leader, Jesus was both committed and effective. Jesus demonstrated servant leadership in many ways. In a well-known passage from John 13, Jesus took on the common servants role and washed the Disciples feet: Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come from God and was going to God, 4rose from supper and laid aside His garments, took a towel and girded Himself. 5After that, He poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. (John 13:3-5, NASB) Jesus did not merely wash their feet; instead, He used it as an opportunity to develop the Disciples for their future servant leadership roles: So when He had washed their feet, taken His garments, and sat down again, He said to them, Do you know what I have done to you? 13You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. 14If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one anothers feet. 15For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you. 16Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. 17If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. (John 13:12-17, NASB) Jesus modeled the behaviors of a servant leader and taught the Disciples, through his personal example, what they needed to do in order to become servant leaders. Kirkpatrick (1988) and Russell (2003) referenced the Servant Songs in Isaiah in regard to servant leadership and the prophesy of Jesus. The first song, Isaiah 42, 35
12 3

prophesied Jesus as the Servant of God who will bring salvation. Isaiah 49, the second song, foretold of Jesus as the servant to both Israel and the Gentiles. The third song, Isaiah 50, spoke of the suffering of Jesus as the servant. Isaiah 52:13-53:12, the fourth song, described the role of Jesus as a sin-bearing servant who gives the ultimate service through His life (Kirkpatrick, 1988; Maxwell, 2002; Russell, 2003). Although the Bible clearly references Jesus as a servant leader, that role is not held exclusively to Him. Servant leaders are also referenced in the Bible before and after Jesus time on earth (Russell, 2003). The patriarch of Israel, Abraham, was said to be Gods servant. God commanded Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt in the Old Testament (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) and identified him as Gods servant later in the New Testament (Hebrews 3:5 and Revelation 15:3) (Maxwell, 2002; Russell, 2003, p. 7). David led with heart and humility (Laub, 2004) throughout the Books of I & II Samuel, I Kings, and I Chronicles and was a noted servant of God in the New Testament as well (Luke 1:69; Acts 4:25) (Maxwell, 2002; Russell, 2003, p. 8). The Disciples learned how to be servant leaders from Jesus and they continued to model those behaviors as they built the Church (Ellis, 1999). Servant leadership does have a Judeo-Christian worldview perspective. However, it has the ability to transcend a particular worldview because it is actually an archetype for governing daily interactions (Wallace, 2006). It is not leadership that serves; it is servant leadership. Servant leadership is about being a servant (Greenleaf, 1977; Vaill, 1998; Wallace, 2006). Jesus provided the greatest model of servant leadership for all time (Blanchard, 2001; Blanchard & Hodges, 2005; Kirkpatrick, 1988; Maxwell, 2002; Russell, 2003; Wilkes, 1998). 36

The work of Robert K. Greenleaf. It has been thirty years since Robert K. Greenleaf published Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness and the first chapter, The Servant as Leader, is an essay that was penned in 1970 (Greenleaf, 1977). Greenleafs work on servant leadership has been credited with launching the servant leadership theory and has received great consideration in the modern leadership discipline (Stone et al., 2004). Greenleafs writing has withstood the test of time and numerous current authors (Banutu-Gomez, 2004; Boyum, 2006; KoracKakabadse et al., 2002; Laub, 2003, 2004; Ndoria, 2004; Parolini, 2004; Reinke, 2004; Rennaker & Novak, 2006; Russell & Stone, 2002; Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002; Smith et al., 2004; Spears, 2005; Stone et al., 2004; Stupak & Stupak, 2005; Wallace, 2006; Whetstone, 2002; Wong & Page, 2003) continue to reference and quote his essays because of their seminal nature. This section will explore Greenleafs background, his inspiration, and his perspectives on leaders and leadership that ground servant leadership theory. Robert K. Greenleaf identified that the most valuable thing he learned in college was when a professor noted that large institutions were beginning to dominate our country and were not serving us well. The professor went on to state that only by working from the inside of these large institutions could fundamental change occur. This simple yet prophetic statement challenged Greenleaf to make a difference and go to work for such organizations (Greenleaf, 1977). Greenleaf (1977) commented that working in business was ideal for him because he was a student of organization - how things get done, and a pursuer of wisdom - what works well in practice (p. 2). Greenleaf secured a job at AT&T in the mid-1920s and promoted frequently to levels of greater 37

responsibility. Greenleafs final position at AT&T was Director of Management Research, a position he held for seven years (Greenleaf, 1977). Together, Greenleaf served at AT&T for nearly forty years (Larry C. Spears, 1995). Retirement actually marked the beginning of Greenleafs new career and one that spanned an additional twenty-five years (Larry C. Spears, 1995). He began consulting with leaders from industry, church groups, academic institutions, and nonprofit organizations in the United States, Europe, and even developing nations. He also lectured at such institutions as the Harvard Business School and MIT (Rieser, 1995). This background is important for establishing the framework and context of his writings. Greenleaf did not develop servant leadership from scholarly activity but from personal experience and interactions with able practitioners throughout the years (Greenleaf, 1977). During the late 1960s and early 1970s, Greenleafs focus was on colleges and universities and the campus turmoil that was occurring. It was during this time that Greenleaf read Hermann Hesses novel, The Journey to the East (Greenleaf, 1977). The novel was a campus best-seller and Greenleaf thought it might provide him with insight for students. Instead, it proved to be a catalyst for synthesizing all of his thoughts and ideas on leadership (Rieser, 1995) and became Greenleafs inspiration for his first essay on servant leadership (Korac-Kakabadse et al., 2002). The story tells of a secret society (the League) setting off on a very unique and mythical journey. The central character is the servant, Leo, who not only carries out the daily chores but also nourishes the League with his uplifting spirit. When Leo disappears, the League can function no longer and the journey is forsaken. After years of wandering 38

aimlessly, the narrator of the story is reunited with Leo and taken to the League where he learns that the president and spiritual leader is Leo, the servant (Greenleaf, 1977; Hesse, 1956; L. C. Spears, 1995). Greenleafs contemplation and analysis of Hesses story brought him to a critical and foundational insight about leadership: great leaders have a servant nature; they are servants first (Greenleaf, 1977). The concept of a servant nature is a prevalent theme and distinguishing feature in the servant leadership literature. Greenleaf (1977) believed that the desire to serve comes from within and that inner feeling is what leads one into leadership. Rieser (1995) felt that Greenleaf, perhaps unknowingly, introduced a spiritual element into the workplace through this perspective of experiencing an inward desire to change and lead a life of service. Vaill (1998) interpreted Greenleafs seminal essay title (The Servant as Leader) from a grammatical perspective and determined that servant was the subject and leader was the predicate. The conclusion was, Greenleaf is saying that leadership is a special case of service; he is not saying that service is a special case of leadership (Vaill, 1998, p. xii). Sendjaya & Sarros (2002) proclaimed that the primary intent of servant leadership is to serve others and that servant leaders not only do service but are servants. Similarly, Russell & Stone (2002) stated that servant leadership occurs only when leaders working relationships are derived from the position of servant. Greenleaf contributed much to the modern day development of the servant leader concept, discussion, and subsequent research. Rieser (1995) summed it well by identifying three of Greenleafs statements as the heart of servant leadership. First, the new ethic, simply but quite completely stated, will be: the work exists for the person as much as the person exists for the work (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 142). Second, the business 39

exists as much to provide meaningful work to the person as it exists to provide a product or service to the customer (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 142). Third, the new ethic requires that growth of those who do the work is the primary aim (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 145). These statements serve as foundational reminders of the focus of servant leadership and the paradigm shift that must occur in order to embrace such a leadership model in the workplace. Progression of research. Servant leadership dates back to biblical times (Maxwell, 2002) but has only been studied as a leadership theory in the last few decades. Initial writings by Greenleaf (Greenleaf, 1977, 1996, 1998) were based on intuition and observation of people and their organizational relationships. The interest in servant leadership by popular press authors such as Covey (1991), De Pree (1992), Kouzes & Posner (1990), and Senge (1990) sparked an interest in additional research. Laub (1999) realized the need for systematic, quantitative research focused on servant leadership and developed a sixty item instrument to identify servant-led organizations as perceived by employees. The lack of quantitative research on servant leadership (Russell & Stone, 2002) and the advent of Laubs (1999) Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) instrument prompted additional empirical research for servant leadership theory in organizational settings (Braye, 2000; Drury, 2004; Hebert, 2003; Horsman, 2001; Taylor, 2002). Since the development of the OLA instrument, several researchers have used this instrument to add to the body of knowledge concerning servant leadership. Braye (2000) studied on women-led businesses while Herbst (2003) utilized the OLA to study school effectiveness under servant leadership. Horsman (2001) combined the OLA with the 40

Dimensions of Spirit instrument to study the relationship between servant leadership and individual characteristics of spirit and Hebert (2003) combined the OLA with the Mohrman-Cooke-Mohram Job Satisfaction Scale to evaluate the effects of servant leadership on job satisfaction. Ledbetter (2003) extended Laubs study with further validation of the OLA instrument in a law enforcement setting. Drury (2004) utilized the OLA and the Meyer, Allen, and Smith commitment scale instruments to study organizational commitment and job satisfaction in servant-led organizations. Irving (2005) combined the OLA, the Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument, and the Team Effectiveness Questionnaire to study the effect that servant leadership has with regard to the effectiveness of teams. Joseph & Winston (2005) used the OLA along with the Organizational Trust Inventory to explore organizational and leader trust. In recent years, there has been additional development of servant leadership theory. Blum (2002) developed a model of Success Oriented Spirituality (SOS) for application in team sports; however, no instruments were located in a literature review that test this particular model. Taylor (2002) utilized the Self-Assessment of Servant Leadership (SASL) instrument in conjunction with Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) to evaluate the effectiveness of self-identified servant leaders versus those leaders who did not identify themselves to be servant leaders. Patterson (2003) developed a theoretical model for servant leadership, including component constructs, based on the foundation of transformational leadership. To follow up on Pattersons model, Dennis (2004) developed the Servant Leadership Survey (SLS) instrument to measure five components of servant leadership of a leader (versus an organization) so that leaders have the ability to measure

41

their effectiveness as a servant leader. Additional validation is needed for this instrument. Of the 81 servant leadership dissertations reviewed, approximately 21% took place in educational settings, 35% were targeted toward a religious theme in partial fulfillment of a seminary school degree, and 33% sought to examine servant leadership in the context of a business environment. Stone (2004) declared that academic research on servant leadership is still in its infancy (p. 358). In addition, researchers need to determine the characteristics, traits, and behaviors of genuine servant leaders and then conduct real-world application for this leadership theory (Russell & Stone, 2002). Each quantitative study has added to the body of knowledge but many areas need additional research including further validation of the aforementioned instruments and the utilization of the instruments in new settings with additional variables. Therefore, utilizing a quantitative survey instrument for researching servant leadership, combined with a survey instrument to measure another organizational construct, has merit for achieving effective research results that will add to the overall body of knowledge on this subject.

The Promise of Servant Leadership Blanchard (2001) proclaimed that servant leadership is extremely applicable today. Servant leadership has moved into the corporate mainstream and the priority of service to others has enabled many outstanding for-profit organizations to thrive in very competitive markets (Ruschman, 2001). It is becoming common to find servant-led organizations on the best companies to work for list (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002) and 42

more and more organizations have values that are congruent with the servant leadership model (Ruschman, 2001). Servant leaders were found to be transformational leaders (Farling et al., 1999) and servant leadership has the potential to change organizations through stimulating both individual and organizational metamorphoses (Russell & Stone, 2002). In addition, servant leadership is not a passive form of leadership; instead, it requires trust, risk-taking, and tenacity to create and maintain a servant-led organization (Ruschman, 2001). The servant leadership constructs of developing people, displaying authenticity, valuing people, sharing leadership, and building community are likely to result in people who are ethical, good communicators, skilled, have strong interpersonal relationships, and have goals and vision in common. Such outcomes produce a spiritual generative culture where members focus on personal and team growth within positive organizational systems (Smith et al., 2004) and has the potential to revolutionize organizational life and interpersonal work relations (Russell & Stone, 2002). Spears (2005) eloquently stated that servant-leadership truly offers hope and guidance for a new era in human development, and for the creation of better, more caring institutions (p. 8).

Chapter Summary In this chapter, workplace spirituality and organizational servant leadership were examined to provide a theoretical backdrop and understanding for this research. The literature review indicated several common threads between workplace spirituality and organizational servant leadership. First, employees who experience workplace spirituality find both meaning and purpose in their work and feel that their organizations are true 43

communities (Butts, 1999; Gull & Doh, 2004; Kale & Shrivastava, 2003; Looby & Sandhu, 2002; Mitroff & Denton, 1999; Turner, 1999). Through service, consensus building, and value creation, servant leaders bring unity to organizational members; thus, building community (Edgeman, 1998; Whetstone, 2002). Another core element of workplace spirituality is that it enables personal and human development to the extent that members of the organization have the opportunity of reaching their highest potential (Butts, 1999; Gull & Doh, 2004; Turner, 1999). Servant leaders seek to cultivate not only professional growth but also personal and spiritual growth (Spears, 2005). Greenleaf (1977) emphasized that being a servant-first means ensuring that peoples needs are met and affirmatively answering the question, Do those served grow as persons? (p. 13). They develop people through a commitment to their learning and growth (Harvey, 2001; Laub, 1999; Rowe, 2003; Russell, 2001; Spears, 1998; Stone et al., 2004), developing their potential through affirmation and encouragement (Brenneman & Keys, 1998; Smith et al., 2004), and leading them towards their full capability (Giampetro-Meyer et al., 1998; Pollard, 1997; Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). Workplace spirituality increases the meaning of work level for employees and increases the likelihood that employees will find true meaning at work when their values and spiritual aspirations are congruent with those of the organization (Harrington et al., 2001). Employees desire to realize their full potential as a person (Mitroff & Denton, 1999) and this requires greater empowerment and opportunities to unlock and develop their creative energies (Guillory, 2001; White, 2001). Servant leaders share leadership (Laub, 1999; Smith et al., 2004) through the empowerment of people (Russell, 2001; 44

Russell & Stone, 2002). Employees are also more likely to find meaning of work within an organization that is considered ethical (Mitroff & Denton, 1999) and one that operates in a supportive and dignified atmosphere (Wheatley, 1999; White, 2001). Servant leadership is grounded in morals, values, and ethics (Boyum, 2006). In addition, servant leaders truly value people (Greenleaf, 1977; Laub, 1999; Russell & Stone, 2002; Smith et al., 2004; Stone et al., 2004) and operate with an egalitarianism attitude (Rowe, 2003; Smith et al., 2004) and display respect for all stakeholders (Giampetro-Meyer et al., 1998). Another important perspective of workplace spirituality involves service to the greater good. Employees desire to be of service to their communities, future generations, and humankind (Mitroff & Denton, 1999). This helps them to feel as though they are making a difference and contributing to something larger than themselves (LipsWiersma, 2002; Peppers & Briskin, 2000). Similarly, the most distinguishing characteristic of servant leadership is that it views the leaders role as a servant to their followers and providing stewardship to the organization and the greater society (Greenleaf, 1977; Rowe, 2003; Russell, 2001; Russell & Stone, 2002; Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002; Smith et al., 2004; Spears, 1998). Rieser (1995) felt that Greenleaf introduced a spiritual element into the workplace through the perspective of experiencing an inward desire to lead a life of service. Rieser (1995) further stated that servant leadership is really about the search for wholeness in a broken world (p. 60).

45

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the methodology used to investigate the perceived relationship between organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality. The discussion begins with a restatement of the purpose of this study. Next is a review of the chosen research design, including a reiteration of the research questions presented in Chapter 1, the supporting hypotheses for those questions, and the sample studied. There is then a review of the selected survey instruments. The chapter concludes with a description of the data collection and the selected data analysis procedures.

Purpose of the Study The purpose of this quantitative correlational research was to see to what degree a relationship exists between organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality for a diverse group of adults working in a variety of organizational settings. The independent variable, organizational servant leadership, was measured by the degree to which valuing people, developing people, building community, displaying authenticity, providing leadership, and sharing leadership (Laub, 1999) were present from the organizational members perspective. The dependent variable, workplace spirituality, was measured by the degree to which conditions for community, meaning at work, inner life, work unit community, work unit values, individual and the organization, and organization values (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000) were present from the organizational members perspective. 46

Research Design This studys research was descriptive and used a relational design, also known as a correlational study, to measure relationships between the variables of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality as well as determining if there was any influence with selected control variables (Cooper & Schindler, 2003; Robson, 2002). The purpose of quantitative research is to predict, explain, or control phenomena through a very specific process of collecting numerical data (Borland Jr., 2001; Meadows, 2003b). In the quantitative paradigm, the researcher desires to measure broad patterns to identify relationships between variables that account for the behaviors of a particular population (Borland Jr., 2001; Meadows, 2003a). An advantage of fixed designs is their ability to go beyond individual differences and identify patterns and processes that can then be linked to organizational or group features. Another advantage is that the data can be statistically analyzed. A disadvantage of fixed designs is that they cannot encapsulate the complexities or subtleties of individual behavior (Robson, 2002). Scholarly directions in educational leadership research have been departing from a scientific path toward one of a humanistic and moral endeavor. A recent concern is that there are few sustained programs of empirical research and that this will impact researchers in future generations (Heck & Hallinger, 2005). Quantitative research remains a valid method for conducting leadership research because its primary purpose is the creation of knowledge by confirming an existing theory or by conducting further tests (Borland Jr., 2001). As such, quantitative research provides insight into leadership

47

subjects and themes that need further and more in-depth investigation that can best be accomplished through subsequent qualitative research (Meadows, 2003c).

Variables The independent variable, organizational servant leadership, was measured by the degree to which valuing people, developing people, building community, displaying authenticity, providing leadership, and sharing leadership (Laub, 1999) were present from the organizational members perspective. The aggregate score of a sixty question instrument using a Likert Scale determined an organizational category. The dependent variable, workplace spirituality, was measured by the degree to which conditions for community, meaning at work, inner life, work unit community, work unit values, individual and the organization, and organization values (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000) were present from the organizational members perspective. The aggregate score of a fortyeight question instrument using a Likert Scale determined the degree of workplace spirituality. In addition to the independent and dependent variables, ten control variables were studied. Such variables are often measured in quantitative studies due to their potential influence on the dependent variable (Creswell, 1998). The control variables selected for this study were: organization classification, type of organization, length of service, position in organization, gender, age, ethnicity, race, education, and geographic information. Each control variable was determined by a single question on the survey instrument. Table 2 offers a summary of the variables for this study.

48

Table 2: Summary of Variables

Variable Organizational Servant Leadership Type of Variable Independent Measurement Organizational category will be determined by the aggregate score of a 60 question instrument using a Likert Scale. Degree of workplace Conditions for Community spirituality will be Meaning at Work determined by the Inner Life aggregate score of a Work Unit Community 48 question Work Unit Values Individual & the Organization instrument using a Likert Scale. Organization Values Determined by single For Profit question. Non Profit General type of organization Determined by single such as business, education, question. religious, etc. Years of service in current Determined by single organization. question. Differentiates between staff, Determined by single supervisor, or top leader question. Determined by single Male question. Female Age of respondent as grouped Determined by single by decades. question. Determined by single Hispanic or Latino question. Not-Hispanic or Latino Race groupings as indicated Determined by single by standard EEOC reporting. question. Determined by single Based on selecting highest question. level completed. Determined by two State/Province questions. ZIP/Postal Code Definition Values People Develops People Builds Community Displays Authenticity Provides Leadership Shares Leadership

Workplace Spirituality

Dependent

Organization Classification Type of Organization Length of Service Position in Organization Gender Age Ethnicity Race Education Geographic Information

Control Variable Control Variable

Control Variable Control Variable Control Variable Control Variable Control Variable Control Variable Control Variable Control Variable

49

Research Questions and Hypotheses Research questions must be very focused and framed to define specifically what, how, why, and who is being studied (Meadows, 2003a) and should be fine tuned to ensure that they are clear, specific, answerable, interconnected, and substantively relevant (Robson, 2002). A hypothesis serves several important functions including the relevancy of facts, providing a framework for presenting subsequent conclusions, guiding the direction of the study, and suggesting the most appropriate research design. A good hypothesis is testable, better than its rivals, and adequate for its purpose (Robson, 2002).

Research Question 1 Is there a positive correlation between employee perceptions of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality? In other words, do servant-led organizations have higher levels of workplace spirituality? Hypothesis 1. There is a significant positive correlation between respondents overall perception of organizational servant leadership and their perception of overall workplace spirituality. Null hypothesis 1. There is no significant positive correlation between respondents overall perception of organizational servant leadership and their perception of overall workplace spirituality.

50

Research Question 2 Does a relationship exist between demographics and the respondents perception of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality? Hypothesis 2.1. There is a significant relationship between organization classification and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality. Null hypothesis 2.1.1. There is no significant relationship between organization classification and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership. Null Hypothesis 2.1.2. There is no significant relationship between organization classification and respondents perception of workplace spirituality. Hypothesis 2.2. There is a significant relationship between type of organization and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality. Null hypothesis 2.2.1. There is no significant relationship between type of organization and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership. Null hypothesis 2.2.2. There is no significant relationship between type of organization and respondents perception of workplace spirituality. Hypothesis 2.3. There is a significant relationship between length of service and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality. Null hypothesis 2.3.1. There is no significant relationship between length of service and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership. Null hypothesis 2.3.2. There is no significant relationship between length of service and respondents perception of workplace spirituality. 51

Hypothesis 2.4. There is a significant relationship between role in organization and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality. Null hypothesis 2.4.1. There is no significant relationship between role in organization and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership. Null hypothesis 2.4.2. There is no significant relationship between role in organization and respondents perception of workplace spirituality. Hypothesis 2.5. There is a significant relationship between gender and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality. Null hypothesis 2.5.1. There is no significant relationship between gender and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership. Null hypothesis 2.5.2. There is no significant relationship between gender and respondents perception of workplace spirituality. Hypothesis 2.6. There is a significant relationship between age and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality. Null hypothesis 2.6.1. There is no significant relationship between age and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership. Null hypothesis 2.6.2. There is no significant relationship between age and respondents perception of workplace spirituality. Hypothesis 2.7. There is a significant relationship between ethnicity and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality. Null hypothesis 2.7.1. There is no significant relationship between ethnicity and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership. 52

Null hypothesis 2.7.2. There is no significant relationship between ethnicity and respondents perception of workplace spirituality. Hypothesis 2.8. There is a significant relationship between race and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality. Null hypothesis 2.8.1. There is no significant relationship between race and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership. Null hypothesis 2.8.2. There is no significant relationship between race and respondents perception of workplace spirituality. Hypothesis 2.9. There is a significant relationship between education and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality. Null hypothesis 2.9.1. There is no significant relationship between education and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership. Null hypothesis 2.9.2. There is no significant relationship between education and respondents perception of workplace spirituality. Hypothesis 2.10. There is a significant relationship between geographic location and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality. Null hypothesis 2.10.1. There is no significant relationship between geographic location and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership. Null hypothesis 2.10.2. There is no significant relationship between geographic location and respondents perception of workplace spirituality.

53

Sample The concept of sampling is that by selecting elements of a defined population, a researcher may draw conclusions regarding the entire population. Reasons for sampling are many and a common one is lower cost. Taking a complete population census would be time consuming and very expensive for any population that is considered large. Research has demonstrated that samples provide greater accuracy than do a census because of the added ability to conduct better interviews, investigation of missing data or suspicious information, and processing accuracy due to less volume. Additional benefits of sampling include the speed of data collection and greater availability of population elements. However, it is important to note that the aforementioned advantages do have a diminishing return as the population size becomes smaller (Cooper & Schindler, 2003). The population for this research study was adults (age 18 or older) who were employed part-time or full-time for an organization other than their own (no sole proprietors). Because a large and diverse sample of working adults was desired, a convenience sample was contacted via electronic mail. Such a sample is often willing to be surveyed and easily accessible (Meadows, 2003c). The sampling for this study used non-probability sampling. Such sampling involves selecting samples that have characteristics of the population but not necessarily representative of the population. Therefore, this research is unable to predict whether or not the results are applicable to the overall population (Meadows, 2003c). However, the results are useful from an exploratory perspective and add to the body of knowledge on servant leadership and workplace spirituality.

54

For this study, the researcher used list servers already approved for such contact by virtue of a reciprocal agreement. The selected list servers are related to divisions of the Academy of Management and are identified by their list serve name, description, and current number of subscribers in Table 3. The membership roster for each list serve remains private; therefore, the researcher cannot know who is a member of each list serve and this contributes to a reduction in personal bias. In addition, the private status of each list serve prevented the application of random sampling techniques; however, it did allow the researcher to potentially reach the total membership of each group. Table 3: Sampling Frame Information

List Serve MSR STUDENT-L LDRNET-L ORGCULT-L OB HRDIV_NET PNP-NET

Description Subscribers Management, Spirituality, & Religion 365 Academy of Management Student Network 784 Network of Leadership Scholars 519 Organizational Culture 348 Organizational Behavior Division 1335 Human Resources Division 803 Public & Nonprofit Division 400 Total Subscribers 4554

Instruments The goal of measurement is to provide the lowest error along with the highest quality of data to be used in hypothesis testing (Cooper & Schindler, 2003). Quantitative measurement typically involves nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio data. This data is often obtained through surveys and questionnaires, which offer several advantages. First, administration is often the easiest method of obtaining the necessary information and it is
55

efficient as well as anonymous. Second, surveys are a straightforward approach when studying values, beliefs, attitudes, and motives. Third, there is a high degree of data standardization. Finally, surveys may be easily adapted to various situations as well as provide a method for generalizable information (Robson, 2002). This study used two previously validated instruments to facilitate data collection. Laubs (1999) Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) measures the level of organizational servant leadership, the independent variable of this study. Permission to use this instrument for this study was granted by Dr. James Laub on September 9, 2006 via electronic mail correspondence. To measure organizational spirituality, the dependent variable of this study, Ashmos and Duchons (2000) Dimensions of Spirituality at Work (DSW) was selected. Permission to use this instrument for this study was granted by Dr. Dennis Duchon on September 11, 2006 via electronic mail correspondence. Next are descriptions of the selected instruments.

Organizational Leadership Assessment

Laub (1999) determined that there was a need for a quantitative instrument to measure the level of servant leadership within organizations. The study involved focusing and clarifying the characteristics of servant leadership as derived from the literature. Next, a three-part Delphi study was conducted utilizing a panel of experts. The goal was to develop an instrument that could be taken by anyone, at any level, within an organization, workgroup or team (Laub, 1999, p. 49). The instrument went through initial item review and revision, pre-field testing, field testing, and final review and

56

revision. In all, the instrument was field tested with 828 respondents in numerous organizational types. The reliability scores for the constructs (values people, develops people, builds community, displays authenticity, provides leadership, and shares leadership) ranged from .91 to .93 and the overall Cronbachs alpha was .98 (Laub, 1999, p. 67). The OLA uses a 5-point Likert scale anchored with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. It includes thirty-three items for leader assessment, twenty-seven items for organizational assessment, and six items for job satisfaction assessment (Laub, 1999).

Dimensions of Spirituality at Work

Ashmos and Duchon (2000) set out to conceptualize and measure spirituality at work. Once conceptualized and defined, they began instrument development initially based on a literature review, which led to the construct of several dimensions. A diverse panel of participants then reviewed the potential questions. Subsequently, a sample questionnaire was administered to multiple hospitals in different cities. In all, data was collected from 696 respondents. Cronbachs alphas were reported for factors deemed as viable scales and the alphas had acceptable levels of reliability. The factors to be used in this study had the following alphas recorded: at the individual level - conditions for community .86, meaning at work .86, and inner life .80; at the work unit level - work unit community .87 and work unit values .91; at the organizational level - organizational values .93 and individual and the organization .84 (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000, pp. 143-144). The DSW instrument uses a 7-point Likert scale anchored with 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. The survey instrument 57

addresses the participants attitudes about themselves and their immediate work environment (twenty-one questions), their work unit (fourteen questions), and their work organization as a whole (thirteen questions).

Data Collection Data collection was Web-based using SurveyMonkey.com as the survey administration tool. Members of the sampling frame were sent a Web-link via electronic mail that connected them to the data collection instrument. Using the Web-based format increased collection efficiency as there was no lag time while waiting for response returns and no data entry requirements for the researcher. In addition, it enabled the researcher to reach a broader and more geographically dispersed group of participants. Hicks (2006) noted an additional benefit of using a commercial service is that website maintenance and programming are provided as part of the service fees. The instrument included several components. The first page contained a welcome and overview of the research. Since individuals under eighteen years of age cannot legally consent to participate (Hicks, 2006), the second page requested a declaration of whether or not a participant was at least eighteen years old. The third page included the purpose of the survey and the consent to participate. Pages four through fifteen encompassed the general instructions as well as the OLA and DSW instruments. Organizational classification and participant demographics were collected on pages sixteen and seventeen. The last page included a brief thank you and a method to contact the researcher should additional information be desired.

58

It was anticipated that two weeks will be a sufficient period of time for instrument availability for completion by the sampling frame; however, flexibility was exercised and additional time allotted so that more participant completions were achieved. The data collection instrument was designed to collect no identifying information about the participants. It was completed anonymously, no IP addresses were collected, and results are reported in an aggregate manner. The data will be stored on a password protected system with a password required to access the file. Only the author of this research will know the passwords. Data will be maintained for at least seven years.

Data Analysis As noted previously, data collection occurred through a Web-based service, SurveyMonkey.com, as the survey administration tool. The data was exported to Excel so that it could be coded, checked for extreme values, and undergo complete accuracy checking. Once checked and cleaned, the data was then uploaded to the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 15.0 where analysis occurred. Statistical tests were applied to the data in a manner to investigate the research questions by testing the null hypotheses.

Research Question 1

Is there a positive correlation between employee perceptions of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality? In other words, do servant-led organizations have higher levels of workplace spirituality?

59

Hypothesis 1. There is a significant positive correlation between respondents

overall perception of organizational servant leadership and their perception of overall workplace spirituality.
Null hypothesis 1. There is no significant positive correlation between

respondents overall perception of organizational servant leadership and their perception of overall workplace spirituality.
Data analysis. The OLA and the DSW each use a Likert scale that produce

interval data. Parametric tests are the preferred statistical choice for such data (Cooper & Schindler, 2003). For the OLA, the aggregate scores were calculated for each respondent to determine the organizational category (Table 4) and if there is a perception of servant leadership (Org 5 and Org 6) as identified by Laub (2003). In addition, the mean score and standard deviation were calculated for the usable sample. Similarly, the aggregate, mean scores, and standard deviation were calculated for the DSW. This information was then used in the subsequent calculations and comparisons. Pearsons coefficients of correlation test were run to determine the magnitude and direction of the relationship between organizational member perceptions of servant leadership and workplace spirituality.

60

Table 4: Laub's (2003) OLA Score Ranges and Organizational Categories

OLA Score Ranges 1.00 - 1.99 2.00 - 2.99 3.00 - 3.49 3.50 - 3.99 4.00 - 4.49 4.50 - 5.00 Organizational Health Level Org1 - Autocratic (Toxic Health) Org2 - Autocratic (Poor Health) Org3 - Negative Paternalistic (Limited Health) Org4 - Positive Paternalistic (Moderate Health) Org5 - Servant (Excellent Health) Org6 - Servant (Optimal Health)

Research Question 2

Does a relationship exist between demographics and the respondents perception of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality?
Hypothesis 2.1-2.10. There is a significant relationship between demographics

(organization classification, type of organization, length of service, position in organization, gender, age, ethnicity, race, education geographic, and location) and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality.
Null hypothesis 2.1-2.10. There is no significant relationship between

demographics (organization classification, type of organization, length of service, position in organization, gender, age, ethnicity, race, education geographic, and location) and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality.
Data analysis. The survey instrument collected data on ten demographic measures

(organization classification, type of organization, length of service, position in organization, gender, age, ethnicity, race, education geographic, and location) and provided categorical data for comparison. Mean scores and standard deviations were 61

calculated for each of the ten demographic categories and then compared by category. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if there were any differences in the perception of organizational servant leadership or in the perception of workplace spirituality based on the specific demographic categories. Chapter Summary The purpose of this chapter was to illustrate the methodology proposed to investigate the perceived relationship between organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality. Included was the purpose of the study, a review of the research design, a description of the variables, and declaration of the research questions and hypotheses. Also discussed were the sampling method, instruments, and data collection procedures. Finally, this chapter outlined the statistical techniques and methods selected for the research data. The results of this research are discussed in Chapter 4.

62

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

The purpose of this chapter is to present the findings of the research. The chapter begins by offering a brief summary of the research design used in this study. Next is a review of the data collection process and information concerning the sample. The greater part of this chapter presents the findings of the research through the process of hypothesis testing.

Research Design Overview This studys research was descriptive and used a relational design, also known as a correlational study, to measure relationships between the variables of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality as well as determining if there was any influence with selected control variables (Cooper & Schindler, 2003; Robson, 2002). The independent variable, organizational servant leadership, was measured by the degree to which valuing people, developing people, building community, displaying authenticity, providing leadership, and sharing leadership (Laub, 1999) were present from the organizational members perspective. The dependent variable, workplace spirituality, was measured by the degree to which conditions for community, meaning at work, inner life, work unit community, work unit values, individual and the organization, and organization values (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000) were present from the organizational members perspective.

63

Data Collection Data collection was Web-based using SurveyMonkey.com as the survey administration tool. Members of the sampling frame were sent a Web-link via electronic mail that connected them to the data collection instrument. The population for this research study was adults (age 18 or older) who were employed part-time or full-time for an organization other than their own (no sole proprietors). Because a large and diverse sample of working adults was desired, a convenience sample was contacted via electronic mail. The sampling for this study used non-probability sampling. Therefore, this research is unable to predict whether or not the results are applicable to the overall population (Meadows, 2003c). However, the results are useful from an exploratory perspective and add to the body of knowledge on servant leadership and workplace spirituality.

Sample Characteristics For this study, the researcher used list servers already approved for such contact by virtue of a reciprocal agreement. The selected list servers are related to divisions of the Academy of Management and the International Leadership Association. The membership roster for each list serve remains private; therefore, the researcher cannot know who is a member of each list serve and this contributes to a reduction in personal bias. In addition, the private status of each list serve prevented the application of random sampling techniques; however, it did potentially allow the researcher to reach the total membership of each group.

64

Response Rates

Members of the sampling frame were sent a Web-link via electronic mail that connected them to the data collection instrument. Although electronic mail was sent to 5,170 list subscribers, the nature of the list membership has a high probability that members of one list may also be members of one or more other lists; therefore, it is not possible to quantify the number of unique subscribers in order to calculate the true response rate. As indicated in Table 5, of the 5,170 reported subscribers, 633 (or 12.24%) participated in the survey process. Of the 633 who participated in the survey, three selfidentified as being less than 18 years of age and were opted out; one did not agree to voluntarily participate and was opted out. An additional sixty-five did not answer a sufficient number of questions to be considered usable. A total of 534 adequately completed the OLA; however, ninety-four of those did not adequately complete the DSW. In total, 440 surveys were fully usable for this study.

Table 5: Sampling Frame Response Rates

Reported Subscribers Responses Description Management, Spirituality, & Religion 365 67 Academy of Management Student Network 784 120 Network of Leadership Scholars 519 72 Organizational Culture 348 67 Organizational Behavior Division 1335 178 24 Public & Nonprofit Division 400 Human Resources Division 803 36 International Leadership Association 616 69 Total 5170 633

Rate 18.36% 15.31% 13.87% 19.25% 13.33% 6.00% 4.48% 11.20% 12.24%

65

Power Analysis

Significance level, effect size, and sample size are required components for determining the level of statistical power (Cashen & Geiger, 2004). Although researchers may use an estimated effect size in order to predict a necessary sample size, it is also recommended that posttests of statistical power are conducted prior to making a conclusion regarding the acceptance or rejection of a null hypothesis (Cashen & Geiger, 2004; Lipsey, 1990; Markowski & Markowski, 1999). For this research, with the calculated effect size (r = 0.786), sample size (440), and significance level (0.010, 1tailed), power was determined to be 1.000 by Power and Precision software (Borenstein, Rothstein, Cohen, & Schoenfeld, 2007). This power level indicates that this research has a power of more than 99.9% to yield a statistically significant result when rejecting the null hypothesis.

Missing Data

Each of the 440 usable responses were reviewed for missing data. Babbie (1990) suggested several methods for handling missing data. The researcher selected the method of assigning scores for missing data that were proportionate to the answers provided. Specifically, when a respondent left a question unanswered, the researcher averaged the other responses within that construct for that respondent. For example, if one of the ten questions for Builds Community were left blank, the researcher averaged the nine answered responses and manually entered the average number as the value for the missing question. This process was repeated for each respondent with missing data until all data values were complete. 66

Overview of Classification and Demographics

Of the 440 usable surveys, 72.5% of the organizations were identified as nonprofit and 63% were classified as being in the education industry. The top three responses for length of service were: 1-3 years at 22.7%, more than 15 years at 20.7%, and 4-6 years at 19.5%. Regarding role in organization, workforce level accounted for 60.2%; whereas, management and top leadership roles were 30.7% and 9.1% respectively. A full 95.5% of the respondents self-identified as not-Hispanic or Latino and 84.8% selected their race to be White. Gender was nearly even with females at 53.9% and males at 46.1%. Almost 80% of the respondents ranged in age from 30 to 60: 28.6% reported being 30 to 39 of age, 23.6% were 40 to 49, and 26.4% were 50 to 59. The sample was highly educated with 88.1% holding graduate degrees.

Research Question 1 Is there a positive correlation between employee perceptions of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality? In other words, do servant-led organizations have higher levels of workplace spirituality?

Data Analysis

The OLA and the DSW each use a Likert scale that produce interval data. Parametric tests are the preferred statistical choice for such data (Cooper & Schindler, 2003). The mean and the standard deviation were calculated on the OLA average score and the DSW average score. Table 6 summarizes this data. Subsequent calculations and comparisons used this information. 67

Table 6: OLA and DSW Descriptive Statistics

OLAAVE DSWAVE

Mean 3.28777 4.91847

Std. Deviation 0.77583 1.07653

N 440 440

The OLA mean score for each respondent was used to determine organizational health levels and if there was a perception of servant leadership as identified by Laub (2003). As illustrated in Figure 1, 51 respondents perceived their organizations to be servant-led at the Excellent Health level and 21 at the Optimal Health level. Overall, 16.4% of the respondents perceived their organizations to be servant-led.

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

112

114

113

51 29 21

Autocratic (Toxic Health)

Autocratic (Poor Health)

Negative Paternalistic (Limited Health)

Positive Paternalistic (Moderate Health)

Servant (Excellent Health)

Servant (Optimal Health)

Figure 1: OLA organizational health levels.

As discussed in chapter 3, Pearsons coefficients of correlation test was selected to determine the magnitude and direction of the relationship between organizational member perceptions of servant leadership and workplace spirituality. This test is
68

appropriate for variables that are at the interval or ratio level, normally distributed, and linearly related (Sproull, 1995). To determine linearity, a scattergram was plotted and analyzed (Figure 2). Based on the line of fit falling in a straight line, this data is considered linear and appropriate for use with the Pearsons coefficients of correlation test. A one-tailed test is appropriate because the research question is seeking to understand if there is a positive (one directional) correlation between organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality.

Figure 2: Scattergram of OLA mean and DSW mean.

69

Hypothesis 1 There is a significant positive correlation between respondents overall perception of organizational servant leadership and their perception of overall workplace spirituality. Null hypothesis 1. There is no significant positive correlation between respondents overall perception of organizational servant leadership and their perception of overall workplace spirituality. Testing of null hypothesis 1. Table 7 shows the results of the Pearsons correlation test. Based on the results, the r = .786 and is significant at the 0.01 level. Since there is a positive correlation, this indicates that the OLA mean and the DSW mean are varying together and that this correlation (.786) is moderate (Sproull, 1995). In addition, r squared is .618, indicating that 61.8% of the variance in the OLA mean is accounted for by the DSW mean. Null hypothesis 1 is rejected.

Table 7: OLA and DSW Pearsons Correlation

OLAAVE 1 440 0.786 ** 0.000 440 DSWAVE 0.786 ** 0.000 440 1 440

OLAAVE

Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N

DSWAVE

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)

70

Research Question 2 Does a relationship exist between demographics and the respondents perception of organizational servant leadership or workplace spirituality?

Data Analysis The survey instrument collected data on ten classification and demographic measures (organization classification, type of organization, length of service, position in organization, gender, age, ethnicity, race, education, and geographic location) and provided categorical data for comparison. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if there were any differences in the perception of organizational servant leadership or in the perception of workplace spirituality based on the specific demographic categories.

Hypothesis 2.1 There is a significant relationship between organization classification and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership or workplace spirituality. Organization classification description. Nonprofit organizational classification accounted for 72.5% of this data. Table 8 provides the descriptive statistics for this demographic measure.

71

Table 8: Organizational Classification Descriptive Statistics

Organizational Classification For Profit Mean N Percent Std. Deviation Non Profit Mean N Percent Std. Deviation

OLA 3.18636 121 27.50% 0.802234 3.32623 319 72.50% 0.763338

DSW 4.71952 121 27.50% 1.108362 4.99393 319 72.50% 1.056193

Null hypothesis 2.1.1. There is no significant relationship between organization classification and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership. Null Hypothesis 2.1.2. There is no significant relationship between organization classification and respondents perception of workplace spirituality. Testing of null hypothesis 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. Table 9 shows the results of the ANOVA test for organization classification using a 0.050 level of significance. With a significance of 0.091, null hypothesis 2.1.1 is not rejected. With a significance of 0.017, null hypothesis 2.1.2 is rejected. Although this sample showed no significant relationship between organization classification and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership, there was a demonstrated significant relationship between organization classification and respondents perception of workplace spirituality. Since there were only two groups, multiple comparisons were not possible. However, respondents in nonprofit organizations showed a higher level of workplace spirituality (4.993) as opposed to those in for profit organizations (4.719).

72

Table 9: ANOVA Table for Organization Classification

Sum of Squares 1.716 262.523 264.239 Mean Square 1.716 0.599 Sig. F (alpha) 2.863 0.091

OLAAVE Between Group: *Organization (Combined) Classification Within Groups Total DSWAVE *Organization Between Group: Classification (Combined) Within Groups Total

df 1 438 439

6.605 502.159 508.764

1 438 439

6.605 1.146

5.761

0.017

Hypothesis 2.2 There is a significant relationship between type of organization and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership or workplace spirituality. Type of organization description. As indicated in Table 10, data on seven types of organizations were collected. For this sample, educational organizations accounted for 63% and business organizations 20%. There was minimal representation from the remaining types of organizations.

73

Table 10: Type of Organization Descriptive Statistics OLA Mean 3.2345 3.1243 3.3467 3.5833 3.4150 3.2992 3.5363 DSW Mean 4.7154 4.7179 5.5792 5.0208 5.1042 4.9705 5.2181

Type of Organization Business Government Religious Community Service Medical Service Provider Education Other

N 88 37 5 6 10 277 17

Percent 20.00% 8.40% 1.10% 1.40% 2.30% 63.00% 3.90%

Null hypothesis 2.2.1. There is no significant relationship between type of

organization and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership.

Null hypothesis 2.2.2. There is no significant relationship between type of

organization and respondents perception of workplace spirituality.

Testing of null hypothesis 2.2.1 and 2.2.2. Table 11 shows the results of the
ANOVA test for organization classification using a 0.050 level of significance. With a significance of 0.542, null hypothesis 2.2.1 is not rejected. With a significance of 0.196, null hypothesis 2.2.2 is not rejected. This sample showed no significant relationship between type of organization and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership or workplace spirituality.

74

Table 11: ANOVA Table for Type of Organization Sum of Squares 3.028 262.211 264.239 Mean Square 0.505 0.603 Sig. F (alpha) 0.837 0.542

OLAAVE *Type of Organization

Between Group: (Combined) Within Groups Total

df 6
433 439

DSWAVE *Type of Organization

Between Group: (Combined) Within Groups Total

9.983 498.781 508.764

6 433 439

1.664 1.152

1.444

0.196

Hypothesis 2.3
There is a significant relationship between length of service and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership or workplace spirituality.

Length of service description. As indicated in Table 12, data on six ranges for
length of service were collected. For this sample, 1-3 years of service accounted for 22.7% and more than 15 years of service 20.7%. The length of service category with the smallest representation was 11-15 years with 10%.

Table 12: Length of Service Descriptive Statistics

OLA Mean 3.49044 3.27650 3.27151 3.17328 3.22159 3.28462 DSW Mean 4.99795 4.79833 4.86725 4.89978 5.14441 4.94826

Length of Service Less than a year 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10 years 11-15 years More than 15 years

N 61 100 86 58 44 91

Percent 13.90% 22.70% 19.50% 13.20% 10.00% 20.70%

75

Null hypothesis 2.3.1. There is no significant relationship between length of

service and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership.

Null hypothesis 2.3.2. There is no significant relationship between length of

service and respondents perception of workplace spirituality.

Testing of Null Hypothesis 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. Table 13 shows the results of the
ANOVA test for length of service using a 0.050 level of significance. With a significance of 0.326, null hypothesis 2.3.1 is not rejected. With a significance of 0.581, null hypothesis 2.3.2 is not rejected. This sample showed no significant relationship between length of service and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership or workplace spirituality.

Table 13: ANOVA Table for Length of Service Sum of Squares 3.495 260.745 264.239 Mean Square 0.699 0.601 Sig. F (alpha) 1.163 0.326

OLAAVE *Length of Service

Between Group: (Combined) Within Groups Total

df 5
434 439

DSWAVE *Length of Service

Between Group: (Combined) Within Groups Total

4.401 504.363 508.764

5 434 439

0.88 1.162

0.757

0.581

Hypothesis 2.4
There is a significant relationship between role in organization and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership or workplace spirituality. 76

Role in organization description. As indicated in Table 14, data on three different

organizational role levels were collected. For this sample, the workforce category accounted for 60.2% and the management category 30.7%. There was limited participation from respondents classifying themselves as top leadership (9.1%).

Table 14: Role in Organization Descriptive Statistics

OLA Percent Mean 60.20% 3.23497 30.70% 3.24160 9.10% 3.79333 DSW Mean 4.81997 4.87438 5.71979

Role in Organization Worforce (staff, member, worker) Management (supervisor, department head) Top Leadership (top level, strategic or policy level)

N 265 135 40

Null hypothesis 2.4.1. There is no significant relationship between role in

organization and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership.

Null hypothesis 2.4.2. There is no significant relationship between role in

organization and respondents perception of workplace spirituality.

Testing of null hypothesis 2.4.1 and 2.4.2. Table 15 shows the results of the
ANOVA test for role in organization using a 0.050 level of significance. With a significance of 0.000, null hypothesis 2.4.1 is rejected. With a significance of 0.000, null hypothesis 2.4.2 is rejected. This sample did show a significant relationship between role in organization and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership or workplace spirituality.

77

Table 15: ANOVA Table for Role in Organization Sum of Squares 11.25 252.989 264.239 Mean Square 5.625 0.579 Sig. (alpha) 0.00

OLAAVE *Role in Organization

Between Group: (Combined) Within Groups Total

df 2
437 439

F 9.717

DSWAVE *Role in Organization

Between Group: (Combined) Within Groups Total

28.518 480.246 508.764

2 437 439

14.259 1.099

12.975

0.00

Post hoc analysis of null hypothesis 2.4.1 and 2.4.2. A Bonderonni procedure was
used to further analyze the differences in the means. With a significance level of .05, the OLA showed a significant (0.000) difference between the means of top leadership and workforce (.558365) and top leadership and management (.551728). Similarly, the DSW showed a significant (0.000) difference between the means of top leadership and workforce (.899823) and top leadership and management (.845409).

Hypothesis 2.5
There is a significant relationship between gender and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership or workplace spirituality.

Gender description. As indicated in Table 16, data on gender were collected. For
this sample, the females accounted for 53.9% and males for 46.1%.

78

Table 16: Gender Descriptive Statistics

Gender Male Female

N 203 237

Percent OLA Mean DSW Mean 46.10% 3.26059 4.82872 53.90% 3.31104 4.99537

Null hypothesis 2.5.1. There is no significant relationship between gender and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership. Null hypothesis 2.5.2. There is no significant relationship between gender and respondents perception of workplace spirituality. Testing of Null Hypothesis 2.5.1 and 2.5.2. Table 17 shows the results of the ANOVA test for gender using a 0.050 level of significance. With a significance of 0.497, null hypothesis 2.5.1 is not rejected. With a significance of 0.106, null hypothesis 2.5.2 is not rejected. This sample did not show a significant relationship between gender and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership or workplace spirituality. Table 17: ANOVA Table for Gender Sum of Squares 0.278 263.961 264.239 Mean Square 0.278 0.603 Sig. F (alpha) 0.462 0.497

OLAAVE *Gender

Between Group: (Combined) Within Groups Total

df 1 438 439

DSWAVE *Gender

Between Group: (Combined) Within Groups Total

3.036 505.728 508.764

79

1 438 439

3.036 1.155

2.629

0.106

Hypothesis 2.6 There is a significant relationship between age and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership or workplace spirituality. Age description. As indicated in Table 18, data on age were collected. For this sample, there is a fairly normal distribution amongst the age of the respondents. The age group of 30-39 accounted for the greatest share with 28.63%; however, 40-49 aand50-59 were very similar with 23.64% and 26.36% respectively. Table 18: Age Descriptive Statistics

Age 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or over

N 45 126 104 116 49

Percent 10.23% 28.63% 23.64% 26.36% 11.14%

OLA Mean 3.4793 3.4013 3.2133 3.1901 3.2092

DSW Mean 4.7982 5.0065 4.9161 4.8806 4.8975

Null hypothesis 2.6.1. There is no significant relationship between age and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership. Null hypothesis 2.6.2. There is no significant relationship between age and respondents perception of workplace spirituality. Testing of Null Hypothesis 2.6.1 and 2.6.2. Table 19 shows the results of the ANOVA test for age using a 0.050 level of significance. With a significance of 0.067, null hypothesis 2.6.1 is not rejected. With a significance of 0.816, null hypothesis 2.6.2 is not rejected. This sample did not show a significant relationship between age and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership or workplace spirituality. 80

Table 19: ANOVA Table for Age Sum of Squares 5.261 258.978 264.239 Mean Square 1.315 0.595 Sig. F (alpha) 2.209 0.067

OLAAVE *Age

Between Group: (Combined) Within Groups Total

df 4 435 439

DSWAVE *Age

Between Group: (Combined) Within Groups Total

1.815 506.949 508.764

4 435 439

0.454 1.165

0.389

0.816

Hypothesis 2.7 There is a significant relationship between ethnicity and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership or workplace spirituality. Ethnicity description. As indicated in Table 20, data on ethnicity were collected. For this sample, nearly all respondents (95.50%) self-identified as being Not-Hispanic or Latino.

Table 20: Ethnicity Descriptive Statistics

OLA Percent Mean 4.50% 3.21667 95.50% 3.29115 DSW Mean 4.9115 4.9188

Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino Not-Hispanic or Latino

N 20 420

Null hypothesis 2.7.1. There is no significant relationship between ethnicity and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership.

81

Null hypothesis 2.7.2. There is no significant relationship between ethnicity and respondents perception of workplace spirituality. Testing of null hypothesis 2.7.1 and 2.7.2. Table 21 shows the results of the ANOVA test for ethnicity using a 0.050 level of significance. With a significance of 0.675, null hypothesis 2.7.1 is not rejected. With a significance of 0.976, null hypothesis 2.7.2 is not rejected. This sample did not show a significant relationship between ethnicity and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership or workplace spirituality.

Table 21: ANOVA Table for Ethnicity Sum of Squares 0.106 264.133 264.239 Mean Square 0.106 0.603 Sig. (alpha) 0.675

OLAAVE *Ethnicity

Between Group (Combined) Within Groups Total

df 1 438 439

F 0.176

DSWAVE *Ethnicity

Between Group (Combined) Within Groups Total

0.001 508.763 508.764

1 438 439

0.001 1.162

0.001

0.976

Hypothesis 2.8 There is a significant relationship between race and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership or workplace spirituality. Race description. As indicated in Table 22, data on race were collected. For this sample, the large majority of respondents (84.80%) self-identified as being White. 82

Table 22: Race Descriptive Statistics OLA Mean 3.3036 2.8538 3.0611 3.4562 2.9722 3.4426 DSW Mean 4.9423 4.2301 4.3229 5.0563 5.1597 5.5162

Race White Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Asian American Indian or Alaska Native Two or more races

N 373 22 6 27 3 2

Percent 84.80% 5.00% 1.40% 6.10% 0.70% 2.00%

Null hypothesis 2.8.1. There is no significant relationship between race and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership. Null hypothesis 2.8.2. There is no significant relationship between race and respondents perception of workplace spirituality. Testing of null hypothesis 2.8.1 and 2.8.2. Table 23 shows the results of the ANOVA test for race using a 0.050 level of significance. With a significance of 0.084, null hypothesis 2.8.1 is not rejected. With a significance of 0.013, null hypothesis 2.8.2 is rejected. Although this sample showed no significant relationship between race and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership there was a demonstrated significant relationship between race and respondents perception of workplace spirituality.

83

Table 23: ANOVA Table for Race Sum of Squares 5.826 258.414 264.239 Mean Square 1.165 0.595 Sig. (alpha) 0.084

OLAAVE *Race

Between Group: (Combined) Within Groups Total

df 5 434 439

F 1.957

DSWAVE *Race

Between Group: (Combined) Within Groups Total

16.668 492.097 508.764

5 434 439

3.334 1.134

2.940

0.013

Post hoc analysis of null hypothesis 2.8.2. A Bonderonni procedure was used to further analyze the differences in the means. With a significance level of .05, the DSW showed a significant (0.037) difference between the means of Black or African Americans and Whites (-.712190). Similarly, the DSW showed a significant (0.036) difference between the means of Black or African Americans and Two or More Races (-1.286090).

Hypothesis 2.9 There is a significant relationship between education and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership or workplace spirituality. Educational level description. As indicated in Table 24, data on six different educational levels were collected. For this sample, the graduate degree at the doctorate level accounted for 57.50% and graduate degree at the masters level totaled 26.10%. There was less than 10% in each of the remaining four educational levels. 84

Table 24: Education Descriptive Statistics

Education Some College Undergraduate College Degree Some Graduate School Graduate Degree Master's Level Graduate Degree Professional Level Graduate Degree Doctorate Level N 2 23 27 115 20 253 Percent 0.50% 5.20% 6.10% 26.10% 4.50% 57.50% OLA Mean 2.0667 3.6565 3.4438 3.2926 2.9700 3.2702 DSW Mean 4.2813 5.3759 5.0880 4.9884 4.4198 4.8715

Null hypothesis 2.9.1. There is no significant relationship between education and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership. Null hypothesis 2.9.2. There is no significant relationship between education and respondents perception of workplace spirituality. Testing of null hypothesis 2.9.1 and 2.9.2. Table 25 shows the results of the ANOVA test for highest level of education using a 0.050 level of significance. With a significance of 0.011, null hypothesis 2.9.1 is rejected. With a significance of 0.055, null hypothesis 2.9.2 is not rejected. Although this sample showed a significant relationship between highest level of education and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership there was not a significant relationship between highest level of education and respondents perception of workplace spirituality.

85

Table 25: ANOVA Table for Education Sum of Squares 8.868 255.371 264.239 Mean Sig. F (alpha) Square 1.774 3.014 0.011 0.588

OLAAVE *Education Level

Between Group: (Combined) Within Groups Total

df 5 434 439

DSWAVE *Education Level

Between Group: (Combined) Within Groups Total

12.496 496.269 508.764

5 434 439

2.499 2.186 1.143

0.055

Post hoc analysis of null hypothesis 2.9.1. A Bonderonni procedure was used to further analyze the differences in the means. With a significance level of .05, the OLA showed no significant difference between the means of the specific categories of educational levels.

Hypothesis 2.10 There is a significant relationship between geographic location and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership or workplace spirituality. Geographic location description. Data was collected on the state and country for each respondent. Data was subsequently grouped by U.S. and Non U.S. locations. As indicated in Table 26, for this sample, the U.S. location accounted for 81.11% and Non U.S. location totaled 18.89%.

86

Table 26: Geographic Location Descriptive Statistics Geographic Location U.S. Non U.S. OLA Mean 3.3151 3.2274 DSW Mean 4.9758 4.8344

N 335 78

Percent 81.11% 18.89%

Null hypothesis 2.10.1. There is no significant relationship between geographic location and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership. Null hypothesis 2.10.2. There is no significant relationship between geographic location and respondents perception of workplace spirituality. Testing of null hypothesis 2.10.1 and 2.10.2. Table 27 shows the results of the ANOVA test for geographic location using a 0.050 level of significance. With a significance of 0.368, null hypothesis 2.10.1 is not rejected. With a significance of 0.294, null hypothesis 2.10.2 is not rejected. This sample did not show a significant relationship between geographic location and respondents perception of organizational servant leadership or workplace spirituality. Table 27: ANOVA Table for Geographic Location Sum of Squares 0.487 247.167 264.239 Mean Sig. df Square F (alpha) 1 0.487 0.811 0.368 411 412 0.601

OLAAVE Between Group: *Geographic (Combined) Location Within Groups Total DSWAVE *Geographic Between Group: Location (Combined) Within Groups Total

1.265 470.933 508.764 87

1 411 412

1.265 1.146

1.104

0.294

Summary of Results Research Question 1 sought to learn if there was a positive correlation between employee perceptions of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality. Using the Pearsons correlation test, it was determined that the OLA mean and the DSW mean had a moderate correlation and that 61.8% of the variance in the OLA mean was accounted for by the DSW mean. Research Question 2 sought to learn if there was a relationship between demographics (organization classification, type of organization, length of service, position in organization, gender, age, ethnicity, race, education geographic, and location) and the respondents perception of organizational servant leadership or workplace spirituality. As outlined in Table 28, five areas were found to have a significant correlation. For servant leadership, the role in the organization and educational level were significant. For workplace spirituality, the organization classification, role in the organization, and race were significant. Table 28: Summary Table for Demographic Topic Results
Null Hypothesis Demographic Topic Org. Classification Type of Org. Length of Service Role in Org. Gender Age Ethnicity Race Education Level Geographic Location Reject the Null Hypothesis? Servant Leadership Workplace Spirituality No Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No

88

Chapter Summary The purpose of this chapter was to present the findings of the research. A brief summary of the research design and methods were discussed and a review of the data collection process and information concerning the sample were presented. Each research question and its associated hypotheses were tested and results presented. An interpretation of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations for future research are discussed in Chapter 5.

89

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this chapter is to present the findings of the research. The chapter begins by offering a research summary then a discussion of the results. Next is a review of the implications and conclusions of this research as determined by the researcher. The chapter concludes with recommendations formed from the results of the data as well as recommendations for future research. Research Summary Restatement of the Problem Recent research into workplace spirituality identified a particular type of leadership as paramount for enhancing the overall experience level of spirit at work. This leadership, called inspiring leadership, was placed as a central factor for fostering workplace spirituality. The remaining factors included appreciation and regard, personal fulfillment, sense of community, organizational integrity, strong organizational foundation, and positive workplace culture (V. Kinjerski & Skrypnek, 2006, p. 285). Previously, Fairholm (2000) declared a need for spiritual leadership as business leaders were seeking meaning and congruence with their inner life and that such a leadership model was actually servant leadership.

90

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions The purpose of this quantitative correlational research was to see to what degree a relationship exists between organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality for a diverse group of adults working in a variety of organizational settings. Research Question 1: Is there a positive correlation between employee perceptions of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality? In other words, do servant-led organizations have higher levels of workplace spirituality? Research Question 2: Does a relationship exist between demographics (organization classification, type of organization, length of service, position in organization, gender, age, ethnicity, race, education geographic, and location) and the respondents perception of organizational servant leadership or workplace spirituality?

Methodology This studys research was descriptive and used a relational design, also known as a correlational study, to measure relationships between the variables of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality as well as determining if there was any influence with selected control variables (Cooper & Schindler, 2003; Robson, 2002). The independent variable, organizational servant leadership, was measured by the degree to which valuing people, developing people, building community, displaying authenticity, providing leadership, and sharing leadership (Laub, 1999) were present from the organizational members perspective. The dependent variable, workplace spirituality, was measured by the degree to which conditions for community, meaning at work, inner life, work unit community, work unit values, individual and the organization, and organization 91

values (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000) were present from the organizational members perspective. For this study, the researcher used list servers already approved for such contact by virtue of a reciprocal agreement. The selected list servers are related to divisions of the Academy of Management and the International Leadership Association. Data collection was Web-based using SurveyMonkey.com as the survey administration tool. Members of the sampling frame were sent a Web-link via electronic mail that connected them to the data collection instrument. The population for this research study was adults (age 18 or older) who were employed part-time or full-time for an organization other than their own (no sole proprietors). Because a large and diverse sample of working adults was desired, a convenience sample was contacted via electronic mail. The sampling for this study used non-probability sampling. Therefore, this research is unable to predict whether or not the results are applicable to the overall population (Meadows, 2003c). However, the results are useful from an exploratory perspective and add to the body of knowledge on servant leadership and workplace spirituality.

Discussion Characteristics of the Sample Of the 440 usable surveys, 72.5% of the organizations were identified as nonprofit and 63% were classified as being in the education industry. The top three responses for length of service were: 1-3 years at 22.7%, more than 15 years at 20.7%, and 4-6 years at 19.5%. Regarding role in organization, workforce level accounted for 60.2%; whereas, management and top leadership roles were 30.7% and 9.1% respectively. A full 95.5% of 92

the respondents self-identified as not-Hispanic or Latino and 84.8% selected their race to be White. Gender was nearly even with females at 53.9% and males at 46.1%. Almost 80% of the respondents ranged in age from 30 to 60: 28.6% reported being 30 to 39 of age, 23.6% were 40 to 49, and 26.4% were 50 to 59. The sample was highly educated with 88.1% holding graduate degrees.

Research Finding 1 The OLA mean score for each respondent was used to determine organizational health levels and if there was a perception of servant leadership as identified by Laub (2003). Fifty-one respondents perceived their organizations to be servant-led at the Excellent Health level and twenty-one at the Optimal Health level. Overall, 16.4% of the respondents perceived their organizations to be servant-led. In addition, the overall average of all respondents was 3.29, which equates to a rating of Limited Health. However, this was an aggregate rating as the study was not for a single organization but for a variety of organizations that were assessed by one or more individuals. Table 29 identifies the sample size, mean, and organizational health level of nine prior studies. The results of this study most closely align with those of Hebert (2003). Although the sampling techniques of the studies were not identical, there was a similarity with the fact that the full membership of the organizations did not partake in the survey. Thus, a much smaller percentage of the organization evaluated the characteristics of the organization and its leadership. In contrast, other studies (Anderson, 2005; Arfsten, 2006; Drury, 2004; Horsman, 2001; Laub, 1999; Ledbetter, 2003; Miears, 2004; R. S. Thompson, 2002) sampled a much higher percentage of their selected organizations and 93

resulted in an assessment with a more positive organizational health level (Moderate Health). Thus, analyzing the aggregate organization health level may be best reserved for studies of an entire organization.

Table 29: Organization Health Levels of Prior Studies

Previous Studies Laub (1999) Horsman (2001) Thompson (2002) Ledbetter (2003) Hebert (2003) Drury (2004) Miears (2004) Anderson (2005) Arfsten (2006) Current Study n 828 540 116 138 136 170 165 364 262 440 Mean
4

Organization Health Level

3.73 Org - Positive Paternalistic (Moderate Health) 4 3.58 Org - Positive Paternalistic (Moderate Health)
4 3.56 Org - Positive Paternalistic (Moderate Health) 4 3.58 Org - Positive Paternalistic (Moderate Health) 3 3.35 Org - Negative Paternalistic (Limited Health) 4 3.74 Org - Positive Paternalistic (Moderate Health) 4 3.52 Org - Positive Paternalistic (Moderate Health) 5 4.12 Org - Servant (Excellent Health) 4 3.96 Org - Positive Paternalistic (Moderate Health) 3 3.29 Org - Negative Paternalistic (Limited Health)

Research Finding 2 Pearsons coefficients of correlation test was selected to determine the magnitude and direction of the relationship between organizational member perceptions of servant leadership and workplace spirituality. Based on the results, the r = .786 and is significant at the 0.01 level. Since there is a positive correlation, this indicates that the OLA mean and the DSW mean are varying together and that this correlation (.786) is moderate (Sproull, 1995). In addition, r squared is .618, indicating that 61.8% of the variance in the OLA mean is accounted for by the DSW mean. This results in the rejection of null hypothesis 1 that there is no significant positive correlation between respondents overall 94

perception of organizational servant leadership and their perception of overall workplace spirituality. Therefore, there is a positive correlation between employee perceptions of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality. For this sample, servant-led organizations have higher levels of workplace spirituality. The results of this research support the synthesis of the literature review and overall purpose of this study. The servant leadership constructs of developing people, displaying authenticity, valuing people, sharing leadership, and building community are likely to result in people who are ethical, good communicators, skilled, have strong interpersonal relationships, and have goals and vision in common. Such outcomes produce a spiritual generative culture where members focus on personal and team growth within positive organizational systems (Smith et al., 2004). Servant leaders seek to cultivate not only professional growth but also personal and spiritual growth (Spears, 2005). They develop people through a commitment to their learning and growth (Harvey, 2001; Laub, 1999; Rowe, 2003; Russell, 2001; Spears, 1998; Stone et al., 2004), developing their potential through affirmation and encouragement (Brenneman & Keys, 1998; Smith et al., 2004), and leading them towards their full capability (Giampetro-Meyer et al., 1998; Pollard, 1997; Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). This parallels with a core element of workplace spirituality, enabling personal and human development to reach the highest potential (Butts, 1999; Gull & Doh, 2004; Turner, 1999). Through service, consensus building, and value creation, servant leaders bring unity to organizational members; thus, building community (Edgeman, 1998; Whetstone, 2002). Similarly, employees who experience workplace spirituality find both meaning 95

and purpose in their work and feel that their organizations are true communities (Butts, 1999; Gull & Doh, 2004; Kale & Shrivastava, 2003; Looby & Sandhu, 2002; Mitroff & Denton, 1999; Turner, 1999).

Demographic Findings Research Question 2 sought to learn if there was a relationship between demographics (organization classification, type of organization, length of service, position in organization, gender, age, ethnicity, race, education geographic, and location) and the respondents perception of organizational servant leadership or workplace spirituality. As outlined in Table 30, only five areas in this study were found to have a significant correlation.

Table 30: Summary Table for Demographic Topic Results

Demographic Topic Org. Classification Type of Org. Length of Service Role in Org. Gender Age Ethnicity Race Education Level Geographic Location Significant Relationship? Servant Leadership Workplace Spirituality No Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No

For servant leadership, the role in the organization was a significant determinant. Those who self-selected as top leadership in their organizations had significantly 96

higher OLA mean, 3.793 as compared to 3.236 for workforce and 3.242 for management. These findings are consistent with those of Laub (1999), Horsman (2001), and Ledbetter (2003). The educational level was also a significant factor for the OLA mean. This is consistent with Horsman (2001); however, Laub (1999), and Hebert (2003) did not find education level to be significant. As shown in Figure 3, respondents with some college or a graduate professional degree perceived their organizations to have poor health (OLA mean below 3.00) while those with an undergraduate college degree perceived their organizations to have moderate health (OLA mean of 3.50-3.99). All others fell within the limited health category (OLA mean of 3.00-3.49).

4.000 3.500 3.000 2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000

2.970 2.067

3.270

3.293

3.444

3.657

Some College

Graduate Degree Professional Level

Graduate Degree Doctorate Level

Graduate Degree Master's Level

Some Graduate School

Undergraduate College Degree

Figure 3: OLA mean by highest level of education. Gender was not found to be significant for servant leadership in this study and that is consistent with several other studies (Arfsten, 2006; Hebert, 2003; Horsman, 2001; Laub, 1999; Miears, 2004). Similarly, age had no significance and those findings are 97

congruent with Laub (1999); however, Horsman (2001) and Hebert (2003) did find age to be a significant factor. For workplace spirituality, the organization classification, role in the organization, and race were significant. Nonprofit organizations had a significantly higher DSW mean (4.994) than did for profit organizations (4.720). Similar to servant leadership, the role in the organization was a significant determinant. Those who self-selected as top leadership in their organizations had significantly higher DSW mean, 5.720 as compared to 4.820 for workforce and 4.874 for management. Finally, race was shown to be significant in determining the DSW mean. As shown in Figure 4, respondents with two or more races had the highest DSW mean with 5.516. In contrast, the lowest DSW means were found with Black or African American race (4.230) and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander race (4.323). The remaining race categories had similar DSW means (4.942-5.160).

6.000 5.000 4.000 3.000 2.000 1.000 0.000

4.230

4.323

4.942

5.056

5.160

5.516

Black or Native African Hawaiian American or Other Pacific Islander

White

Asian

American Indian or Alaska Native

Two or more races

Figure 4: DSW mean by race. 98

Conclusions The purpose of this quantitative correlational research was to see to what degree a relationship exists between organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality for a diverse group of adults working in a variety of organizational settings. The execution of this study provided several advances and contributions to this field of study. First, Stone (2004) declared that academic research on servant leadership is still in its infancy (p. 358). Each quantitative study added to the body of knowledge but many areas needed additional research including the utilization of validated instruments in new settings with additional variables. This study advanced empirical research on servant leadership by combining the OLA instrument for servant leadership with the DSW instrument for spirit at work and discovering a positive relationship. In addition, the demographic analysis provided additional understanding of the significance of ones role in the organization as well as ones educational level in determining a perception of servant leadership. Second, Horsman (2001) combined the OLA with the Dimensions of Spirit instrument to study the relationship between servant leadership and individual characteristics of spirit and that work provided an understanding of how individual spirit is connected to servant leadership. This study furthered that knowledge by researching workplace spirituality from an organizational and cultural perspective; thus, advancing servant leadership theorys real-world application by determining that it indeed has applicability to workplace spirituality. Third, Klenke (2003) called for additional research and collaboration to enable an integration of spiritual perspectives into leadership practice. Furthermore, Kinjerski and 99

Skrypnek (2006) found that the most important organizational element to develop spirit at work was leadership. This correlational study resulted in a new understanding of the relationship of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality. Specifically, this study found that servant-led organizations had higher levels of workplace spirituality. Thus, from a practical perspective, a viable option for organizations desiring to have a culture of workplace spirituality is to hire and train their leaders to follow the principles of servant leadership. In addition, this helps to fill a research gap regarding what leadership styles are most congruent for workplace spirituality by evaluating servant leadership as a preferred leadership model. Fourth, researchers in 2004 (Mohamed, Wisnieski, Askar, & Syed) noted that there was a strong desire for spirituality in the workplace and that research had been deficient. This study advanced empirical research on workplace spirituality so that organizational leaders can better understand how they might encourage and nourish spirituality within their workplaces. By embracing servant leadership and its constructs of developing people, displaying authenticity, valuing people, sharing leadership, and building community, leaders may have a higher probability of nourishing and encouraging workplace spirituality within their organizations. Finally, by examining and discovering a relationship between servant leadership and workplace spirituality, this study contributed to the overall body of knowledge on leadership theories.

100

Limitations of the Study The scope of this research was limited to the six servant leadership constructs as defined in the Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) survey instrument. Additionally, workplace spirituality measures were limited by the seven factors specified in the Dimensions of Spirituality at Work (DSW) survey instrument. The sample was limited by the ability of the electronic mail to reach participants and their ability to use a computer to complete the survey. Another limitation was that the sample consisted of mostly white collar workers who were college educated. In addition, due to the use of convenience sampling, findings from this study are not generalizable to all applications of servant leadership or workplace spirituality.

Recommendations Recommendations from Research Study This study found a positive correlation between employee perceptions of organizational servant leadership and workplace spirituality. For this sample, servant-led organizations had higher levels of workplace spirituality. Therefore, organizations desiring a workplace spirituality culture should consider the servant leadership model. Hiring leaders and organizational members who possess the qualities of a servant leader and by developing training programs to further develop servant leadership behaviors in organizational members is one approach to implementing this model. In this study, top leadership of organizations had a significantly higher OLA means and DSW means than did management and workforce. This indicates that there is a gap in what top leaders perceive their leadership style and prevalent organizational 101

culture to be and what others within the organization perceive. Educating organizational members on servant leadership and workplace spirituality might raise awareness and understanding. This knowledge would also enable members at all levels of the organization to refine their skills and communication styles with their colleagues; thus, improving the overall environment of the organization. Also, as leaders implement programs supporting the constructs of servant leadership and workplace spirituality, it would be advantageous to clearly communicate the purpose of the programs and how each member of the organization may contribute to the programs success.

Recommendations for Future Research Based on the findings of this study, further research on servant leadership and workplace spirituality is recommended. Specifically, several varied approaches may prove beneficial for this line of study. First, modifying the length of the survey instrument may result in more completed surveys. The combination of the OLA, DSW, and demographic questions resulted in an extremely long survey. It was evident that respondents had a desire to participate; however, the drop-off rated indicated that time became an issue. Although 633 individuals began the survey, only 440 completed and usable surveys were rendered. The largest drop-off was at the transition from the OLA to the DSW resulting in 94 that did not progress from that point. Second, although there were some international respondents for this study (17.7%), a more comprehensive comparative study of servant leadership and workplace spirituality from an international perspective is warranted. For example, select a global 102

organization and compare a segment from the U.S. with a segment from outside the U.S. Another approach would be to survey a fully non-U.S. organization. This would provide an opportunity to learn how these variables transfer into other cultures. Third, one demographic not explored was religion. Even though workplace spirituality is different from religion, it may influence an individuals perception and attainment of workplace spirituality. One approach would be to simply ask a demographic question concerning religion. An alternative approach would be to include an instrument for measuring religiosity and conducting a subsequent correlation analysis. Fourth, this study approached a diverse group of individuals from a wide variety of organizations. An alternative approach would be to purposefully select organizations that purport to be either servant-led or one with a culture of workplace spirituality. Conducting the study in a servant-led organization would provide an opportunity to validate that it is indeed such an organization while affording the chance to correlate levels of workplace spirituality. Conversely, selecting an organization that has workplace spirituality would provide an opportunity to validate that it does have such a culture while affording the chance to correlate the level of servant leadership and organizational health. Finally, new instruments are being developed for servant leadership and workplace spirituality. A close examination of the newer instruments may provide opportunities to examine constructs in a different manner or in different combinations. Another approach would be to expand the study into one that includes using mixed methodology for these topics.

103

REFERENCES Anderson, K. P. (2005). A correlational analysis of servant leadership and job satisfaction in a religious educational organization. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 3162292). Arfsten, D. J. (2006). Servant leadership: A quantitative study of the perceptions of employees of a Christian-based, for-profit organization. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 3226110). Ashmos, D. P., & Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work: A conceptualization and measure. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(2), 134-145. Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Banutu-Gomez, M. B. (2004). Great leaders teach exemplary followership and serve as servant leaders. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 4(1/2), 143-151. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage. Bell, E., & Taylor, S. (2001, August). A rumor of angels: Researching spirituality and work organizations. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings. Bell, E., & Taylor, S. (2003). The elevation of work: Pastoral power and the new age work ethic. Organization, 10(2), 329-349. BibleGateway.com. (2007). Keyword search: Servant, serve, service. Retrieved April 23, 2007, from www. biblegateway.com. Blanchard, K. (2001). The heart of servant-leadership. In L. C. Spears & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Focus on leadership: Servant leadership for the twenty-first century (pp. ix-xii). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Blanchard, K., & Hodges, P. (2005). Lead like Jesus: Lessons from the greatest leadership role model of all times. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. Blum, M. (2002). The development of a servant leadership model for application to a competitive team sport setting. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 3058177).

104

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2001). Leading with soul: An uncommon journey of spirit. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Borenstein, M., Rothstein, H., Cohen, J., & Schoenfeld, D. (2007). Power and precision (tm) (Version 3.2). Borland Jr., K. W. (2001). Qualitative and quantitative research: A complementary balance. New Directions for Institutional Research(112), 5-13. Boyum, G. (2006, August). The historical and philosophical influences on Greenleaf's concept of servant leadership. Paper presented at the Proceedings from the 2006 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, Virginia Beach, VA. Braye, R. H. (2000). Servant-leadership: Belief and practice in women-led businesses. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 9981536). Brenneman, W. B., & Keys, J. B. (1998). Learning across a living company: The Shell companies' experience. Organizational Dynamics, 27(2), 61-70. Burack, E. H. (1999). Spirituality in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(4), 280. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Butts, D. (1999). Spirituality at work: An overview. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(4), 328. Cash, K. C., Gray, G. R., & Rood, S. A. (2000). A framework for accommodating religion and spirituality in the workplace. Academy of Management Executive, 14(3), 124-134. Cashen, L. H., & Geiger, S. W. (2004). Statistical power and the testing of null hypotheses: A review of contemporary management research and recommendations for future studies. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 151. Chalofsky, N. (2005). It takes a community. T+D, 59(1), 42-47. Chen, L. Y. (2004). Examining the effect of organization culture and leadership behaviors on organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance at small and middle-sized firms of Taiwan. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 5(1/2), 432-438. Chien, M.-H. (2004). A study to improve organizational performance: A view from SHRM. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 4(1/2), 289-291. 105

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business research methods (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Covey, S. R. (1991). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Free Press. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. De Pree, M. (1992). Leadership jazz. New York: Dell Publishing. Dennis, R. S. (2004). Servant leadership theory: Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 3133544). Drury, S. (2004). Employee perceptions of servant leadership: Comparisons by level and with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 3146724). Edgeman, R. L. (1998). Principle-centered leadership and core value deployment. The TQM Magazine, 10(3), 190. Ellis, G. (Ed.). (1999). God's words of life for leaders. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. The emergence of organizational culture and symbolic intercourse. (2000). Journal of Management Development, 19(5), 365-381. Fairholm, G. W. (2000). Capturing the heart of leadership: Spirituality and community in the new American workplace. Westport, CT: Praeger. Farling, M. L., Stone, A. G., & Winston, B. E. (1999). Servant leadership: Setting the stage for empirical research. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1/2), 49-71. Fernandez, J. A. (2004). The gentleman's code of Confucius: Leadership by values. Organizational Dynamics, 33(1), 21-30. Garcia-Zamor, J.-C. (2003). Workplace spirituality and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 63(3), 355. Gardner, W. L., & Schermerhorn Jr., J. R. (2004). Unleashing individual potential performance gains through positive organizational behavior and authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 33(3), 270-281. Giampetro-Meyer, A., Brown, T., Browne, S. J. M. N., & Kubasek, N. (1998). Do we really want more leaders in business? Journal of Business Ethics, 17(15), 17281738. 106

Goldstein, R., & Behm, G. (2004). Taking the next step: Reaching higher levels of organizational performance. Organization Development Journal, 22(1), 97-101. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press. Greenleaf, R. K. (1996). On becoming a servant-leader: The private writings of Robert K. Greenleaf. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. Greenleaf, R. K. (1998). Servant: Retrospect and prospect. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), The power of servant leadership: Essays (pp. 17-59). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Guillory, W. A. (2001). Spirituality in the workplace: A guide for adapting to the chaotically changing workplace. Salt Lake City, UT: Innovations International. Gull, G. A., & Doh, J. (2004). The "transmutation" of the organization: Toward a more spiritual workplace. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2), 128-140. Harrington, W. J., Preziosi, R. C., & Gooden, D. J. (2001). Perceptions of workplace spirituality among professionals and executives. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 13(3), 155-163. Harvey, M. (2001). The hidden force: A critique of normative approaches to business leadership. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 66(4), 36-47. Hebert, S. C. (2003). The relationship of perceived servant leadership and job satisfaction from the follower's perspective. Dissertations Abstracts International (UMI No. 3112981). Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2005). The study of educational leadership and management: Where does the field stand today? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 33(2), 229-244. Herbst, J. D. (2003). Organizational servant leadership and its relationship to secondary school effectiveness. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 3110574). Hesse, H. (1956). The journey to the east. New York: The Noonday Press. Hicks, L. (2006). Internet research. Retrieved June 21, 2007, from www. citiprogram.org/members/learners/moduletext_v3.asp?strKeyID=0647274DE62C-4E46-9BE4-1CFE6C9DDCC7-1174031&module=510 Horsman, J. H. (2001). Perspectives of servant-leadership and spirit in organizations. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 3010149). 107

Humphreys, J. H. (2001). Transformational and transactional leader behavior. Journal of Management Research, 1(3), 149-160. Irving, J. A. (2005). Servant leadership and the effectiveness of teams. Dissertations Abstracts International (UMI No. 3173207). Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1/2), 6-22. Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A values framework for measuring the impact of workplace spirituality on organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(2), 129-143. Kale, S. H., & Shrivastava, S. (2003). The enneagram system for enhancing workplace spirituality. Journal of Management Development, 22(4), 308-329. Kets De Vries, M. F. R., & Florent-Treacy, E. (2002). Global leadership from A to Z: Creating high commitment organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 30(4), 295309. King, S., & Nicol, D. M. (1999). Organizational enhancement through recognition of individual spirituality. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(3), 234. Kinjerski, V., & Skrypnek, B. J. (2006). Creating organizational conditions that foster employee spirit at work. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(4), 280. Kinjerski, V. M., & Skrypnek, B. J. (2004). Defining spirit at work: Finding common ground. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(1), 26-42. Kirkpatrick, J. W. (1988). A theology of servant leadership. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 8814621). Klenke, K. (2003). The "S" factor in leadership education, practice, and research. Journal of Education for Business, 79(1), 56-60. Klenke, K. (2005). Corporate values a multi-level, multi-domain antecedents of leaders behaviors. International Journal of Manpower, 26(1), 50-66. Konz, G. N. P., & Ryan, F. X. (1999). Maintaining an organizational spirituality: No easy task. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(3), 200.

108

Korac-Kakabadse, N., Kouzmin, A., & Kakabadse, A. (2002). Spirituality and leadership praxis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(3), 165-183. Kotter, J. (1999). on what leaders really do. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Kotter, J., & Heskett, J. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York: The Free Press. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1990). The credibility factor: What followers expect from their leaders. Management Review, 79(1), 29-34. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2004). A prescription for leading in cynical times. Ivey Business Journal Online, 1-7. Krishnakumar, S., & Neck, C. P. (2002). The "what", "why" and "how" of spirituality in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(3), 153-165. Laabs, J. J. (1995). Balancing spirituality and work. Personnel Journal, 74(9), 60-68. Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the servant organizational leadership assessment (SOLA) instrument. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 9921922). Laub, J. A. (2003, August). From paternalism to the servant organization: Expanding the organizational leadership assessment (OLA) model. Paper presented at the Proceedings from the 2003 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, Virginia Beach, VA. Laub, J. A. (2004, August). Defining servant leadership: A recommended typology for servant leadership studies. Paper presented at the Proceedings from the 2004 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, Virginia Beach, VA. Ledbetter, D. S. (2003). Law enforcement leaders and servant leadership: A reliability study of the organizational leadership assessment. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 3110778). Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for experimental research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lips-Wiersma, M. (2002). Analysing the career concerns of spiritually oriented people: Lessons for contemporary organizations. Career Development International, 7(6/7), 385-398. Loehr, J. (2001). The making of a corporate athlete. Harvard Business Review, 79(1), 120-129. 109

Lok, P. (2001). Antecedents of organizational commitment and the mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(7/8), 594-614. Looby, E. J., & Sandhu, D. S. (2002). Spirituality in the workplace: An overview. In D. S. Sandhu (Ed.), Counseling employees: A multifaceted approach (pp. 17-36). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Markowski, E. P., & Markowski, C. A. (1999). Practical uses of statistical power in business research studies. Journal of Education for Business, 75(2), 122. Mauro, T. (2002). Helping organizations build community. T+D, 56(2), 52-58. Maxwell, J. C. (Ed.). (2002). The Maxwell leadership bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Bibles. McMinn, T. F., Jr. (2001). The conceptualization and perception of biblical servant leadership in the Southern Baptist Convention. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 3007038). McMurray, A. J. (2003). The relationship between organizational climate and organizational culture. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 3(1/2), 1. Meadows, K. A. (2003a). So you want to do research? 1: An overview of the research process. British Journal of Community Nursing, 8(8), 369. Meadows, K. A. (2003b). So you want to do research? 2: Developing the research question. British Journal of Community Nursing, 8(9), 397. Meadows, K. A. (2003c). So you want to do research? 4: An introduction to quantitative methods. British Journal of Community Nursing, 8(11), 519-526. Miears, L. D. (2004). Servant-leadership and job satisfaction: A correlational study in Texas Education Agency Region X public schools. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 3148083). Milliman, J., Czaplewski, A. J., & Ferguson, J. (2003). Workplace spirituality and employee work attitudes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(4), 426-448. Milliman, J., Ferguson, J., Trickett, D., & Condemi, B. (1999). Spirit and community at Southwest Airlines: An investigation of a spiritual values-based model. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(3), 221. 110

Mitroff, I. I., & Denton, E. A. (1999). A study of spirituality in the workplace. Sloan Management Review, 40(4), 83-92. Mohamed, A. A., Wisnieski, J., Askar, M., & Syed, I. (2004). Towards a theory of spirituality in the workplace. Competitiveness Review, 14(1&2), 102-107. Ndoria, J. (2004, August). Servant leadership context: Is it an academic jargon or a lifestyle? Paper presented at the Proceedings from the 2004 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, Virginia Beach, VA. Neal, J., & Biberman, J. (2004). Research that matters: Helping organizations integrate spiritual values and practices. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(1), 7-10. Northouse, P. G. (2001). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Parolini, J. L. (2004, August). Effective servant leadership context: A model incorporating servant leadership and the competing values framework. Paper presented at the Proceedings from the 2004 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, Virginia Beach, VA. Patterson, K. A. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 3082719). Peppers, C., & Briskin, A. (2000). Bringing our soul to work: An everyday practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Pollard, C. W. (1997). The leader who serves. Strategy & Leadership, 25(5), 49-52. Reinke, S. J. (2004). Service before self: Towards a theory of servant-leadership. Global Virtue Ethics Review, 5(3), 30-57. Rennaker, M. A., & Novak, D. A. (2006, August). Servant leadership context: A multicase pilot study. Paper presented at the Proceedings from the 2006 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, Virginia Beach, VA. Rieser, C. (1995). Claiming servant-leadership as your heritage. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's theory of servantleadership influenced today's top management thinkers (pp. 49-60). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Rowe, R. (2003). Leaders as servants. New Zealand Management, 50(1), 24-25. 111

Ruchlin, H. S., Dubbs, N. L., Callahan, M. A., & Fosina, M. J. (2004). The role of leadership in instilling a culture of safety: Lessons from the literature. Journal of Healthcare Management, 49(1), 47-59. Ruschman, N. L. (2001). Servant-leadership and the best companies to work for in America. In M. Lawrence (Ed.), Focus on leadership: Servant leadership for the twenty-first century (pp. 123-139). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Russell, R. F. (2000). Exploring the values and attributes of servant leaders. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 9999498). Russell, R. F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(2), 76. Russell, R. F. (2003, August). A practical theology of servant leadership. Paper presented at the Proceedings from the 2003 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, Virginia Beach, VA. Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3/4), 145-158. Sambasivan, Z., & Johari, J. (2003). The influence of corporate culture and organisational commitment on performance. Journal of Management Development, 22(8), 708728. Sanders III, J. E. (2003). Organizational spirituality: Encouraging meaning and interconnectedness in the workplace. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 3092693). Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schein, E. H. (1999). The corporate culture survival guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schneider, W. E. (2000). Why good management ideas fail: The neglected power of organizational culture. Strategy & Leadership, 28(1), 24-29. Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application in organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2), 57-65. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday. 112

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 (pp. 217-240). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Showkeir, J. D. (2001). The business case for servant-leadership. In L. C. Spears & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Focus on leadership: Servant leadership for the twenty-first century (pp. 153-165). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-92. Sosik, J. J. (2005). The role of personal values in the charismatic leadership of corporate managers: A model and preliminary field study. Leadership Quarterly, 16(2), 221-244. Spears, L. C. (1995). Servant-leadership and the Greenleaf legacy. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's theory of servantleadership influenced today's top management thinkers (pp. 1-14). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Spears, L. C. (2005, August). The understanding and practice of servant-leadership. Paper presented at the Proceedings from the 2005 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, Virginia Beach, VA. Spears, L. C. (Ed.). (1995). Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's theory of servant-leadership influenced today's top management thinkers: Wiley. Spears, L. C. (Ed.). (1998). Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Sproull, N. L. (1995). Handbook of research methods: A guide for practitioners and students in the social sciences (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Shapiro, D. L. (2004). The future of work motivation theory. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 379-387. Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant leadership: A difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(3/4), 349-361. Stupak, R. J., & Stupak, K. N. (2005). Finding organizational reality in paradise: A team of two. Public Administration Quarterly, 29(3), 481-491. 113

Taylor, T. A. (2002). Examination of leadership practices of principals identified as servant leaders. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 3052221). Thompson, R. S. (2002). The perception of servant leadership characteristics and job satisfaction in a church-related college. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 3103013). Thompson, W. D. (2000). Can you train people to be spiritual. Training & Development, 54(12), 18. Turner, J. (1999). Spirituality in the workplace. CA Magazine, 132, 41-42. Vaill, P. B. (1998). Foreword. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), The power of servant leadership: Essays (pp. ix-xvii). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Vandenberghe, C., & Peiro, J. M. (1999). Organizational and individual values: Their main and combined effects on work attitudes and perceptions. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 8(4), 569-581. Vanourek, R. A. (1988). Servant-leadership and the future. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's theory of servantleadership influenced today's top management thinkers (pp. 298-307). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Wallace, J. R. (2006, August). Servant leadership: A worldview perspective. Paper presented at the Proceedings from the 2006 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, Virginia Beach, VA. Wheatley, M. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Whetstone, J. T. (2002). Personalism and moral leadership: The servant leader with a transforming vision. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(4), 385-392. White, K. L. (2001). Revolution for the human spirit. Organization Development Journal, 19(2), 47-57. Wilkes, C. G. (1998). Jesus on leadership. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House. Willis, A. K. (1999, May 1999). Breaking through barriers to successful empowerment. Hospital Materiel Management Quarterly, 20, 69-80. Witte, K. D., & Muijen, J. J. v. (1999). Organizational culture. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 8(4), 497-502. 114

Wong, P. T. P., & Page, D. (2003, August). Servant leadership: An opponent-process model and the revised servant leadership profile. Paper presented at the Proceedings from the 2003 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, Virginia Beach, VA. Yeo, R. (2003). The tangibles and intangibles of organisational performance. Team Performance Management, 9(7/8), 199-204.

115