Modified 10 Strategic Points
doable, valuable, and credible. These points, which provide a guide or vision for the research, are present in almost any research study. The ability to identify these points is one of the first skills required in the creation of a viable doctoral dissertation. In this assignment, you will identify and evaluate 10 strategic points in a published quantitative research study.
General Requirements:
Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:
Review the Mulligan dissertation.
Locate and download "Modified 10 Points Template."
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
APA style is required for this assignment.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.
Directions:
Using the "Modified 10 Points Template," identify each of the 10 strategic points in this quantitative dissertation.
Complete the "Evaluation" section of the template by addressing the following questions (250-500 words) with regard to the 10 strategic points in the study:
Discuss the key points in the literature review and how the author used this section to identify the gap or problem addressed in the study.
Describe the variables under study and how they are a key component in this quantitative research study. You are not expected to understand the differences between variables at this point, but should be able to identify how they inform the problem, purpose, research questions and data collection instruments.
Describe the problem and how it informed the research questions under study.
Describe the quantitative design used and why it is appropriate for the identified problem and research questions. Support your response with a peer-reviewed citation from a research source.
Assess the appropriateness of the instruments used to collect da
Servant Leadership and its Impact on Classroom Climate and
Student Achievement
Submitted by
Daniel F. Mulligan
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctorate of Education
Grand Canyon University
Phoenix, Arizona
May 6, 2016
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
ProQuest 10110904
Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
ProQuest Number: 10110904
© by Daniel F. Mulligan 2016
All rights reserved.
GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY
Servant Leadership and its Impact on Classroom Climate and Student Achievement
I verify that my dissertation represents original research, is not falsified or plagiarized,
and that I have accurately reported cited, and reference all sources within this manuscript
in strict compliance with APA and Grand Canyon University (GCU) guidelines. I also
verify my dissertation complies with the approval(s) granted for this research
investigation by GCU Institutional Review Board (IRB).
Abstract
The purpose of this quantitative research was to see to what degree a relationship existed
between servant leadership, classroom climate, and student achievement in a collegiate
environment. This was a quantitative, correlational study. The foundational theories for
this research included servant leadership and organizational climate that pertain to
transformational follower development and unifying values within an organization to align
behavior. The research questions for this study included: (R1) What was the relationship
between teachers’ servant leadership behaviors and classroom climate as reported by
students? (R2) What was the relationship between servant leadership behavior and student
achievement? (R3) To what extent was the relationship between servant leadership
behavior and student achievement mediated by classroom climate? The data collection
instruments for this study included The Servant Leadership Profile–Revised and the
College and University Classroom Environment Inventory. The sample size was 18,
composed of faculty at a private university in Northwest Pennsylvania. The resultant
correlations between teacher servant leadership and both classroom climate and student
achievement were not statistically significant (r = .407, rs = -.16, p = .25). Therefore, there
was no definitive mediating effect of classroom climate. These results were not consistent
with similar prior research at the primary and secondary levels of education, and thus raised
questions regarding choice of instrumentation at the college level. This study sheds light
on important variables and dynamics of researching these correlations in a collegiate
environment.
Keywords: Servant leadership, classroom climate, student achievement, Servant
Leadership Profile–Revised, questionnaire measures or organizational culture.
vi
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my family and friends who supported me
throughout this journey. Your patience and encouragement made this possible.
vii
Acknowledgments
No project of this magnitude is the result of one individual effort. Personal and
professional advice, guidance, and encouragement made the completion of this
dissertation a reality. I cannot adequately convey the contributions of my committee
chair, Dr. Patricia Chess. Her scholarship, mentorship, advice, guidance, patience,
mentorship, encouragement, and friendship throughout coursework, research, and even
health issues made this possible. The committee members, Dr. Jeanette Shutay and Dr.
Gary Piercy, have been excellent resources who continually challenged me to both learn
and become a better researcher. The participating teachers and students who completed
the surveys making this research possible are greatly appreciated. Lastly, a special thanks
to my wife, Amy, who supported me academically, emotionally, and physically (in
sickness and in health) throughout this journey.
viii
Table of Contents
List of Tables.................................................................................................................xii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................. xiii
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study ................................................................................ 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
Background of the Study ............................................................................................ 3
Problem Statement ..................................................................................................... 7
Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................. 9
Research Questions and Hypotheses ........................................................................ 11
Advancing Scientific Knowledge ............................................................................. 14
Significance of the Study ......................................................................................... 15
Rationale for Methodology ...................................................................................... 16
Nature of the Research Design for the Study ............................................................ 18
Definition of Terms ................................................................................................. 21
Assumptions, Limitations, Delimitations.................................................................. 22
Summary and Organization of the Remainder of the Study ...................................... 24
Chapter 2: Literature Review ......................................................................................... 26
Introduction to the Chapter and Background to the Problem..................................... 26
Theoretical Foundations ........................................................................................... 27
Servant leadership ...................................................................................... 29
Organizational climate. ............................................................................... 31
Summary .................................................................................................... 33
Review of the Literature .......................................................................................... 34
Servant leadership ...................................................................................... 35
ix
Servant leadership variable measurement and outcomes ............................. 47
Climate ....................................................................................................... 49
Methodology .............................................................................................. 57
Instrumentation .......................................................................................... 60
Summary ................................................................................................................. 61
Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................................................................ 64
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 64
Statement of the Problem ......................................................................................... 64
Research Questions and Hypotheses ........................................................................ 65
Research Methodology ............................................................................................ 67
Research Design ...................................................................................................... 69
Population and Sample Selection ............................................................................. 71
Instrumentation ........................................................................................................ 72
The Servant Leadership Profile-Revised Survey Instrument........................ 72
The College and Classroom Environment Inventory Survey Instrument...... 73
Validity.................................................................................................................... 74
Reliability ................................................................................................................ 75
Data Collection and Management ............................................................................ 75
Data Analysis Procedures ........................................................................................ 79
Preparation of data...................................................................................... 80
Tests of assumptions................................................................................... 81
Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................. 82
Limitations .............................................................................................................. 83
Summary ................................................................................................................. 84
x
Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results ............................................................................ 87
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 87
Descriptive Data ...................................................................................................... 89
Data Analysis Procedures ........................................................................................ 91
Servant Leadership Profile-Revised ............................................................ 91
CUCEI. ...................................................................................................... 95
Student achievement ................................................................................... 96
Preparation of data...................................................................................... 98
Sources of error .......................................................................................... 99
Results ................................................................................................................... 100
Research Question 1 ................................................................................. 101
Research Question 2 ................................................................................. 105
Research Question 3 ................................................................................. 111
Summary ............................................................................................................... 112
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations .......................................... 115
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 115
Summary of the Study ........................................................................................... 117
Summary of Findings and Conclusion .................................................................... 119
Research Question 1 ................................................................................. 119
Research Question 2 ................................................................................. 120
Research Question 3 ................................................................................. 121
Implications ........................................................................................................... 122
Theoretical implications ........................................................................... 123
Measuring servant leadership ................................................................... 124
xi
Measuring classroom climate ................................................................... 125
Measuring achievement ............................................................................ 125
Strengths and weaknesses ......................................................................... 126
Practical implications ............................................................................... 126
Future implications ................................................................................... 127
Recommendations.................................................................................................. 129
Recommendations for future research. ...................................................... 129
Recommendations for future practice. ...................................................... 131
References ................................................................................................................ 132
Appendix A. Letter of Approval to Conduct Research ................................................. 158
Appendix B. Survey Coordinator Informed Consent Form ........................................... 159
Appendix C. Instructor Informed Consent Form .......................................................... 162
Appendix D. Student Informed Consent Form ............................................................. 165
Appendix E. Confidentiality Statement ........................................................................ 167
Appendix F. Permission Email to Adapt the Conceptual Framework Model ................ 168
Appendix G. Permission Email to Use the Servant Leadership Profile—Revised ......... 169
Appendix H. Servant Leadership Profile—Revised (SLP-R) ........................................ 170
Appendix I. Permission Email to Use the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI) ............................................................. 175
Appendix J. College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI) survey ....................................................................................... 176
Appendix K. GCU IRB Approval Letter ...................................................................... 179
Appendix L. Power Analyses ....................................................................................... 180
xii
List of Tables
Table 1. Servant Leadership Profile-Revised Raw Scores ............................................. 93
Table 2. Instructor Servant Leadership Rankings .......................................................... 94
Table 3. College and University Classroom Environment Inventory Raw Scores .......... 95
Table 4. Classroom Environment Rankings .................................................................. 96
Table 5. Grade Conversion Chart .................................................................................. 97
Table 6. Student Grade Raw Scores .............................................................................. 97
Table 7. Class Student Achievement Scores .................................................................. 98
Table 8. Tests of Normality ........................................................................................ 104
Table 9. Pearson Correlation Between Servant Leadership and Classroom Climate, N=18. .............................................................................................. 104
Table 10. Spearman Correlation Between Servant Leadership and Student Grades ..... 111
Table 11. A Priori Power Analysis to Determine Sample Size..................................... 180
Table 12. Compromise Power Analysis ...................................................................... 180
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Research variables diagram. ............................................................................ 10
Figure 2. Conceptual framework model. ........................................................................ 68
Figure 3. Participating students’ grade distribution example. ......................................... 78
Figure 4. Letter grade to ordinal number conversion chart. ............................................ 79
Figure 5. Faculty experience profile. .............................................................................. 90
Figure 6. Class size. ....................................................................................................... 91
Figure 7. Servant leadership scores. ............................................................................. 101
Figure 8. Servant leadership scores histogram. ............................................................. 102
Figure 9. Servant leadership scores box-plot. ............................................................... 102
Figure 10. Servant leadership to classroom climate scatterplot. .................................... 103
Figure 11. Classroom climate scores. ........................................................................... 106
Figure 12. Classroom climate scores. ........................................................................... 106
Figure 13. Classroom climate scores box-plot. ............................................................. 107
Figure 14. Student grade scores. .................................................................................. 108
Figure 15. Student grade scores histogram. .................................................................. 109
Figure 16. Student grade scores box-plot. .................................................................... 109
Figure 17. Servant leadership to student grades scatterplot. .......................................... 110
Figure 18. Post hoc power analysis for correlation using G power software ................. 181
Figure 19. Post-hoc power analysis for linear multiple regression using G power software ........................................................................................ 182
1
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Introduction
Many people remember the special teachers in their lives; those who make
learning easy and really connect students with new material. Unfortunately, there are also
teachers who go through the motions of teaching and are apathetic. Because teachers
plan, organize, and control student behavior and activities, they are organizational leaders
in the classroom (Drobot & Roşu, 2012). Consequently, teaching and leadership intersect.
According to Shuaib and Olalere (2013), the purpose of teaching is to impart knowledge;
and one key aspect of effective teaching is learner-focused education. Therefore, it was
relevant to research how teacher leadership practices focused on and influenced student
achievement.
Several researchers have grappled with the issue of whether there is a leadership
style best suited to teaching. According to Hays (2008), the application of servant
leadership values and principles can significantly affect the learning experience for both
teachers and students. Servant leadership is an extension of the principles of
transformational leadership described by Burns (2010) whereby the leader “engages the
full person of the follower [in] a relationship of mutual stimulation in elevation that
converts followers into leaders” (p.4). This is significant in higher education as a
leadership focus towards learner-centered development is necessary to both attract and
retain students (Tinto, 2009).
Despite the scriptural origins of servant leadership, its practice is secular in nature
(van Dierendonck, 2011). In fact, religious proscriptions do not determine servant
leadership. Rather, according to Greenleaf and Spears (2002), the true measure of servant
2
leadership is the personal growth of followers. The growth aspect of this servant
leadership “Best Test” is particularly germane to the field of education (Goe, Bell, &
Little, 2008). In fact, it should be the primary goal of teachers (Goe et al., 2008).
Burns (2010) identified the causal effects of values on behavior. This is
significant because several researchers reported a direct relationship between leadership
and the creation of organizational culture and climate (Fernando & Chowdhury, 2010;
Groves, 2006; Karakas, 2011; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). In a discussion of the
evolution of constructs about organizational culture and climate, Reichers and Schneider
(1990) defined organizational climate as formal and informal organizational practices and
procedures behavior can be manifested by the embedded values of the culture that affect
the organizational climate. Furthermore, because performance is a measure of behavior,
the leadership that creates the organizational climate is a strong determinate of
performance. Within the field of leadership, research from Hiller, DeChurch, Murase, and
Doty (2011); Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe (2008); and Hays (2008) found strong positive
correlations between Servant Leadership and improved achievement.
This chapter contains the background and implications concerning how servant
leadership behaviors by teachers correlate with classroom climate and student
achievement. It includes an overview of the problem and purpose of the study, the
guiding research questions and hypotheses, the framework and rationale of the study,
assumptions and limitations, and the definitions of key terms. It also includes a brief
discussion of how this study can advance scientific knowledge in this area.
3
Background of the Study
The roles of leadership and accountability in education have become increasingly
important in recent years. President George W. Bush made accountability the centerpiece
of his education agenda which reinforced a central theme of state educational policies
(Linn, Baker, & Betebenner, 2002). However, legislation alone cannot yield significant
improvements.
For more than a decade, as established in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
legislation, school districts have been required to demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) by showing a minimum, prescribed level of growth in student achievement
(Gamble-Risley, 2006). However, according to Gamble-Risley (2006), AYP is a
misnomer, or at least an understatement. Satisfying AYP mandates demands a far greater
than adequate effort. Subsequently, in 2009, the National Governors Association and the
Council of Chief State School Officers sponsored the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) initiative to align educational standards and better prepare students for college
and adult careers (Forty-Nine States and Territories, 2009).
However, when the 2010 World Education rankings rated the United States
average, as quoted by Zeitvogel (2010, para 5), U.S. Education Secretary Duncan
declared, “this is an absolute wake-up call for America…the results are extraordinarily
challenging to us and we have to deal with the brutal truth. We have to get much more
serious about investing in education." Subsequently, the federal School Improvement
Grant program awarded more than $534 million to states to assist schools with poor
standardized test scores (Zeitvogel, 2010. Fortunately, the Nation’s Report Card for 2012
started to indicate slight improvements in academic achievement and preparation for
4
post-secondary schooling (The Nation’s Report Card, 2013). Moreover, the Lumina
Foundation funded a three year Core to College initiative, and the William and Flora
Hewlett Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Carnegie
Corporation of New York created programs to further improvements by facilitating
greater implementation and coordination of the CCSS and post-secondary student
preparation (Finkelstein et al., 2013). Yet, U.S. academic achievement remains close to
that of the early 1970s, and still behind many of the industrialized nations (The Nation’s
Report Card, 2013).
According to Routman (2012), the best way to improve achievement levels is to
improve teaching and focus on strong, effective leadership. The recent emergence of
several organizations to address these issues attests to the importance of this dynamic.
For example, in 1996 Teachers College, Columbia University, founded the National
School Climate Center (NSCC) to improve educational leadership in the area of school
climate to enhance student achievement (NSCC, 1996). In 2007, the National
Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality issued a report titled Enhancing Teacher
Leadership (2007) claiming that teacher leadership is essential for successful students
and effective schools. In 2008, a group of national organizations, state education
agencies, major universities, and local school systems formed the Teacher Leadership
Exploratory Consortium. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards has
worked on developing a new certification for Teacher Leaders (“Teacher Leadership,”
2013). Today, more than ever, teacher leadership is essential for student success (Ludlow,
2011). In fact, Drobot and Roşu (2012) asserted that teacher relations with students (i.e.,
leadership) are the most important ingredient for student learning.
5
Education begins with teachers. While legislation prescribes standards, teachers
are responsible for helping students attain them. Logically, better teachers should
facilitate greater learning and subsequent test scores of students. Clearly, some teachers
are better than others are. Perhaps they are more knowledgeable of the subject matter.
Alternatively, perhaps they are better leaders and motivators (Adiele & Abraham, 2013).
The innocent victims of the present situation are the students who participate in
the educational system. According to statistics in the NCLB (2002) legislation, almost
70% of elementary students in inner cities cannot read at a basic level and approximately
one third of college freshman now have to take remedial classes. NCLB mandates
improving both fourth and eighth grade math results on standardized tests (Dee & Jacob,
2011). However, because one third of college freshman require remedial classes, the
attention provided to primary levels of education by NCLB could extend to higher
education. Despite improvements at lower levels of education, the United States
continues to lag behind other nations in education (Hanushek, Peterson, & Woessmann,
2012; The Nation’s Report Card, 2013).
All these factors contribute to the pervasive need to improve education in a
number of ways. Determining how leadership could best facilitate these improvements is
more difficult. Current credentialing procedures at the primary and secondary levels of
education require professional education and experience in a variety of teaching areas
such as lesson design and planning, teaching techniques, and classroom management
(Norton, 2013). The education departments that are creating primary and secondary
education teachers do not require similar training at the collegiate level of education
(Norton, 2013).
6
Consequently, the importance of leadership in the classroom cannot be overstated.
Understanding and communicating values, ideas, and tasks in a manner conducive to
motivation and compliance is essential for effective teaching (Adiele & Abraham, 2013;
Drobot & Roşu, 2012; Routman, 2012; Shuaib & Olalere, 2013). Spillane (2005)
provided a useful definition of leadership in an educational environment:
Leadership refers to activities tied to the core work of the organization that
are designed by organizational members to influence the motivation,
knowledge, affect, and practices of other organizational members or that
are understood by organizational members as intended to influence their
motivation, knowledge, affect, and practices. (Spillane, 2005, p. 384)
Classroom leadership motivates and encourages students to learn (Adiele
& Abraham, 2013). It increases the likelihood of increased student effort, focus,
and retention (Adiele & Abraham, 2013). The skills required to affect this
influence originate from many fields of discipline: leadership; organizational
behavior, development, dynamics, and culture; and psychology (Adiele &
Abraham, 2013). In essence, teachers should be content area specialists,
curriculum experts, community builders, heads of safety and discipline, parent
liaisons, and head cheerleaders (Landeau Jr, VanDorn, & Ellen, 2009).
Understanding organizational structure, job redesign, group dynamics and
organizational culture all help to provide a foundational framework for a teacher.
However, the teacher is ultimately responsible for combining this knowledge into
action that--as the definition states--influences student behavior.
7
Is there a leadership style for teachers that is most conducive to facilitate student
learning? According to van Dierendonck and Nuitjen (2011), the focus of people-
centered, ethical management inspired by servant leadership is what organizations need
now. This is especially applicable in education where the primary goal of teachers should
be the growth of their students (Goe et al., 2008).
Several researchers have shown a direct relationship between leadership and the
creation of organizational culture and climate (Duke, 2006; Fernando & Chowdhury,
2010; Groves, 2006; Karakas, 2011; Kutash, Nico, Gorin, Rahmatullah, & Tallant, 2010;
Leithwood & Mascall, 2008; Villavicencio & Grayman, 2012) . Saphier and King (1985)
identified the importance of organizational culture in education. Waters, Marzano, and
McNulty (2003) synthesized 30 years of leadership in education and recommended
careful attention to school culture. Saphier (2011) recommended changing teacher-
student paradigms to increase learning effectiveness. This culture, in turn, is observable
in the daily behaviors that shape the organizational climate. As stated previously, using
the definition of organizational climate as “shared perceptions of organizational policies,
practices, and procedures, both informal and formal” (Reichers & Schneider, 1990, p.
22), it becomes obvious that the leadership behavior of the teacher is directly responsible
for creating the classroom climate. Furthermore, the educational climate influences
student achievement (Cohen & Brown, 2013; Cunningham, 2008; Herndon, 2007).
Problem Statement
It was not known to what degree there was a relationship between teachers’
servant leadership behaviors, classroom climate, and student achievement at the
collegiate level. The research focus of this study was the correlation between servant
8
leadership, classroom climate, and student achievement. Kelley, Thornton, and
Daugherty (2005) conducted a quantitative, correlational study of 31 elementary
principals and 155 teachers and found principal servant leadership characteristics had a
significant effect on school climate. Herndon (2007) found a statistically significant
positive relationship between principals’ servant leadership and both school climate and
student achievement across 62 elementary schools. Black's (2010) mixed method,
correlational study of 231 teachers and 15 principals in Catholic elementary schools
found a significant correlation between principal servant leadership and school climate. A
meta-analysis of 27 studies by Robinson et al. (2008) identified a significant positive
relationship between servant leadership characteristics and student outcomes. Moreover,
Boyer’s (2012) quantitative, correlational analysis of 9 principals, 54 teachers, and 537
students in secondary schools found a statistically significant relationship between
principal servant leadership and school climate.
The current United States’ World Education Ranking of average suggests
traditional educational structures and practices are no longer acceptable. U.S. Education
Secretary Duncan said this ranking served as a wake-up call for America and mandated
more serious proscriptions for improving education (Zeitvogel, 2010). One possible
course of action for educational leaders is to focus on the learning environment teachers
create. Specifically, is a servant leadership environment, as measured by the Servant
Leadership Profile-Revised (SLP-R) (Wong & Page, 2003), more conducive to improved
student achievement? Discovering ways to create better learning environments should
improve student achievement (Adiele & Abraham, 2013).
9
Since teacher leadership is an important aspect of teaching effectiveness, it is
important to add to existing literature by examining these correlations in higher
education. (Adiele & Abraham, 2013; Drobot & Roşu, 2012; Routman, 2012; Shuaib &
Olalere, 2013). In a higher education environment, federal laws do not mandate student
attendance meaning the students are voluntarily seeking education. Additionally, because
college students are adults, they are likely to be more responsible. These contextual
differences may create differences in student motivation and subsequent achievement.
This researcher attempted to identify these correlations at the classroom level in
higher education. Understanding this dynamic is critical to identify, confirm, or refute a
popular leadership paradigm in an educational context (Marzano & Marzano, 2003).
Additionally, these results contribute to understanding and potentially amending current
teaching practices to improve student achievement. Although the link among
administrative servant leadership, school climate, and student achievement has been
established in the K-12 learning environment, the link between teacher servant leadership
to classroom climate and student achievement has not been established in higher
education.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative, correlational study was to investigate to what
degree a relationship existed between servant leadership, classroom climate, and student
achievement for students and faculty at a small university in Northwest Pennsylvania. In
this study, servant leadership and classroom climate were predictor variables and student
achievement was the criterion variable. Logically, while there are numerous leadership
styles that create a variety of organizational climates, identifying the appropriate
10
combination of leadership and classroom climate to improve student motivation and
achievement is beneficial (Mitchell & Bradshaw, 2013). The use of accurate measures of
teacher servant leadership, classroom climate, and student achievement provided the
necessary assessment data to identify possible correlations. This study was designed to
identify the correlations between teacher leadership attributes and their effect on both
classroom climate and student achievement.
This was a quantitative, correlational study. Research studies have yielded
evidence that within the primary education levels, teachers’ leadership has affected the
classroom climate and influenced student achievement (Rivers, Brackett, Reyes,
Elbertson, & Salovey, 2013; Robinson et al., 2008). Similarly, studies have shown that
climate has had an impact on student achievement (Evans, Harvey, Buckley, & Yan,
2009). Figure 1 diagrams these relationships. These relationships have not been shown in
higher education; this study therefore investigated them in the context of higher
education.
Figure 1. Research variables diagram.
The study was designed to address some potential pedagogical shortfalls in
education. Current practices are not yielding appropriate student achievement (Zeitvogel,
2010). One possible course of action is a focus on the learning environment created by
teachers. Because teachers are the organizational leaders in the classroom, they are
Student Achievement
Teacher Leadership
Classroom Climate
11
responsible for creating a classroom climate conducive to learning. While prior
researchers confirmed the positive impact of servant leadership on student achievement at
the K-12 level, they neither confirmed nor refuted this relationship at the collegiate level
(Black, 2010; Boyer, 2012; Herndon, 2007; Hiller et al., 2011; Kelley et al., 2005;
Spillane, 2005).
Despite significant attention on professional development for teaching at the
primary and secondary levels of education (Goldhaber, Liddle, & Theobald, 2013),
collegiate professors are normally appointed based upon subject expertise with little
emphasis on curriculum design, lesson planning, and presentation (Norton, 2013).
Therefore, the results of this research may support the current practices of teacher
pedagogy at the collegiate level. Conversely, they may encourage other researchers to
conduct studies that more closely examine the development of collegiate teachers in the
areas of leadership and pedagogy (in addition to subject matter expertise).
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The research questions for this study pertain to the identification and
measurement of teachers’ servant leadership, the classroom climate created by these
teachers, and subsequent student achievement. Values determine behaviors (McClelland,
1985). This concept is not new. It is foundational for understanding human psychology
and behavior and the premise underlying behavioral models such as Maslow's (1943)
original paper on hierarchy of needs. Collectively, “common values are the glue which
binds an organization together; they motivate and create a sense of community. If
properly implemented, the employees can be trusted in the absence of direct rules and
regulations” (Brytting & Trollestad, 2000, p. 55). These common values create the
12
culture of the organization and directly influence the climate (Schein, 2010), and climate,
in turn, influences achievement (Cunningham, 2008; Herndon, 2007).
Values-based leadership presumes moral and ethical leadership (McCoy &
McCoy, 2007). Likewise, servant leadership ensures rational and emotional commitment
to organizational objectives (McCoy & McCoy, 2007). O’Toole (1996) identified
integrity, vision, trust, listening, respect for followers, clear thinking, and inclusion as the
primary characteristics of values-based leadership.
If we use our beliefs to make decisions, our decisions will reflect our past history
in dealing with similar situations…If we use our values to make decisions; our
decisions will align with the future we want to experience. Values transcend both
contexts and experiences. (Barrett, 2007, p.1)
The inherent values that manifest leadership behavior work to create the
underlying values and beliefs (culture) of an organization. This culture, in turn, is
observable in the daily behaviors that regulate the organizational climate. The basic
research questions and hypotheses of this study pertain to whether teachers’ servant
leadership behaviors, as perceived by students, create a positive classroom climate and
the extent to which the resultant classroom climate affects student achievement.
The following research questions and hypotheses guided this study:
R1: What is the relationship between teachers’ servant leadership behaviors and
classroom climate as reported by students?
H1: There is a positive correlation between teachers’ servant leadership behaviors,
measured by “The Servant Leadership Profile” and classroom climate
reported by students (SLP-R) (Wong & Page, 2003).
13
H0: There is not a positive correlation between teachers’ servant leadership behaviors,
measured by “The Servant Leadership Profile” and classroom climate
reported by students (Wong & Page, 2003).
R2: What is the relationship between servant leadership behavior and student
achievement?
H2: There is a positive correlation between servant leadership behaviors, measured by
the SLP-R and student achievement, measured by final course grades (Wong
& Page, 2003).
H0: There is not a positive correlation between servant leadership behaviors,
measured by the SLP-R and student achievement, measured by final course
grades (Wong & Page, 2003).
R3: To what extent is the relationship between servant leadership behavior and
student achievement mediated by classroom climate?
H3: There is a positive correlation between servant leadership behavior and student
achievement mediated by classroom climate, measured by the CUCEI (Fraser
et al., 1986).
H0: There is not a positive correlation between servant leadership behavior and
student achievement mediated by classroom climate, measured by the CUCEI
(Fraser et al., 1986).
One goal of education is to impart knowledge to prepare students for a successful
future. Some classrooms are friendly while others are antagonistic. The research
questions of this study are relevant to teachers’ leadership behaviors and their effect on
classroom climate. Likewise, this study helped to correlate the comparisons between
14
classroom climate and student achievement. Finally, this research included the
comparisons between a classroom climate created by teachers’ servant leadership and
students’ achievement.
Advancing Scientific Knowledge
This study advanced scientific knowledge in the areas of servant leadership,
classroom climate, and student achievement. Previous research from Kelley et al. (2005),
Herndon (2007), Robinson et al. (2008), and Black (2010), found statistically significant
relationships between servant leadership by school administrators and overall school
climate and student achievement. Boyer (2012) extended this research and confirmed
statistically significant positive effects of servant leadership from the teacher’s
perspective on school culture and student achievement. This study advances the known
self-perception analysis of teacher servant leadership on classroom (instead of school-
wide) climate and student achievement at the collegiate (instead of primary or secondary)
level of education.
This study extends prior research in the field. Although there are multiple studies
correlating the effects of administrative servant leadership on school culture and climate,
there are very few that correlate these effects based on teachers’ servant leadership
behaviors (Black, 2010; Boyer, 2012; Herndon, 2007; Kelley et al., 2005; Robinson et al.,
2008). Similarly, most prior research studied these relationships at the lower levels of
education (Black, 2010; Boyer, 2012; Herndon, 2007; Kelley et al., 2005; Robinson et al.,
2008). This study adds to the existing body of literature by increasing the small number
of studies that examined these effects at the level of the teacher in the classroom
15
(Colakoglu & Littlefield, 2010; Jacobs, 2011). Additionally, the researcher revealed these
effects in a completely different environment—collegiate education.
Significance of the Study
The results of this study should be of interest to educational accrediting agencies,
school administrators, principals, college and university deans, and teachers and students
at all levels of education. A positive correlation between classroom climate and
achievement provides strong implications about the importance of professional
development in leadership for all teachers. Since servant leadership focuses on the
development of followers, the hypotheses of this research pertain to correlations between
teachers’ servant leadership behaviors and student achievement mediated by classroom
climate. Potentially, this researcher highlighted a need for future similar research testing
other leadership models.
School accountability is a critical issue (Jennings & Rentner, 2006). Re-
examining and focusing leadership in education is essential (Fullan, 2009). The No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) Act mandated testing to measure the effectiveness of teaching styles
and environments on student achievement (Bush, 2001). This legislation changed the
focus of teaching methods to garner more resources for low performing schools (Jennings
& Rentner, 2006). Tenets of NCLB make increasing student achievement imperative.
While numerous factors contribute to student success, school leaders are primarily
responsible for student success (McCoach et al., 2010). This research was designed to
help identify and compare the effects of a specific teacher leadership paradigm and
classroom climate and student achievement.
16
With the exception of collegiate education departments that must focus on
pedagogy to ensure their graduates’ accreditation to teach at the primary and secondary
levels of education, there is not a similar pedagogical requirement in collegiate education
(Norton, 2013). If these research results show significant positive correlations between
teachers’ servant leadership behaviors and student achievement, they may support a
potential paradigm shift in collegiate education to incorporate leadership into collegiate
pedagogical training. Subsequently, it is possible that such changes will help to raise the
current collegiate graduation rate of 58% (U.S. Census Bureau. (2011).
Rationale for Methodology
The purpose of this quantitative, correlational research was to examine to what
degree a relationship exists between servant leadership, classroom climate, and student
achievement. According to recent research, “the driving force of evidence-based practice
and research in the traditional sense is the ability to measure and quantify a phenomenon,
as well as the relationships between phenomenon numerically” (Vance, Talley, Azuero,
Pearce, & Christian, 2013, p. 67). This research was designed to help correlate the
variables of servant leadership and organizational climate to describe student
achievement. The study correlated teachers’ servant leadership behaviors with classroom
climate and student achievement. The aggregation of student climate surveys and grades
provided mean values for each variable. Thus, it is consistent with a quantitative,
correlational design methodology using servant leadership and classroom climate
instruments and end of course student grades.
The body of research concerning school climate and servant leadership in
education and its influence on student achievement is growing. Quantitative studies by a
17
number of researchers (Black, 2010; Boyer, 2012; Cunningham, 2008; Herndon, 2007;
Kelley et al., 2005; MacNeil et al., 2009; Pritchard, Morrow, & Marshall, 2005; Robinson
et al., 2008) determined a statistically significant positive relationship between servant
leadership, school culture and student achievement at the primary and secondary levels of
education. Therefore, for this type of research, a quantitative, correlational methodology
was both established and accepted.
This study was consistent with the methodology of aforementioned studies.
However, it was unique by examining these variables and dynamics at the classroom
(rather than whole school) level, and with teachers (rather than administrators).
Specifically, the study location was a small, private, Catholic, liberal arts institution in
Northwest Pennsylvania. Furthermore, the context for this research was a higher
education environment. Unlike previous studies, there is no legal mandate for the
students in this study to receive instruction. They voluntarily—in fact, pay—to attend
college. Therefore, student motivation to excel may be more influential than in a
federally mandated attendance environment at lower educational levels. Because of their
age, it is reasonable to assume greater maturity than that of elementary or secondary
students. Finally, although standardized tests are readily available in primary and
secondary education as a measure of student achievement, at the collegiate level they
only apply to complete programs of study (e.g., bar exams, medical boards, CPA exams)
instead of individual courses. However, despite these environmental differences, the
similar, basic construct of the methodology justified its use.
According to the U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education
Statistics (2012), the United States is below the international average with a collegiate
18
graduation rate of only 58% of students who graduate within six years. According to
Carnevale, Smith, and Strohl (2010), the United States will fall at least three million
degrees short of 22 million new college degrees necessary by 2018. Poor student
achievement is an issue at all levels of education. Any research that can add to the body
of knowledge to help curb these current trends in education is worthwhile.
Nature of the Research Design for the Study
The nature of the study outlines the overall components of the study. It explains
the rationale for a quantitative, correlational study with teachers’ servant leadership
behaviors, classroom climate, and student achievement as the key variables. The purpose
of the study was to investigate the research questions and hypotheses comparing these
variables. Finally, it includes a brief discussion of the sample population, sampling
procedures, and data collection plan.
The epistemological roots of this research spring primarily from a post positivist
worldview whereby causes determine effects. "Post-positivist inquiry does not claim
universal generalizability; however, it aims to gain an in-depth understanding of the
phenomenon under study" (Tekin & Kotaman, 2013, p. 84). This study sought to measure
and correlate real world classroom dynamics. It is, however, somewhat reductionist to
use teachers’ servant leadership behaviors as the primary determinant for both classroom
climate and student achievement.
In this study, the paired classroom climate and student achievement data were not
independent of each other. “It is important to account for this pairing in the
analysis…[and]…concentrate on the differences between the pairs of measurements
19
rather than on the measurements themselves” (Whitley & Ball, 2002, p. 3). Thus, the
selection of a quantitative, correlational research design for this study.
The foundational theory for this research included research on servant leadership
developed by Greenleaf (2007). Additionally, research on organizational climate by
Litwin and Stringer (1968), and Schein (1984), were used to study transformational
follower development and unifying values within organizations to align behavior. This
research examined these dynamics in an educational environment.
It is known that there is a direct relationship between leadership and the creation
of organizational culture and climate (Fernando & Chowdhury, 2010; Groves,
2006;Karakas, 2011; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). Likewise, within the field of
leadership, research from Robinson et al. (2008), Hays (2008), and Hiller et al. (2011),
identified strong positive correlations between servant leadership and improved
achievement. What was not known is the strength of the correlation between a climate
created by servant leadership in education at the level of the teacher and consequent
student achievement. This was a quantitative, correlational study. It examined the
dynamics of teacher leadership on classroom climate and this relationship to student
achievement. The purpose of this study was to measure these correlations. The rationale
for this study was based upon similar studies that correlated these dynamics in education
from an administrative level to student achievement (Black, 2010; Boyer, 2012; Herndon,
2007; Kelley et al., 2005; MacNeil et al., 2009; Pritchard, Morrow, & Marshall, 2005;
Robinson et al., 2008). While significant, these studies may be omitting the mediating
influence of leadership by the classroom teacher. Thus, the essential research questions
sought to begin identifying and measuring servant leadership influence in the classroom
20
and student achievement. The main hypothesis was that students would perform better
when they are in a classroom environment of servant leadership.
The population for this research included all teachers and students. The targeted
population consisted of collegiate professors and students. The sample consisted of
students and faculty at a small university in Northwest Pennsylvania. The sample
characteristics reflect a small, private, Catholic university.
The necessary data for this research included instruments that helped to quantify
teachers’ servant leadership behaviors, classroom climate, and student achievement.
Fortunately, there are established survey instruments for both servant leadership and
classroom climate—SLP-R (Wong & Page, 2003) and the CUCEI (Fraser et al., 1986).
Finally, end of course student grades were collected. To alleviate bias and encourage
participation, the identities of all participants’ data was unknown to the researcher. Each
participant received a complete set of guidelines and a confidentiality statement. A
Survey Coordinator distributed and collected the survey instruments to participating
teachers. The SLP-R teachers’ servant leadership instruments were coded to protect
teacher identity. Likewise, the CUCEI student instruments were coded to correspond with
the appropriate SLP-R. Finally, end of course student grades were anonymously
aggregated on a corresponding coded form. The administration of survey instruments
occurred in the latter half of the semester to allow sufficient time for the classroom
climate to be established.
To prepare the data for analysis, each survey instrument was tabulated according
to its corresponding evaluation criteria. This resulted in scale scores (continuous and
21
interval level scores) for the SLP-R and CUCEI. Final course grades were converted into
ordinal numbers.
Empirically, the two instruments for this study, SLP-R and CUCEI, generated
scale scores. Therefore, a Pearson correlation was appropriate to address the first research
question and hypothesis. The data for the second research question and hypothesis
consisted of an interval level variable from the SLP-R and an ordinal value (student
grades).
Consequently, a Spearman correlation was appropriate for this analysis. Finally,
the data for the third research question and hypothesis consisted of two predictor
variables (servant leadership behavior and classroom climate) and one criterion variable
(student achievement). However, because the study was not seeking a fit with a causal
model, path analysis was not appropriate (Wuensch, 2012). Thus, multiple linear
regression analysis of the predictor variables (servant leadership and classroom climate)
and the criterion variable (student achievement) was appropriate.
Definition of Terms
The primary constructs of this study include servant leadership and classroom
climate as the predictor variables, and student achievement as the criterion variable. The
following terms were frequently used throughout this study:
Classroom climate. The aggregate environment created by interpersonal relations
across seven dimensions: personalization, involvement, student cohesiveness, task
orientation, satisfaction, innovation, and individualization (Fraser, Treagust, & Dennis,
1986).
22
Direction. Communicating achievement and behavioral expectations to
employees. Both employees and the organization benefit with clear direction (Laub
1999).
Humility. The ability to refrain from self-aggrandizement and keep one's
accomplishments and talents in perspective (Patterson 2003).
Interpersonal acceptance. The ability to empathize with the feelings of others
(George, 2005)and to ignore perceived personal injustices without bearing a grudge
(McCullough, Hoyt, & Rachal, 2000) .
Organizational climate. The “shared perceptions of organizational policies,
practices, and procedures, both informal and formal” (Reichers & Schneider, 1990, p.
22).
School climate. The values, beliefs, and attitudes that influence interactions
between teachers and students (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005).
Servant leadership. “Servant leaders empower and develop people; they show
humility, are authentic, accept people for who they are, provide direction, and are
stewards who work for the good of the whole” (van Dierendonck, 2011, p. 1232).
Assumptions, Limitations, Delimitations
The constructs of servant leadership, classroom climate, and student achievement
clarifies the assumptions, limitations, and delimitations of this study. The following were
the assumptions of this study:
1. The survey participants in this study answered questions honestly, to the best
of their ability, and were not deceptive with their answers. The nature of the
23
survey instruments and the survey instructions specified a quantitative,
correlational study. Therefore, there were no “approved solution” answers.
2. The SLP-R and CUCEI are valid and reliable for this sample population.
These instruments are well established and have been used in studies with
similar sample populations.
3. This study was limited by population constraints. That is, the instruments
require non-science-related lecture classes without laboratory periods.
4. End of course grades are indicative of student achievement. Individual
teaching philosophies with respect to grading may vary. However, while one
instructor’s overall grades may be higher than the other, it is not likely that all
students will receive identical grades. Therefore, any grade distribution was
likely to reflect variances and student achievement.
The following were limitations of this study
1. This study was limited by a small sample. While there were more than 300
student participants, there were only 18 teachers.
2. This study was limited to the validity and reliability of the survey instruments.
3. This study was limited by variances due to the difficulty of course content.
For example, overall student achievement may be lower in a course with
difficult content. The reasons for this lower achievement may be more
attributable to the difficulty of content than the classroom climate created by
teachers’ leadership behaviors.
24
4. The survey of collegiate students was delimited to a private, Catholic
University in Northwest Pennsylvania, limiting the demographic sample. The
study habits and characteristics of students at a private Catholic University
may not be generalizable to the entire population of collegiate students.
Summary and Organization of the Remainder of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative, correlational research was to see to what degree
a relationship exists between servant leadership, classroom climate, and student
achievement for students and faculty at a small university in Northwest
Pennsylvania. Taylor’s (1911) Scientific Management movement professionalized
management and leadership by demonstrating the need to attend to individual differences
among employees. Subsequent leadership paradigms focused on improving achievement
to further organizational goals (Greenleaf, 2002). Concurrently, research correlated
leadership behavior with organizational culture and climate (Schein, 2010) and
organizational climate with organizational achievement (Kaplan & Norton, 1992).
Additionally, within the field of leadership, research from Robinson et al. (2008), Hays
(2008), and Hiller et al. (2011) found strong positive correlations between servant
leadership and improved achievement.
NCLB legislation identified degradations of student achievement and mandated
investigation, professional development and instructional changes, and accountability
measures designed to improve education and improved student achievement (NCLB,
2002). Saphier and King (1985) identified the importance of organizational culture in
education. Waters et al. (2003) synthesized 30 years of leadership in education and
recommended careful attention to school culture. Saphier (2011) recommended changing
25
teacher-student paradigms to increase learning effectiveness. Research by Kelley et al.
(2005), Herndon (2007), Black (2010), Robinson et al. (2008), and Boyer (2012),
determined a statistically significant positive relationship between servant leadership,
school culture, and student achievement at the elementary and secondary levels of
education. The results of this study helped to identify these correlations at the collegiate
level of education and may be used to develop professional education modules for
educators in higher education. The literature review presented in Chapter 2 contains the
theoretical foundational framework for this study. Chapter 3 contained the methodology
of the study. Chapter 4 contained the results of the study. Finally, Chapter 5 contained the
conclusions of the study.
26
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction to the Chapter and Background to the Problem
The impact of servant leadership on classroom climate and student achievement
has its roots in studies that have focused more broadly on organizational culture and
climate in a range of organizations, including schools (Glick, 1985; Ismat, Bashir, &
mahmood 2011; Melchar & Bosco, 2010; Reichers & Schneider, 1990; Scheerens,
Witziers, & Steen, 2013; Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2013). Now,
more than ever, society values education and high educational attainment (Hazelkorn,
2013). Unfortunately, there is a marked decline in the efficacy of education around the
world and within the United States (Hazelkorn, 2013; Zeitvogel, 2010). The prevalent use
of educational rankings articulates the ramifications of this decline. These rankings
demonstrate national progress, justify professional academic reputations, guide university
goals, and facilitate student selections for higher education (Hazelkorn, 2013). The
purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between servant leadership and its
influence on both classroom climate and student achievement in a collegiate
environment.
Despite more than 100 years of development of organizational and leadership
theories, many schools are still organized according to the older structures and traditions
established by early organizational theorists (Chance & Chance, 2002). Weber’s (1991)
bureaucracy focused on organizational structure, while Taylor’s (1911) Scientific
Management focused on management and efficiency. Collectively, these perspectives
helped to create the “factory model” of education that is still “highly ingrained in
schools’ organizational structure and is evident in the language often associated with
27
schooling” (Chance & Chance, 2002, p. 5). This research helped to identify one potential
differentiated path-servant leadership-to improve student outcomes at a college.
The review begins with overviews of servant leadership and organizational
climate and culture. Subsequently, it discusses the variables included in the research
study and their relationship to contemporary research. Finally, it encompasses the
methodological research and considerations relevant to this study.
Internet search engines and online databases identified pertinent articles and
publications. Search terms included various descriptors pertaining to the themes of:
leadership, servant leadership, organizational climate, and achievement. For example,
within the theme of servant leadership, descriptive variants such as servant leader
qualities, servant teacher, and servant leadership in education helped to locate relevant
research.
Scholarly, peer reviewed articles and primary source data provided the
foundations for this review. The ProQuest dissertation abstracts database identified
topical dissertations and the literature reviews and bibliographies within those
dissertations aided in identifying additional material. Relevant articles and publications
were categorized as seminal, descriptive, or empirical with preference to recently—
within five years—published research.
Theoretical Foundations
The foundational theories for this research include servant leadership and
organizational climate. These were developed by Greenleaf (2007), Litwin and Stringer
(1968), and Schein (1984), and were used to study transformational follower
development and unifying values within an organization to align behavior. Servant
28
leadership reflects one philosophical approach to leadership (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006).
Therefore, it must be understood within a contextual framework of leadership itself (van
Dierendonck, 2011).
Harding, Lee, Ford, and Learmonth (2011) conducted a mixed method study of 44
organizations and explained why the definition of leadership is so ambiguous. The
perception and promotion of leadership morphed. Historically, leadership in industry was
hierarchical and transactional. Contemporary leadership emphasizes participative,
empowering relationships (Haber, 2012).
There are four key aspects of leadership. First, leadership is a process. This
emphasizes both the interactive nature and complexity of activities involved in
leadership. Second, this process results in influencing others. The obvious implication is
that without influence leadership is not present. Third, this leadership influencing process
involves groups of people, whereby the groups provide context for leadership to occur.
Finally, the leadership process influences groups of people to achieve a common goal.
The goal provides a unifying objective for collective behavior (Loughead & Hardy,
2005).
Therefore, how and why power is exercised are important aspects of leadership.
According to Doscher and Normore (2013), leadership creates the environment to
facilitate decisions and action. More specifically, leaders prepare and manage
organizational change (Kotter, 2009; Stringer, 2012). Almost a century of psychological
leadership research generated a voluminous library of the topic (Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig,
2008). Servant leadership represents a recent addition to this leadership library (van
Dierendonck, 2011).
29
Servant leadership. Greenleaf (1970) reintroduced and articulated the concept of
Servant Leadership. The determining characteristic of a servant leader is a desire to serve.
Then there is a conscious choice to aspire to lead (Greenleaf, 1970). This principle
reiterates the messages of numerous historic and religious leaders like Confucius,
Mahatma Gandhi , Lao-tzu, Martin Luther King, Jr., Harriet Tubman, Mother Teresa, and
Moses (Keith, 2008). Hayden (2011) articulated the philosophical consistency of Islam
with servant leadership. The word itself—Islam—means, “Self-surrender to the will of
God” (Hayden, 2011, p. 15). More specifically, The Quran (3:111) proclaims, “you are
the best people ever raised for the good of mankind because you have been raised to
serve others; you enjoin what is good and forbid evil and believe in Allah" (Hayden,
2011, p. 15). The behaviors and teachings of Jesus Christ are often described as the
perfect role model of servant leadership (Ebener & O’Connell, 2010; Lanctot & Irving,
2010). Specifically, servant leaders value power not for themselves, but for its potential
value to benefit their followers, organizations, and communities (Ebener & O’Connell,
2010).
Multiple examples from the Gospels of John and Mark illustrate servant
leadership. Specifically, Jesus’ willingness to wash his disciples’ feet and admonition that
“whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant” (Mark 10:43 NIV
Bible) demonstrate servant leadership in action (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). Jesus
redefined the purpose and role of leadership power as an enabling factor to benefit others
(Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002).
While the goal of transformational leadership is to improve organizational
achievement, the focus of servant leadership is on the needs of individual organizational
30
members (Stoten, 2013). This higher-order, ethical leadership model unapologetically
prioritizes the welfare and development of followers over organizational goals
(Greenleaf, 1970). Consequently, an explicit goal of this leadership model is an overall
improvement in society and humanity.
Although Greenleaf (1970) received credit for reintroducing servant leadership,
his descriptions of servant leadership, like leadership itself, did not include an empirically
validated definition (van Dierendonck, 2011). Greenleaf (1970) did not propose servant
leadership as a scholarly edict or a specific how-to manual. Consequently, this dynamic
has hindered the acceptance of servant leadership theory in academia because it is
difficult to empirically test a philosophical way of life (Parris & Peachey, 2013).
However, according to De Maeyer, Rymenans, Van Petegem, van den Bergh, and
Rijlaarsdam (2007), the choice of a conceptual leadership model – including servant
leadership – significantly influences student achievement. According to Block (2006), the
definitional ambiguity of servant leadership fosters continual reflection. Justice Potter
Stewart famously articulated this undefinable dynamic in Jacobellis v. Ohio regarding
pornography when he stated that he could never succeed in intelligently defining it; but
he knew it when he saw it.
Unlike traditional leadership theories whereby a leader's actions are evaluated to
determine the quality of the leader, servant leadership evaluates the leader’s character and
commitment to serve others (Parris & Peachey, 2013). Spears (2004) worked closely with
Greenleaf (2002) and identified 10 characteristics of a servant leader: listening, empathy,
healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to
31
the growth of people, and building community. Subsequently, researchers validated and
consolidated these characteristics and introduced others to help clarify the concept.
For example, Laub (1999) is generally credited with creating the first
organizational servant leadership assessment. The Delphi method helped define servant
leadership characteristics and created an instrument to measure those characteristics
within an organization. This instrument generates organizational perceptions from
various groups within the organization (Laub, 1999). Page and Wong (2000) extended
this research from the organizational level to the individual level by developing one of
the first servant leadership instruments that measured servant leadership of an individual.
Their original assessment (Servant Leadership Profile) measured 12 characteristics with a
100-item instrument. After further research, they created SLP-R; a 62-item opponent
process instrument measuring 10 servant leadership characteristics (Wong & Page, 2003).
Concurrently, Patterson (2003) developed a servant leadership instrument that
incorporated the characteristic of agapao love. Like the SLP-R, this instrument included
an aspect of humility as a required characteristic of servant leadership. The Review of the
Literature section discusses these characteristics in detail.
Organizational climate. Since leadership is partially defined by
organizational context, organizational development and dynamics become
important aspects of the leadership equation. Weber's (Weber et al., 1991)
bureaucratic organizational structure and Taylor's (1911) scientific management
shaped early organizational theory. The classical organizational development
perspective viewed organizations as rational systems valuing operational
efficiency above all (Morgan, 1997). Consequently, many saw bureaucracies as
32
dehumanizing organizations that stifled creativity, inhibited personal growth, and
caused people to fear management (Hohn, 1999). Addressing the human aspect of
organizations, Lewin’s (1951) participatory management, and Maslow's (1943)
original article on hierarchy of needs, McGregor (1960) identified positive and
negative managerial perspectives and labeled them Theory Y and Theory X.
Akindele and Afolabi (2013) related the importance of this managerial leadership
choice with its influence on organizational climate. Specifically, Theory Y is
practically implemented in organizations through participatory management,
decentralized responsibilities, delegation of authority, and job enlargement
(Akindele & Afolabi, 2013).
Decades ago, Glick (1985) reported the inglorious prominence of climate research
in organizational science. Beginning with Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) and their
studies of created climates, subsequent researchers continued to identify organizational
groups and systems as part of organizational climate (Barker, 2007; Denison, 1996; Hall,
1972; Lewin, 1951, and Likert, 1961). However, researchers still do not agree on a single
definition of organizational climate. For example, according to Hellriegel & Slocum
(1974), organizational climate is induced from the attributes of organizational systems
that affect its members. More recently, Peña-Suárez, Muñiz, Campillo-Álvarez, Fonseca-
Pedrero, and García-Cueto (2013) defined organizational climate as the set of shared
perceptions of co-workers in the same organization. Regardless of definitional
differences, Litwin and Stringer (1968) deserve credit for pioneering organizational
climate research by identifying and articulating nine dimensions of organizational
33
climate: structure, responsibility, reward, risk, warmth, support, standards, conflict, and
identity.
A brief review of organizational culture research illustrates the large overlap
between the identification and integration of organizational climate and organizational
culture. Schein (1999) attempted to explicate the definitional differences, “climate is
embedded in the physical look of the place, the emotionality exhibited by employees, in
the experiences of the visitor or new employee upon entry, and in a myriad of other
artifacts that are seen, heard, and felt” (p. 4). Organizational climate originates with the
underlying values and beliefs of the organization. In other words, organizational climate
is an artifact of the organizational culture (Schein, 1999). There are three levels of
organizational culture: artifacts, values, and basic underlying assumptions (Schein, 2010).
Summary. As noted, the difficulties in distinguishing and measuring
characteristics of organizational climate and culture results in the potential semantic
misapplication of terms in current research (Black, 2010; Boyer, 2012; Cohen et al.,
2009; Colakoglu & Littlefield, 2010; Duke, 2006; Herndon, 2007; Hiller et al., 2011;
Ismat et al., 2011; Kelley et al., 2005; Kutash et al., 2010; Lumby & Foskett, 2011;
Luqman, Farhan, Shahzad, & Shaheen, 2012; Villavicencio & Grayman, 2012).
Additionally, according to Ashkanasy, Broadfoot, and Falkus (2000), many climate
instruments fail to include reliability information. Therefore, despite numerous attempts,
even those intimately involved with the dynamics of organizational culture and climate
experienced difficulty distinguishing between the two and a careful analysis of literature
in both areas reveals overwhelming similarities (Denison, 1996).
34
Accordingly, “these two research traditions should be viewed as differences in
interpretation rather than differences in the phenomenon” (Denison, 1996, p. 645).
Evaluating and categorizing these dimensions in current literature is beyond the scope of
this research. Therefore, the terms culture and climate, as used in the research contained
in this literature review, both address common dimensions and are often used
synonymously.
Review of the Literature
There are significant differences between a leader and leadership (Reynolds &
Warfield, 2010; Sadeghi, Yadollahi, Baygi, & Ghayoomi, 2013). A leader is often a
person with a designated title or organizational role while leadership relates to the skills
and abilities to influence others (Sadeghi et al., 2013). Moreover, different leaders
subscribe to different leadership paradigms to exert their influence over others. Because
leadership involves influence and interaction between people, good leadership is
individually phenomenological and influenced by organizational context (Akindele &
Afolabi, 2013). Consequently, organizational context becomes an important factor in
practicing leadership. One important aspect of servant leadership is focusing on the
development of followers. This aspect is particularly germane in an educational
environment wherein organizational goals explicitly focus on the development of
followers. Because the definitive principal of servant leadership espouses the
development of followers, its relationships to classroom climate and student achievement
are relevant.
In the 21st century educational environment, there is a greater need for
educational leaders than professional teachers (Luqman et al., 2012). More specifically,
35
contemporary research recommends servant leadership to enhance and improve academic
environments and achievement (Black, 2010; Boyer, 2012; Herndon, 2007; Hiller et al.,
2011; Kelley et al., 2005; Luqman et al., 2012; Spillane, 2005). Therefore, it is necessary
to understand and define educational leadership (Shuaib & Olalere, 2013). Spillane
(2005) provides a useful definition of leadership in an educational environment:
Leadership refers to the methods of motivation and practices specifically designed to
influence the motivation and knowledge of organizational members. Simply put,
classroom leadership motivates and encourages students to learn. It increases the
likelihood of increased student effort, focus, and retention.
Servant leadership. A servant leadership paradigm emphasizes the development
of the follower and the organizational climate helps to facilitate follower receptivity to
leadership direction. Operationalizing these theories in an educational environment
improves student achievement (Black, 2010; Boyer, 2012; Cunningham, 2008; Hays,
2008; Herndon, 2007; Hiller et al., 2011; Kelley et al., 2005; Spillane, 2005). The SLP-R
developed by Wong and Page (2003) measures the following servant leader
characteristics: leading, servanthood, visioning, developing others, team building,
empowering others, shared decision-making, and integrity.
Leading. Leading focuses on the skills necessary for achieving productivity and
success (Wong & Page, 2003). Leading is about giving direction (van Dierendonck &
Nuijten, 2011). While authoritative leadership remains a common practice, servant
leadership’s application and use of positional power is more effective (Zhang, Lin, &
Foo, 2012).
36
According to Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), healing is one aspect of leading in
servant leadership. However, it is often overlooked. Everyone experiences physical and
emotional suffering; however, servant leaders recognize this as an opportunity to help
their followers (Spears, 2004). Greenleaf (1970) wrote servant leaders practice healing by
helping employees create personal and professional pathways to happiness. Most
significantly, healing is an under-appreciated variable that distinguishes servant
leadership from traditional leadership theories (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006).
This variable is widely accepted in contemporary servant leadership research
(Barbuto, 2002; Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006;; Laub, 1999; and Reed, Vidaver-Cohen, &
Colwell, 2011; van Dierendonck, 2011). Yet, it is not always specifically labeled as
leading. Barbuto (2002) describes this variable under the characteristic awareness.
Patterson (2003) described its characteristics in service. Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) and
Reed et al. (2011) encompassed this variable under the term altruism. In addition, Van
Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) included this variable when describing the attribute of
courage.
Servanthood. Servanthood is directly related to the leader’s character (Wong &
Page, 2003). It is a reflection of a servant attitude. The focus is on helping others (Wong
& Page, 2003). Aspects of servanthood are visible in Greenleaf’s (1970) building
community. This is where leaders show the way by demonstrating service to others and
the community (Greenleaf, 1970). Through servanthood, leaders instill a sense of
community spirit in their organizations (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006).
As expected, the variable of servanthood is prevalent in contemporary servant
leadership research (Barbuto, 2002; Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Dennis & Bocarnea,
37
2005; Dennis & Winston, 2003; Van Dierendonck & Nuitjen, 2011; Ehrhart, 2004; Laub,
1999; Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008; Patterson, 2003; Reed et al., 2011;
Russell & Stone, 2002; Sendjaya & Cooper, 2011; Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008).
Yet, it is not always called servanthood. Laub (1999) and Barbuto (2002) described this
variable in terms of a calling. Russell and Stone (2002) and Dennis and Winston (2003)
used the term service. Ehrhart (2004) and Liden et al. (2008) labeled this putting others
first. Finally, Patterson (2003) and Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) used the term altruism.
Moreover, Patterson (2003) also used the term agapao love as a manifestation of aspects
of servanthood.