10 strategic points grand canyon university

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.

In a quantitative correlational analysis of 291 high school students, Kurnianingsih,

Yuniarti, and Kim (2012) confirmed the importance of this variable in education. A

recent quantitative study of 524 teachers and administrators from primary and secondary

schools in Singapore by Zhang et al. (2012) correlated the extent to which educational

practitioners embraced the concept of servant leadership. Zhang (2012) confirmed the

importance of this variable in education. Their results confirmed a statistically significant

correlation between servanthood and its preference in an educational environment.

Visioning. Visioning is another variable focused on specific actions and tasks of a

servant leader (Wong & Page, 2003). It encompasses three of Greenleaf’s (1970) 10

characteristics: foresight, awareness, and conceptualization. Visioning allows a leader to

be a guidepost for followers (Wong & Page, 2003).

Foresight is the ability to anticipate future events and outcomes (Barbuto &

Wheeler, 2006). It is the central ethic of leadership (Greenleaf, 1970). Foresight allows

the leader to understand the past and apply lessons learned to the present and future

38

(Spears, 2004). It allows the servant leader to be a bellwether for future organizational

success (Boyer, 2012).

Within the context of servant leadership, awareness refers to a leader’s astuteness

at reading environmental cues (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Situational awareness

provides necessary information allowing leaders to evaluate issues from multiple

perspectives (Greenleaf, 1970). Likewise, awareness makes servant leaders stronger

(Spears, 2004).

The characteristic of conceptualization allows servant leaders to be great dreamers

(Spears, 2004). It is the primary leadership talent (Greenleaf, 1970). Conceptualization is

the ability to exercise lateral thinking beyond present realities (Barbuto & Wheeler,

2006). Servant leaders implement conceptualization by conveying the future vision,

values, and mission of the organization (Bell, Bolding, & Delgadillo, 2013).

Russell and Stone (2002), Dennis and Winston (2003), Patterson (2003), and

Dennis and Bocarnea (2005), all used the term vision. Barbuto (2002), Ehrhart (2004),

and Liden et al. (2008), described visioning activities as aspects of conceptualization.

Research by Kelley et al. (2005), Herndon (2007), Black (2010), Robinson et al. (2008),

and Boyer (2012), all confirmed the importance of this variable in education.

Developing others. Developing others is a manifestation of the people orientation

of a servant leader (Wong & Page, 2003). It focuses on how the leader relates to others

and his or her commitment to their growth (Wong & Page, 2003). This characteristic

most closely embodies the tenets of transformational leadership (Spears, 2004).

Moreover, a strong leadership commitment to individual growth yields positive

organizational outcomes (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006).

39

Significantly, this characteristic provides an excellent example of the semantic

problems with subsequent interpretations and consolidations of servant leadership

characteristics and measurement instruments. For example, Laub (1999) and Barbuto

(2002) described this variable as commitment to growth. Ehrhart (2004) and Liden et al.

(2008) labeled this helping subordinates grow. Then Reed et al. (2011) called this activity

interpersonal support.

Russell and Stone (2002), Patterson (2003), Dennis and Winston (2003), and

Dennis and Bocarnea (2005), all used the term vision as a characteristic of servant

leadership. With the exception of Patterson (2003), each of these authors related vision

with Greenleaf’s (1970) characteristics of conceptualization and foresight. However,

according to Patterson (2003), vision referred to the leader assisting in the development

of followers.

Developing others is a cornerstone of education (Waters et al., 2003). In a

quantitative correlational analysis of 291 high school students, Kurnianingsih et al.

(2012) confirmed the importance of this variable in education. In addition, according to

Taylor, Martin, Hutchinson, and Jinks (2007), servant leadership should be cultivated in

every classroom.

Team building. Team building focuses on making the organization more efficient

(Wong & Page, 2003). It is part of the process of servant leadership (Wong & Page,

2003). Team building encompasses Greenleaf’s (1970) aspects of listening and a

commitment to people. It requires dialogue – both speaking and listening, and reflects the

leader’s respect for employees (Greenleaf, 1970).

40

Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) clarified this characteristic as hearing and valuing

the ideas of others. Reed’s et al. (2011) servant leadership instrument labeled this

characteristic Egalitarianism. Regardless of the semantic label, most studies confirm the

importance of this variable as a characteristic of servant leadership (Dennis & Bocarnea,

2005; Dennis & Winston, 2003; Ehrhart, 2004; Laub, 1999; Liden et al., 2008; Patterson,

2003; Russell & Stone, 2002; van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011; Wong & Page, 2005).

Empowering others. Empowering others is another people orientation

characteristic of servant leadership (Wong & Page, 2003). It requires a commitment to

followers and a willingness to empathize with and allow followers to direct their

behaviors (Wong & Page, 2003). Empowering others facilitates followers becoming freer

and more autonomous, which are two conditions of Greenleaf’s (1970) “Best Test” for

servant leadership.

Laub (1999) determined servant leaders’ actions in developing people included

providing learning, encouragement and affirmation. Servant leaders do not

unconditionally accept all follower behaviors, but they do assume the intentions of all

follower behaviors are honorable (Spears, 2004). With this mindset, even when servant

leaders reject follower behaviors, they are not personally rejecting the follower (Spears,

2004). Van Dierendonck and Nuitjen (2011) further articulated this concept as part of

interpersonal acceptance. Being able to forgive when confronted with mistakes is a

logical servant leadership consequence of empowering others.

Dennis and Winston (2003), Patterson (2003), Dennis and Bocarnea (2005), and

Van Dierendonck and Nuijten, (2011), all considered empowerment an important

variable in servant leadership. Ehrhart (2004) and Liden et al. (2008) described this

41

variable as helping subordinates grow. Similarly, Sendjaya and Cooper (2011) used the

term covenantal relationship to describe this characteristic.

Shared decision making. Shared decision-making refers to the organizational

process of collaborating for efficiency (Wong & Page, 2003). Sharing leadership is one

of the Laub’s (1999) six key variables of servant leadership. Greenleaf’s (1970)

characteristics of listening, empathy, and persuasion are all aspects of shared decision-

making.

The ability to influence others is a key, definitional component of leadership

(Loughead & Hardy, 2005). However, unlike leadership in traditional, autocratic,

hierarchical organizations whereby positional powers allow leaders to dictate specific

actions, servant leaders replace coercive methods with persuasion (Spears, 2004). Thus,

persuasion is the ability to influence others without a reliance on formal authority

(Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). The leadership byproduct of shared decision-making is

credibility (Russell & Stone, 2002).

Paradoxically, most servant leadership instruments do not specifically measure

shared decision-making as a variable of servant leadership (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005;

Dennis & Winston, 2003; ; Ehrhart, 2004; Liden et al., 2008; Patterson, 2003; Russell &

Stone, 2002; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2010). The variables of servanthood,

developing others, team building, and empowering others often carry an assumption of

sharing in decisions (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005; Dennis & Winston, 2003; ; Ehrhart,

2004; Liden et al., 2008; Patterson, 2003; Russell & Stone, 2002; Van Dierendonck &

Nuijten, 2011). However, it is a key variable in Laub’s (1999) Organizational Leadership

Assessment (OLA).

42

Integrity. Integrity is a variable at the heart of servant leadership (Wong & Page,

2003). All servant leadership tasks are impossible if the leader’s character lacks integrity

(Wong & Page, 2003). By demonstrating moral courage and integrity, leaders improve

organizational behavior and inspire followers to emulate them (Parris & Peachey, 2013).

Greenleaf (1970) posited the benefits of integrity include trust, empathy, persuasion,

stewardship, and a commitment to the growth of people. It is critical to creating a servant

leadership organization (Greenleaf, 1970).

The Reed et al. (2011) servant leadership instrument included moral integrity as a

key variable. Although many other servant leadership instruments do not use the term

integrity, they recognize its importance (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005; Ehrhart, 2004; Laub,

1999; Liden et al., 2008; Patterson, 2003; Russell & Stone, 2002; Sendjaya and Cooper,

2011; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). Laub (1999), and Russell and Stone (2002)

used the term honesty. Sendjaya and Cooper, (2011), and Van Dierendonck and Nuitjen

(2011) all described this variable as an aspect of authenticity. Ehrhart (2004) and Liden et

al. (2008) incorporated integrity within ethics. Finally, Patterson (2003) and Dennis and

Bocarnea (2005) included Greenleaf’s (1970) outcome of integrity – trust – as a key

variable in their servant leadership instruments.

Abuse of power and egotistic pride. Wong and Page (2003) identified two

opposing forces to servant leadership: authoritarian hierarchy and egotistical pride. They

lead to abuses of power. Moreover, they are antithetical to servant leadership and two

major causes of organizational failure (Wong & Page, 2003).

Authoritarian hierarchy refers to a vertical organizational structure that is

conducive to creating defined powers and responsibilities that encourage rigid command

43

and control practices (Wong & Page, 2003). Within these organizational structures,

leaders need to develop two sets of skills. First, they focus primarily on demonstrating

loyalty and submission to their supervisors. Second, they are willing to intimidate,

deceive, and manipulate their subordinates to demand a similar level of loyalty and

subjugation. This abusive power inevitably leads to scandals and corruption (Wong &

Page, 2003).

Unfortunately, a business culture of competitiveness and individualism fosters

egotistic pride (Wong & Page, 2003). Especially in hierarchical organizations, self-

serving leaders demand the center of attention and portray themselves as the linchpin of

the organization. They demand the center of attention and will use any means available to

achieve material success—including accepting credit for the work of others (Wong &

Page, 2003).

The lure of power and its accompanying privileges can corrupt and compel people

to betray, or even kill, others (Wong & Page, 2003). Similarly, pride can manifest itself

through greed for wealth or fame. It is impossible to exercise servant leadership if a

leader is enamored with power or egotistical pride because servant leadership requires the

voluntary surrender of one’s ego and intentional vulnerability. Therefore, it is important

to include these opponent process variables in the identification of servant leadership

(Wong & Page, 2003).

Despite the prevalence and high reliability (0.937) of the SLP-R developed by

Wong and Page (2003), it remains the only instrument that considers negative aspects of

servant leadership. Just as pseudotransformational leadership presents the misuse and

abuse of leadership skills, the abuse of power and egotistical pride prevents the

44

implementation of true servant leadership. The SLP-R identifies these tendencies by

measuring intentional vulnerability and voluntary humility (Wong & Page, 2003).

Summary of servant leadership variables. Greenleaf (1970) readily admitted his

list of 10 characteristics was not meant to be exhaustive (Bugenhagen, 2006).

Chronologically, Laub (1999) reduced the list to six: values people, develops people,

builds community, displays authenticity, provides leadership, and shares leadership.

Russell and Stone (2002) identified nine functional characteristics: vision, honesty,

integrity, trust, service, modeling, pioneering, appreciation of others, and empowerment.

They also identified 11 accompanying attributes: communication, credibility,

competence, stewardship, visibility, influence, persuasion, listening, encouragement,

teaching, and delegation.

Wong and Page (2003) initially began with 12 characteristics: leading,

servanthood, visioning, developing others, team building, empowering others, shared

decision-making, integrity, humility, caring for others, goal setting, and modeling.

Subsequently, they refined their list by eliminating the last four – humility, caring for

others, goal setting, and modeling. Patterson (2003) consolidated the list to seven virtues:

love, humility, altruism, vision, trust, empowerment, and service. Likewise, Ehrhart

(2004) developed seven subscales of servant leadership: forming relationships with

subordinates, empowering subordinates, helping subordinates grow and succeed,

behaving ethically, having conceptual skills, putting subordinates first, and creating value

for those outside the organization.

Dennis and Winston (2003) identified three domains of servant leadership:

empowerment, service, and vision. Dennis and Bocarnea (2005) reduced Patterson’s

45

(2003) seven virtues to five: vision, empowerment, trust, humility, and love. Barbuto and

Wheeler (2006) developed an instrument to measure 11 dimensions of servant leadership:

calling, listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight,

stewardship, growth, and community building. Then Sendjaya and Cooper, (2011)

categorized six dimensions of servant leadership behavior: voluntary subordination,

authentic self, covenantal relationship, responsible morality, transcendental spirituality,

and transforming influence.

Liden et al. (2008) developed an instrument using Ehrhart’s (2004) seven servant

leadership behaviors: emotional healing, ethical behavior, putting subordinates first,

helping subordinates grow and succeed, empowering, creating value for the community,

and conceptual skills. Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2010) created an instrument with

eight dimensions: standing back, forgiveness, courage, empowerment, accountability,

authenticity, humility, and stewardship. Subsequently, Van Dierendonck (2011) further

distilled this list to six: humility, authenticity, empowering and developing, accepting,

providing direction, and being good stewards. And Reed et al. (2011) created an

instrument based on five servant leadership characteristics: interpersonal support,

building community, altruism, moral integrity, and egalitarianism.

Honesty and integrity are essential variables in servant leadership (Dennis &

Bocarnea, 2005; Laub, 1999; Patterson, 2003; Reed et al., 2011; Russell & Stone, 2002;

Sendjaya and Cooper 2011; Wong & Page, 2003). Their definitions convey the essence

of servant leadership. Honesty means telling the truth and integrity means good morals

(Russell & Stone, 2002).

46

Altruism conveys the leader’s desire to place the needs of others first and making

a positive difference in others’ lives (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Simply put, altruism

involves helping others just for the sake of helping (Patterson, 2003). Authenticity is

closely related to altruism because it emphasizes the individual over any professional role

(Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2010). It is a natural construct of the term servant. Wisdom

is a combination of awareness and foresight (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Courage

involves taking risks, relying on values and convictions, and trying new approaches

(Greenleaf, 1970; Russell & Stone, 2002; van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). Standing

back is closely related to authenticity, empowerment, humility, and stewardship (Van

Dierendonck & Nuitjen, 2011).

Humility involves understanding one’s strong and weak points and seeking

assistance from others to overcome weaknesses (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005; Patterson,

2003; van Dierendonck & Nuitjen, 2011; Wong & Page, 2003). Finally, agapao love

includes “embracing the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of

principle, duty, and propriety” (Patterson, 2003, p. 12). Leading with agapao love focuses

on the employees first and then on how the employees’ talents can benefit the

organization (Patterson, 2003).

In summary, servant leadership is more than a leadership style (Laub, 1999). It is

a different way of thinking about life – an opportunity to serve others. Servant leadership

is not a title, position, or status. Instead of controlling people, servant leadership enables

people towards their full potential (Laub, 1999).

To date, most servant leadership research falls into three categories: conceptually

defining and articulating, measuring, and the development of operational models (Parris

47

& Peachey, 2013). Obviously, despite the consistency and overlap of several

characteristics, the introduction and measurement of 44 different characteristics

highlights the difficulty of both defining and operationalizing servant leadership.

Measurement instruments aside, how does one identify or determine the implementation

of servant leadership? According to Greenleaf (1970), the modern originator of servant

leadership:

The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do

they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more

likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least

privileged in society; will they benefit, or, at least, not be further deprived?

(Greenleaf, 2002, p. 6)

Servant leadership variable measurement and outcomes Despite difficulties in

the definition of servant leadership and a lack of specific agreement in the semantics of

servant leadership instrument variables, numerous empirical studies capture and measure

the essence of servant leadership (Parris & Peachey, 2013). The study of servant

leadership in at least 11 countries and across multiple religions demonstrates the cross-

cultural interest in servant leadership. Likewise, its use in a wide range of organizational

settings (e.g., schools, profit, and non-profit) demonstrates its broad appeal for all those

interested in leadership (Parris & Peachey, 2013).

Not surprisingly, leading was a key variable determined to be statistically

significant in many studies (Black, 2010; Boyer, 2012; Caffey, 2012; Herndon, 2007;

Irving & Longbotham, 2007; Kelley et al., 2005; Mahembe & Engelbrecht, 2013; Mayer,

Bardes, & Piccolo, 2008; McCuddy & Cavin, 2008; Robinson et al., 2008; Shekari &

48

Nikooparvar, 2012; Steyn, 2012; Tariq & Ambali, 2013; Thompson, 2012; Zhang et al.,

2012). Likewise, servanthood’s statistical significance was also prevalent (Barbuto &

Wheeler, 2006; Caffey, 2012; Dennis & Bocarnea, 2003; Dennis & Winston, 2003;

Ehrhart, 2004; Laub, 1999; Liden et al., 2008; Mahembe & Engelbrecht, 2013; Patterson,

2003; Reed et al., 2011; Russell & Stone, 2002; Sendjaya and Cooper , 2011; Shekari &

Nikooparvar, 2012; Tariq & Ambali, 2013; van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011; Zhang et

al., 2012). Other common themes in servant leadership research focused on variables that

facilitate individual and organizational effectiveness and follower well-being (Parris &

Peachey, 2013). These themes often included visioning, developing others, team

building, empowering others, and shared decision making.

Irving and Longbotham (2007) conducted a large quantitative, correlational study

with 6,000 team members measuring servant leadership’s influence on team effectiveness

and found significant correlations with leading, servanthood, developing others, team

building, shared decision-making, and integrity. Jaramillo, Grisaffe, Chonko, and Roberts

(2009) did a study with 501 sales professionals from a variety of industries and

determined a significant correlation between servant leadership and effectiveness.

Melchar and Bosco (2010) also supported this theme in a qualitative study of servant

leadership effectiveness in a service oriented, sales environment. Within education,

several studies found significant correlations between servant leadership and school or

teacher effectiveness (Black, 2010; Boyer, 2012; Herndon, 2007; Kelley et al., 2005;

Mahembe & Engelbrecht, 2013; Mazarei et al., 2013; Metzcar, 2009; Robinson et al.,

2008; Thompson, 2012). However, it is notable that Jacobs’ (2011) study of 68 teachers

49

in four universities did not find a statistical significance between servant leadership and

teaching effectiveness.

Numerous studies positively correlated the follower benefits of servant leadership

(Cerit, 2009; Hunter et al., 2013; Jaramillo et al., 2009; Jenkins & Stewart, 2010; Mayer

et al., 2008; Rieke, Hammermeister, & Chase, 2008). Many of these benefits included: a

positive climate, job satisfaction, increased commitment, and lower employee turnover

(Parris & Peachey, 2013). In keeping with the opponent process model of Wong and Page

(2003), a study of 300 workers in Punjab measuring servant leadership variables to earn

employee trust reported statistical significance for the characteristic of humility, which is

the opposite of egotistic pride (Tariq & Ambali, 2013). Caffey (2012) and Mazarei et al.

(2013) recently identified opponent process variables in an educational environment with

statistical significance. Caffey’s (2012) study measuring job satisfaction of 133 new

teachers revealed a strong correlation with the variable humility. More significantly, the

study by Mazarei et al. (2013) of 205 physical education teachers measuring servant

leadership and its influence on organizational commitment revealed significant

correlations with both humility and modesty. This study acknowledged characteristics of

modesty as a counter characteristic of the abuse of power problems affiliated with

authoritarian hierarchical organizations and humility to counter egotistic pride (Mazarei,

Hoshyar, & Nourbakhsh, 2013).

Climate. Understanding organizational climate is important for leaders; however,

it is essential if leaders are to lead (Schein, 2010). It is the only thing of real importance

that leaders do (Schein, 2010). Ismat et al. (2011) confirmed the correlation between the

role of leadership and the creation of organizational culture and climate.

50

Organizational culture and climate in education gained significant attention over

the past few decades (Lumby & Foskett, 2011). While a search of the Education

Resources Information Center (ERIC) lists fewer than 10 articles concerning culture in

education during the 1950s, it reveals more than 7,000 between 1953 and 2012.

Collectively, this research indicates the necessity to critically engage culture and climate

to develop leaders at all levels of education (Lumby & Foskett, 2011).

There are three levels of organizational culture: artifacts, values, and basic

underlying assumptions (Schein, 2010). In an educational environment, a classroom

layout is an example of an artifact. The grouping or separation of desks provides insight

regarding potential or expected communication patterns. National standards and

benchmarks, known as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is an example of a

current value in K–12 education. The intent is to have students, in all states, master

common standards in English, Language Arts, Science, and Mathematics. Finally, one

basic underlying assumption in American education is mainstreaming special needs

students. While it was once common to separate learning support students from their

classmates, values against a segregated model changed to require inclusion of such

students in the least restrictive educational environment possible.

Obviously, organizations do not possess a culture or climate; they exhibit them

(Colakoglu & Littlefield, 2010). Consequently, Fraser, Treagust, and Dennis (1986)

developed The CUCEI to help identify and measure climate in an educational

environment. The CUCEI measures the following dimensions of classroom climate:

student cohesiveness, individualization, innovation, involvement, personalization,

satisfaction, and task orientation.

51

Student cohesiveness. Student cohesiveness is a measure of student interactions

(Fraser et al., 1986). This dimension includes two of the nine climate dimensions

identified by Litwin and Stringer (1968): support and identity. A supportive

organizational climate emphasizes employee helpfulness. This support extends beyond

organizational peers. Both managers and employees reciprocate it (Litwin & Stringer,

1968). Similarly, the extent to which an employee feels included within the group reflects

identity. It includes a sense of value as a contributing member to organizational goals. It

creates a common organizational spirit (Litwin & Stringer, 1968). Duke (2006) positively

correlated these attributes with a high achievement school climate.

This is a common variable in educational climate instruments (Fisher & Fraser,

1981; Fraser et al., 1986; Fraser et al., 1996; Fraser, Fisher, & McRobbie, 1996; Trickett

& Moos, 1973; Walberg & Anderson, 1968). The Classroom Environment Scale (CES)

uses the term affiliation (Trickett & Moos, 1973). The CLES dimension of student

negotiation requires the establishment of socially acceptable behavior (Taylor et al.,

1995). However, this dimension is conspicuously absent from the Individual Classroom

Environment Questionnaire (ICEQ) (Fraser, 1990).

Individualization. Individualization refers to the specific treatment of students

based on their interests, abilities, and rates of work (Fraser et al., 1986). It also considers

the extent to which students are allowed to make decisions. This is similar to Litwin’s

(Litwin & Stringer, 1968) dimension of responsibility. Responsibility refers to

employees’ feelings of empowerment and of being their own boss. Responsibility means

employees do not have to double check every decision. It is recognizing that each

individual is accountable for specific tasks (Litwin & Stringer, 1968).

52

Surprisingly, this dimension is only included in one other educational climate

instrument: the ICEQ (Fraser, 1990). Fraser (1990) also developed this instrument.

Nevertheless, in this case, he labeled this dimension independence.

Innovation. Unusual class activities and new teaching techniques are examples of

innovation in a classroom environment (Fraser et al., 1986). It is a positive outcome of

the dimension of risk as defined by Litwin and Stringer (1968) because it demonstrates a

willingness to take chances instead of playing it safe. Research by (Oliveira & Ferreira,

2012) confirmed a servant leadership climate fosters communication and innovation by

removing communication barriers.

Aspects of this dimension appear in several common educational environment

instruments: the SLP-R, the LEI, the CLES, the SLEI, and the CES. (Fraser et al., 1996;

Taylor et al., 1995; Trickett & Moos, 1973; Walberg & Anderson, 1968). The LEI

includes these characteristics in its dimension of diversity (Walberg & Anderson, 1968).

In this case, the need to provide for individual student differences requires innovation in

lieu of a standard cookie-cutter approach (Walberg & Anderson, 1968). The uncertainty

of science dimension in the CLES promotes innovation by welcoming unconventional

theories (Taylor et al., 1995). Likewise, the SLEI promotes innovation through divergent

approaches to experimentation (Fraser et al., 1996).

Involvement. The dimension of involvement measures the extent to which

students participate in discussions and activities (Fraser et al., 1986). Two climate

dimensions from Litwin and Stringer (1968) that encourage involvement are conflict and

identity. Conflict addresses the degree to which managers and workers encourage

different opinions. It supports open communication and problem sharing. Moreover,

53

without involvement as a contributing member of the group, students are less likely to

obtain a sense of group identity (Litwin & Stringer, 1968). Research by Oliveira and

Ferreira (2012) confirmed a servant leadership climate fosters communication and

involvement. It seeks member participation (Ebener & O’Connell, 2010).

At the classroom level involving teachers, servant leadership improves student

engagement, learning, and achievement (Bowman, 2005; Hays, 2008; Metzcar, 2009;

(Scardino, 2013). These communication patterns become organizational artifacts (Schein,

2010). Duke (2006) positively correlated these attributes with a high achievement school

climate.

The CES and WIHIC instruments each contain a scale labeled involvement

(Trickett & Moos, 1973; Fraser et al., 1996). The LEI scale of democracy measures

involvement through shared decision-making (Walberg & Anderson, 1968). By

measuring shared control, the CLES also includes this dimension (Fraser et al., 1996).

Additionally, the ICEQ uses the term participation (Fraser, 1990). Yet, this dimension is

not included in the MCI or SLEI instruments (Fisher & Fraser, 1981; Fraser et al., 1996).

Personalization. The dimension of personalization reflects both the opportunities

for individual student interactions with the teacher and the teacher’s concern for each

student’s personal welfare and social growth (Fraser et al., 1986). Litwin and Stringer

(1968) categorized this type of caring as helpfulness. However, it is also indicative of

characteristics within the dimension of warmth (Litwin & Stringer, 1968).

Caring for members is a direct servant leadership attribute that contributes to a

positive organizational climate (Ebener & O’Connell, 2010). Improving student-teacher

relationships, study conditions, and student metacognitive orientation has both direct and

54

indirect effects on student learning and achievement (Pitkäniemi & Vanninen, 2012).

Again, Duke (2006) positively correlated these attributes with a high achievement school

climate.

This dimension is present in the CES, ICEQ, and WIHIC instruments (Fraser,

1990; Fraser et al., 1996; Trickett & Moos, 1973). Trickett and Moos (1973) and Fraser

et al. (1996) called this dimension teacher support. Nevertheless, it is absent from the

LEI, MCI, SLEI, and CLES instruments.

Satisfaction. According to Fraser et al. (1986), satisfaction is simply a measure of

how much the students enjoy the class. There are two aspects to this dimension. First, do

the students believe the class is worthwhile? Second, do the students enjoy working in the

class? This is an important dimension in educational pedagogy (Marzano & Marzano,

2003; Waters et al., 2003). Beginning at the school level with administrators, a servant

leadership approach increased both teacher job satisfaction and student achievement

(Caffey, 2012; Watkins, 2012). These findings were confirmed by Cerit, (2009) and

Thompson (2012).

Ironically, many educational climate instruments (CES, ICEQ, SLEI, CLES, and

WIHIC) do not consider this dimension an essential aspect of climate (Fraser et al., 1996;

Taylor et al., 1995; Trickett & Moos, 1973). However, Walberg and Anderson (1968)

included it in the LEI. Likewise, Fisher and Fraser (1981) included it in the MCI.

Task orientation. The clarity and organization of work determine the task

orientation (Fraser et al., 1986). Students do well in this dimension when they know

exactly what the teacher expects (Walberg & Anderson, 1968). Litwin and Stringer

(1968) used two dimensions to encompass task orientation: standards and values.

55

Standards reflect the implicit and explicit achievement goals. And values reflect the

acceptable standards of behavior and thinking regarding the way things are done around

here. Values are reflected when leaders propose solutions to problems. Values that

successfully solve problems become organizational beliefs, and eventual underlying

assumptions (Schein, 1990).

The LEI, CES, SLEI, and WIHIC instruments all incorporate task orientation

(Fraser et al., 1996; Walberg & Anderson, 1968; and Trickett & Moos, 1973). The LEI

labels this dimension goal direction (Walberg & Anderson, 1968). Fraser et al. (1996)

refer to this dimension as rule clarity. The MCI, ICEQ, and CLES instruments do not

include this dimension.

Climate characteristic refinements. In subsequent research, Litwin and

Stringer (1968) identified strong relationships between warmth and identity,

identity and support, and warmth and support. Consequently, the characteristic of

warmth and support combined these dimensions (Sims Jr. & Lafollette, 1975).

And the characteristic approval replaced standards (Canaan Messarra & El-

Kassar, 2013). Furthermore, several authors identified structural, perceptual, and

interactive aspects of creating climate (Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick,

1970); Field & Abelson, 1982) ; Glick, 1985; Hellriegel & Slocum, 1974; James

& Jones, 1974; Litwin & Stringer, 1968; (Payne & Pugh, 1976; Schneider, 1975;

Tagiuri & Litwin, 1968; Woodman & King, 1978). Unfortunately, there is still a

lack of agreement regarding the basic dimensions of organizational climate

(Thumin & Thumin, 2011).

56

Despite consistency with many variables, analysis of the most common

educational climate instruments reveals 37 different dimensions. Moreover,

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 them (Denison, 1996).

Accordingly, these should be considered differences in interpretation rather than

differences in phenomenon (Denison, 1996).

Climate variable measurement and outcomes. Due to a plethora of

climate instruments in a variety of contextual environments, this review of climate

variables focuses only on those affiliated within an educational environment. In

this arena, several recent studies consolidate and review current research in more

than 90 empirical studies, 50 literature reviews, and 100+ educational climate

instruments (Clifford, Menon, Gangi, Condon, & Hornung, 2012; Faster & Lopez,

2013; Fraser, 2012; Gangi, 2010; Guffey, 2012; Haggerty, Elgin, & Woolley,

2011; Thapa et al., 2013). From this literature, three main research themes of

climate instruments include measuring innovation, practical attempts to improve

the environment, and the correlation between climate and student achievement

(Fraser, 2012). Gangi (2010) reviewed 102 educational climate instruments and

identified wide usage, established reliability, and a long history as essential

aspects of the best instruments. Faster and Lopez (2013) subsequently confirmed

this finding.

57

Reviews by Clifford et al. (2012), Guffy (2012), Fraser (2012), Haggerty

et al. (2011), and Thapa et al. (2013) identified cohesiveness, task orientation,

individualization, innovation, involvement, and personalization as statistically

significant, key variables in climate assessment. A review of 73 instruments by

Haggerty et al. (2011) identified the best instruments as those measuring socio-

emotional issues that include variables like student cohesiveness,

individualization, involvement, personalization, satisfaction, and task orientation.

In addition, a rigorous analysis of 25 instruments by Clifford et al. (2012) also

identified these variables as components of the 11 best instruments.

In a yearlong study of classroom climate with 144 students, Skinner and Belmont

(1993) significantly correlated individualization and involvement with student motivation

and behavior. Similarly, a study of 382 African American and 1,456 European American

students identified student cohesiveness as the most significant variable influencing both

student behavior and achievement (Mattison & Aber, 2007). Higgins-D’Alessandro

(2011) concluded innovation is a core characteristic of a liberal education. Finally, in a

decade long, longitudinal study of school climate in more than 400 schools in Chicago,

Bryk (2010) concluded personalization was the key variable that affects school climate.

Methodology. Despite multiple variations, combinations, and

permutations, most research in the social sciences can be generally categorized as

qualitative, quantitative, or a combination of the two often referred to as mixed

method (Murakami, 2013). Yet, a researcher’s selection of a methodology should

not be arbitrary (Downey & Duane Ireland, 1979). Careful consideration of the

58

predominant characteristics of each methodology leads to the appropriate

methodological selection (Dobrovolny & Fuentes, 2008).

There are several characteristics common to both qualitative and

quantitative methodologies (Dobrovolny & Fuentes, 2008). Both methodologies

involve decision making or judging that is susceptible to accusations of political

or emotional bias. However, both are also based on established codes of conduct

and ethical standards (Dobrovolny & Fuentes, 2008).

A qualitative methodology frequently helps to develop theory (Bynum &

Pranter, 2013; Higgins, 2009). According to Dobrovolny and Fuentes (2008),

researchers typically start from a broad perspective and attempt to describe or

understand its context. Data are usually narrative in nature and the researcher is

frequently instrumental as an observer with direct influence on data input in the

form of coded transcripts (Dobrovolny & Fuentes, 2008). Consequently, the

subjectivity and expertise of the researcher is critical to the validity of the study

(Downey & Ireland, 1979).

Conversely, quantitative research is usually appropriate to test, rather than

develop, theory (Higgins, 2009). Usually, the purpose of the research is to

confirm or refute one or more hypotheses (Dobrovolny & Fuentes, 2008).

Statistical analysis of numerical data does not include input from the researcher

and subjectivity in the study comes only from the subjects (Dobrovolny &

Fuentes, 2008). Furthermore, study validity is related to statistical analysis

(Downey & Ireland, 1979).