FUNDAMENTAL MORAL ORIENTATIONS, SERVANT LEADERSHIP,

AND LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS: AN EMPIRICAL TEST

Michael K. McCuddy, Valparaiso University, Valparaiso, Indiana, USA

Matthew C. Cavin, Valparaiso University, Valparaiso, Indiana, USA

ABSTRACT

Servant leadership is an increasingly popular concept that fuses being a servant with being a leader. In
this paper, servant leadership  which is characterized by active listening, empathy, healing, awareness,
persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth, and community-building 
is conceptualized as being grounded in the leader’s Fundamental Moral Orientation (selfishness, self-
fullness, or selflessness). Servant leadership is also viewed as a significant contributor to leadership
effectiveness. We propose three sets of hypotheses that link Fundamental Moral Orientations (FMO) in
leaders’ personal lives and work lives to the exhibition/practice of servant leadership behaviors, and one
set of hypotheses that connect the exhibition/practice of servant leadership behaviors to leadership
effectiveness. For the FMO/servant leadership relationships, empirical results strongly support one
hypothesis set and provide limited support the other two. Compelling support exists for the hypothesis set
regarding the servant leadership/leadership effectiveness linkage.

Keywords: Moral Orientation, Selfishness, Selflessness, Servant Leadership, Leadership Effectiveness

1. INTRODUCTION

Robert Greenleaf (1999, p. 1) argued that the characteristics of “servant” and “leader” could be fused into
one person, affecting productivity in real world situations. Subsequent attempts to employ servant
leadership techniques in human capital development and training, although anecdotally intriguing, have
failed to systematically verify the expected positive impact of servant leadership on leadership
effectiveness. Recently, compelling studies have linked leadership effectiveness and corporate
performance, but have specifically avoided examining the leadership styles of CEOs with respect to their
effectiveness (Collins, 2001, p. 6). If servant leadership is to be promoted as a form of leadership with the
aim of maximum operational efficacy, a strong linkage between servant leadership and leadership
effectiveness must be documented via systematic research. As such, leadership effectiveness may be
thought of as an outcome or consequence of engaging in servant leadership behaviors.

Just as leadership effectiveness is a likely consequence of servant leadership behavior, one’s

Fundamental Moral Orientation (McCuddy, 2005) is a likely precursor of those same behaviors. The
concept of Fundamental Moral Orientation (FMO) includes three basic orientations  selfishness, self-
fullness, and selflessness  that reflect differing combinations of concern for one’s own interests versus
concern for other people’s or the community’s interests. The moral orientation of selfishness involves
pursuing one’s self-interest and seeking to maximize one’s utility, and it exists in varying degrees. The
moral orientation of selflessness is the polar opposite of selfishness; it involves sharing for the common
good. Like selfishness, selflessness exists in varying degrees. Self-fullness occupies the middle range
between selfishness and selflessness; it involves the simultaneous pursuit of reasonable self-interest and
reasonable concern for the common good, and can occur with varying degrees of simultaneous emphasis
on self-interest and community interests. The selflessness FMO may be conceptualized as a precursor to
servant leadership behaviors, whereas the selfishness FMO would be a precursor of self-serving
leadership behaviors (McCuddy, 2008).

The conception that a person’s FMO is a likely precursor to the practice of servant leadership and that
leadership effectiveness is a likely consequence of servant leadership implies not only a predictable
relationship but a causal sequence. This study addresses the predictable relationship question rather
than the causal sequence question. We seek to ascertain whether FMOs, servant leadership behavioral
orientation, and leadership effectiveness are related in a predictable fashion. Specifically, we seek to
determine if significant positive (or direct) correlations exist among these variables.
To address the question of predictable relationships, the authors conducted an online survey of
individuals associated with churches and/or church-related institutions of higher education. Greenleaf
(1977, p. 94) claims that the “dynamics of leadership  the vision, the values, and the staying power 
are essentially religious concerns, and fostering them should become the central mission” of churches
and universities. The model of servant leadership has “antecedents” in the religious world, with
forgiveness and expressly Christian behavior as the “logical extension of values embedded in servant
leadership” (Finch, 2007). Therefore, targeting our survey toward members of churches and/or church-
related institutions of higher education is quite appropriate.

2. THE NATURE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP

Servant leadership, in its practical application, requires a community of trust, authenticity, and shared
reliance. Despite leaders’ various attempts to impose “servant leadership” practices on unwitting
subordinates, Greenleaf (1991, p. 4) asserts that “the only authority deserving one’s allegiance is that
which is freely and knowingly granted by the led to the leader” as a response to the “clearly evident
servant stature of the leader.” This servant stature is based on moral authority, exhibited in sacrificial
behavior, which Stephen Covey (1977, p. 6) designates as “the subordinating of one’s self or one’s ego to
a higher purpose, cause, or principle.” Consequently, the practice of servant leadership is an act of
selflessness as a moral identity and behavior, antithetical to selfishness and clearly more other-directed
than self-fullness (McCuddy, 2005).

On an operational level, servant leadership has been characterized according to ten points: active
listening, empathy, healing, awareness (especially self-awareness), persuasion, conceptualization,
foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth, and community-building (Spears, 2002). These
characteristics of servant leadership, which were articulated by Larry Spears as a recapitulation of
Greenleaf’s work, proffer a framework for the identification and measurement of servant leadership
behaviors as practiced by individual agents. Greenleaf (1991, p. 27) asserts that the servant leader is one
who serves first, and that those being served “become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more
likely themselves to become servants.” Thus the servant leader builds up leadership in a community
through a “follower-oriented theory of leadership” (Irving, and Longbotham, 2007, p. 808).

Some researchers have offered variations on Spears’ ten characteristics, including such virtues as
agapao love, humility, altruism, vision, trust, empowerment, and service (Patterson, 2003). Others point to
characteristics of valuing people, developing people, building community, displaying authenticity,
providing leadership, and sharing leadership (Laub, 2003). In each case, however, servant leadership is
lifted up as a practice antithetical to autocratic leadership in an organizational setting.

Whether they are evaluated in the professional or personal context, these servant leadership
characteristics have a significant impact on the individual’s ability to effectively lead others and serve the
organization, community, or context. Notably, despite recent developments in quantitative metrics for
organizational effectiveness, including Laub’s (2003) Organizational Leadership Assessment instrument,
no core quantitative instrument for the measurement of servant leadership characteristics as practiced by
the individual could be found. Thus, the present study focuses on individual self-assessment of servant
leadership characteristics according to Spear’s ten points.

2.1. The Precursor Linkage: Fundamental Moral Orientations and Servant Leadership
Selfishness involves the relentless pursuit of self-interest and utility maximization by way of exclusionary
practice. In its more extreme forms, it advances unchecked greed and encourages the manipulation of
nearby agents (McCuddy, 2005). On the opposite extreme, selflessness tends to promote and serve the
common good. Selflessness considers “service and contribution, in terms of others’ security and
fulfillment” with respect to the community and the greater good (Covey, 1977, p. 6). In its most
unadulterated form, selflessness would be totally altruistic (McCuddy, 2005).

Servant leadership is a behavioral reflection of an individual’s moral orientation with respect to those
around him or her. Servant leaders cannot be selfish or egocentric in their leadership behaviors; indeed,
“to be a lone chief atop a pyramid is abnormal and corrupting” (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 76). Steven Covey
(1977, p. 6) reflects on egocentrism as focused on one’s own survival or pleasure, to the exclusion of
those nearby, as being “selfishly ambitious.” When selfishness is manifest in behavior, it directly
challenges the ten characteristics of servant leadership and is fundamentally injurious to the leader’s
authenticity and effectiveness. In his analysis of “level 5 leaders,” Jim Collins (2001, p. 21) points to the
blend of humility and professional will that characterizes the best leaders: “Level 5 leaders channel their
ego needs away from themselves and into the larger goal of building a great company. It’s not that Level
5 leaders have no ego or self-interest. Indeed, they are incredibly ambitious  but their ambition is first
and foremost for the institution, not themselves.” Interestingly, one might argue that Collin’s level 5 leader
corresponds more closely to decisions and actions emanating from the self-fullness FMO than it is an
unequivocal representation of the selflessness FMO.

Certainly, and alternatively, selfless or altruistic behavior is believed to be positively associated with the
presence of servant leadership characteristics (Covey, 1977, p. 6). However, selflessness may vary
between personal and work life, thus reflecting altered behavior for the sake of leadership efficacy. Such
manipulated alteration may present a compelling illusion of selflessness and “servant leadership.” As
such, selflessness may not be requisite to servant leadership; rather, the perception of selflessness in the
workplace may serve as a sufficient prerequisite for the practice of servant leadership.

Workplace selflessness may differ from selflessness in personal life, and may therefore impact the
individual’s presence as a servant leader in a public setting differently than it does in a non-work setting.
For example, one may be extraordinarily altruistic in personal life by engaging in community service work;
yet, he or she may exhibit strong egocentric characteristics and make insensitive demands in a
professional setting. Alternatively, a different individual might be oriented solely towards the success of
the organization in a professional setting, yet care only for himself or herself outside of the workplace.
Ergo, a leader’s behavior might change between private and public life, and it could reflect FMO
differences, either via intentional alteration or involuntary variation, in the two arenas.

Despite popular assertions that selfish behavior and servant leadership are incongruent, it may be the
case that only the image of selfishness is inconsistent with servant leadership. Here, a comparison
between selfishness in personal and professional life could shed light on the extent to which selfishness
could be a potential barrier to servant leadership. Further, it may be argued that some degree of self-
interest is necessary for self-preservation and survival, without which one would not be in a position to
serve others.

2.2. The Consequence Linkage: Servant Leadership and Leadership Effectiveness

Leadership effectiveness could take a variety of forms, but it relies primarily on the successful and time-
appropriate accomplishment of tasks within a leader’s set of objective goals. Corporate leadership
effectiveness may be measured in quarterly profit/loss statements or long-range equity growth; familial
leadership effectiveness may be measured in time spent with family, relative quality of child-rearing, fiscal
management, or a variety of other considerations. In any case, personal effectiveness in leading others is
often decided by an individual’s ability to search, listen, and seek out a better status for the given context.
Greenleaf (1991, p. 3) notes that the servant leader does not ignore the voices of the past; rather, the
servant leader is “always searching, listening, expecting that a better wheel for these times is in the
making.”

On a broad level, leadership effectiveness cannot be reasonably measured via a precise metric
applicable to all contexts and situations. Individual effectiveness is largely subject to specific dynamics
appropriate to the role, situation, resources, and contextual demands on a servant leader or servant
follower. Tricia Nadaff (1997, p. 3), president of a national consultancy specializing in leadership
effectiveness assessment tools, remarks: “...we cannot create a single leadership profile that will
determine individual leader effectiveness. We can only create a profile that reflects the desired
organizational leadership culture, and possibly a role requirements profile for a specific leadership role.”

Indeed, no one leadership style is likely to be effective in every situation; rather, the situational context
likely influences which leadership style will be effective. Consequently, leadership effectiveness lacks a
consistent characteristic-based metric for widespread self-evaluation. In corporate settings, for example,
effectiveness may be evaluated according to project completion, team motivation, overall profitability, or
adherence to plans. In governmental settings, one might consider effectiveness in terms of pleasing the
electorate, equitably representing constituents, or fairly enforcing the law. Like the aforementioned
examples, the various contexts of individuals involved in church-related higher education and/or religious
life provide far too many platforms for the external audit of leadership effectiveness. Thus, a self-
evaluation of others’ descriptions of leadership effectiveness allows respondents to introspectively reflect
on and perceive others’ views vis-à-vis their own leadership effectiveness. Individuals are therefore
situated to analyze their own leadership effectiveness, relative to their own context, which is consistent
with the individualized requirements argued by Nadaff (1997, p. 3).

3. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

Based on the foregoing discussion of relevant literature, we broadly hypothesize that people who are
more selfless in their Fundamental Moral Orientation are more likely to embrace/practice servant
leadership behaviors, but that the FMO and its impact may differ between one’s personal life and one’s
work life. We also posit that the greater the extent to which people possess servant leadership
characteristics or equivalently embrace/practice servant leadership behaviors, the more effective their
leadership will be. More precisely delineated hypotheses are presented below.

3.1. Hypothesis Set 1: FMO and Servant Leadership Linkage in Personal Life
H1a: People who are relatively more selfish than selfless in the Fundamental Moral Orientation
they rely on in making decisions and taking actions in their personal lives will be less likely to
exhibit/practice servant leadership behaviors.
H1b: People who are relatively more selfless than selfish in the Fundamental Moral Orientation
they rely on in making decisions and taking actions in their personal lives will be more likely to
exhibit/practice servant leadership behaviors.
H1c: Therefore, the Fundamental Moral Orientations that people follow in their personal lives will
be positively correlated with the incidence of servant leadership behaviors

3.2. Hypothesis Set 2: FMO and Servant Leadership Linkage in Work Life
H2a: People who are relatively more selfish than selfless in the Fundamental Moral Orientation
they rely on in making decisions and taking actions in their work lives will be less likely to
exhibit/practice servant leadership behaviors.
H2b: People who are relatively more selfless than selfish in the Fundamental Moral Orientation
they rely on in making decisions and taking actions in their work lives will be more likely to
exhibit/practice servant leadership behaviors.
H2c: Therefore, the Fundamental Moral Orientations that people follow in their work lives will be
positively correlated with the incidence of servant leadership behaviors

3.3. Hypothesis Set 3: Personal Life and Work Life Differences

H3a: People may utilize a different Fundamental Moral Orientation in their work lives than in their
personal lives.
H3b: This difference in FMO utilization in personal life and work life will likely be manifested in
differential impacts on the exhibition/practice of servant leadership behaviors.
H3c: Thererfore, if this difference in FMO utilization does exist, it will be demonstrated by different
correlational results for the personal life analysis than for the work life analysis.

3.4. Hypothesis Set 4: Servant Leadership and Leadership Effectiveness Linkage

H4a: People who do not exhibit/practice servant leadership behaviors will be perceived as
relatively less effective leaders.
H4b: People who exhibit/practice servant leadership behaviors will be perceived as relatively
more effective leaders.
H4c: Therefore, the incidence of servant leadership behaviors will be positively correlated with
perceived leadership effectiveness.
4. METHODOLOGY

4.1. Nature of the Sample

In order to explore the nature of servant leadership and its linkages to Fundamental Moral Orientations
and leadership effectiveness among people involved in church-related higher education and/or religious
life, a survey was distributed to a geographically diverse sample. The survey was conducted online, using
the Zoomerang survey instrument <http.//www.zoomerang.com>. As noted by Greenleaf (1977, p. 94),
the “dynamics of leadership  the vision, the values, and the staying power  are essentially religious
concerns, and fostering them should become the central mission” of churches and universities. Therefore,
we selected our potential respondents from those who had participated in the life and work of the
Lutheran church and/or church-related higher education during the period 2003-2008.

In total, 287 respondents were invited to participate, of whom 32.7% were directly affiliated with
Valparaiso University, a church-related institution of higher education. Another 39.1% were directly
involved in the high-level administration of the church-wide organization for the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America, as volunteers, ministry professionals, executive directors, or bishops. This category
was the most geographically diverse, representing 29 states in all major regions across the United States,
including Alaska. The remaining 28.2% were directly associated with a Lutheran parish in Virginia.

The electronic survey generated 156 responses from the 287 invited respondents, representing a 54.3%
response rate over a period of exactly 90 days. Of these 156 responses, 10 contained some degree of
missing data and were eliminated from the analyses. Thus, the results reported herein are based on the
146 responses with complete data across all questions.

4.2. Nature of the Survey

In the survey, which is available from the authors, the respondents were first asked to evaluate
themselves on ten servant leadership characteristics. These characteristics included active listening,
empathy, healing, self-awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to
growth, and community-building (Spears, 2002). Respondents were asked to rank themselves on each
characteristic according to a seven-point scale, identifying the degree to which the characteristic most
accurately described them. The endpoint labels differed for each question and were tailored to the
content of the question.

Secondly, leadership effectiveness was measured by self-evaluation, since the various contexts of those
involved in church-related higher education and/or religious life provide far too many platforms for the
external audit of leadership effectiveness. The respondents were asked to indicate, on a six-point scale,
how others who were familiar with them in leadership roles would rate their leadership effectiveness. The
six points on the scale were: 1 = ineffective; 2 = effective to some degree; 3 = fairly effective; 4 = very
effective; 5 = almost completely effective; and 6 = entirely effective. The six-point scale was designed
using Bass, Cascio, and O’Connor’s (1974) method for approximating an interval level of measurement.

Thirdly, respondents were given operational definitions for the three Fundamental Moral Orientations of
selfishness, self-fullness, and selflessness. These three definitions were placed on a nine-point scale,
with selfishness on the left, self-fullness in the middle, and selflessness on the right. Respondents were
asked to rank themselves on this scale, separately for their orientation in personal life and work life.

Finally, the survey contained demographic questions regarding socioeconomic status, educational level,
gender, age, and domicile (or place of residence).

4.3. Development of the Servant Leadership Composite Score

A servant leadership composite score was created by averaging each individual’s responses across the
ten individual servant leadership questions. Thus, composite scores can range between 1 and 7  just
like on the individual questions  and higher scores signify a stronger overall servant leadership
orientation. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, which measures the internal consistency reliability of a scale,
was .751 for the servant leadership composite score. This alpha coefficient exceeds the recommended
threshold level of .70 (Nunnally, 1978, p. 245), thereby indicating a satisfactory level of reliability among
the composite scale items.

4.4. Method of Data Analysis

Since the hypotheses were framed in the context of linear correlational relationships, the method of data
analysis was the computation of bivariate, linear correlation coefficients among the variables of interest.
Further, the directional predictions (i.e., hypothesized positive correlations) in hypothesis sets 1, 2, and 4
dictated the use of a one-tail t-test for ascertaining the significance of the correlation coefficients.

5. RESULTS

5.1. Sample Characteristics

Table 1 provides a characterization of the sample in terms of the demographic characteristics of
socioeconomic status, educational level, gender, age, and domicile (or place of residence). In general the
respondents can be described as coming from reasonably affluent or better economic backgrounds,
being well-educated, equally distributed between females and males, having a wide range of ages, and
predominately living in more highly populated areas.

TABLE 1. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE

Category within
Demographic Variable Demographic Variable Frequency Percent

Lower 17 11.6
Socioeconomic Status* Middle 67 45.9
Upper 62 42.5

Less than a baccalaureate

33 22.6
degree
Educational Level Baccalaureate degree 44 30.1
Masters degree 41 28.1
Doctoral degree 28 19.2

Male 72 49.3
Gender
Female 74 50.7

29 years old or younger 37 25.3

30 to 39 years old 17 11.6
Age** 40 to 49 years old 33 22.6
50 to 59 years old 37 25.3
60 years old or older 22 15.1

Rural area 15 10.3

Town 35 24.0
Domicile
Suburban area 74 50.7
Urban center 22 15.1

* The original survey categories of “poverty or near poverty,” “working class,” and “lower middle class” were collapsed
into “lower socioeconomic status” due to low frequency counts. The original survey categories of “upper middle class”
and “affluent” were collapsed into “upper socioeconomic status” due to a low frequency count in the “affluent” category.
** The original survey categories of “19 years old or younger” and “20 to 29 years old” were collapsed into “29 years
old or younger” due to a low frequency count in the “19 years old or younger” category. The original survey categories
of “60 to 69 years old” and “70 years old or older” were collapsed into “60 years old or older” due to a low frequency
count in the “70 years old or older” category.
5.2. Descriptive Statistics
Table 2 reports the descriptive statistics for the survey questions pertaining to servant leadership,
leadership effectiveness, and Fundamental Moral Orientations, as well as for the servant leadership
composite score. For the 10 servant leadership questions, the mean response ranges from 4.87 to 5.83
on the 7-point scale, thereby indicating a reasonably strong orientation toward servant leadership. The
mean of 5.42 for the servant leadership composite score reinforces this observation. On average, the
respondents say they think others would describe their leadership as being very effective (Mean of 4.21).
The average Fundamental Moral Orientation for the respondents (Mean = 6.03 for personal life FMO;
Mean = 6.14 for work life FMO) falls at the transition between the self-fullness range (i.e., scores of 4 to 6)
and the selflessness range (i.e., scores of 7 to 9).

TABLE 2. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR SERVANT LEADERSHIP VARIABLES,

LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS, AND FUNDAMENTAL MORAL ORIENTATIONS
Std.
Variable N Minimum Maximum Median Mean Deviation

Q1 146 3 7 5.00 5.32 0.878

Q2 146 2 7 6.00 5.73 1.019
Q3 146 1 7 5.00 4.87 1.283
Q4 146 3 7 6.00 5.64 0.894
Q5 146 3 7 5.50 5.37 1.070
Q6 146 2 7 6.00 5.49 1.091
Q7 146 3 7 5.00 5.32 1.050
Q8 146 2 7 6.00 5.68 1.043
Q9 146 2 7 5.00 5.10 1.122
Q10 146 1 7 6.00 5.68 1.113
SERV LEAD 146 4.87 5.73 5.45 5.42 0.590
Q11 146 2 6 4 4.21 0.886
Q12 146 3 9 6 6.03 1.328
Q13 146 3 9 6 6.14 1.479

Q1 = Active Listening; Q2 = Empathy; Q3 = Healing; Q4 = Self-Awareness; Q5 = Persuasion; Q6 =

Conceptualization; Q7 = Foresight; Q8 = Stewardship; Q9 = Commitment to Growth; Q10 = Community-
Building; SERV LEAD = Servant Leadership Composite Score; Q11 = Leadership Effectiveness; Q12 =
Personal Life FMO; Q13 = Work Life FMO.

5.3. Hypothesis Testing: Correlation Analysis

Table 3 reports the results of the correlation analysis for the relationships between (a) the servant
leadership behaviors [survey questions 1 to 10 and the composite servant leadership measure] and (b)
leadership effectiveness [question 11] and the Fundamental Moral Orientations [questions 12 and 13].

The first set of hypotheses  H1a, H1b, and H1c  address the relationship between the leader’s FMO in
his/her personal life and the exhibition/practice of servant leadership behaviors. The relevant correlations
are for (a) question 12 in relation to (b) questions 1 to 10 and the servant leadership composite score. Out
of these 11 possible relationships, significant positive correlations occur with respect to only three servant
leadership variables  healing, stewardship, and the composite measure. The strongest correlation (r =
.305) is between the leader’s personal life FMO and the servant leadership characteristic of stewardship.
Although the correlation of personal life FMO with the composite score is relatively small (r = .160), it is
significant and in the predicted direction, thereby providing some support for the first set of hypotheses 
at least from the perspective of an overall or global conception of servant leadership. On balance, the
results provide limited support for the first set of hypotheses.
 TABLE 3. CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SERVANT
LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS AND LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS / LEADER’S FMO
Q11: Leadership Q12: Personal Q13: Work Life
Effectiveness Life FMO FMO
2 2 2
S Servant Leadership Variables r p-value r p-value r p-value

Q1: Active Listening .269 .001 .134 .053 .210 .005

Q2: Empathy .161 .026 .133 .055 .226 .003
Q3: Healing .151 .034 .156 .030 .191 .010
Q4: Self-Awareness .339 .000 .049 .278 -.072 .195
Q5: Persuasion .130 .059 .056 .251 .037 .327
Q6: Conceptualization .337 .000 -.095 .127 .001 .497
Q7: Foresight .284 .000 .073 .191 .176 .017
Q8: Stewardship .348 .000 .305 .000 .275 .000
Q9: Commitment to Growth .237 .002 .040 .316 .108 .097
Q10: Community-Building .227 .003 .048 .283 .152 .033
Servant Leadership Composite
.438 .000 .160 .027 .237 .002
Score

p-value is for one-tail test of significance. Shaded correlations are significant at p < .05.

The second set of hypotheses  H2a, H2b, and H2c  is concerned with the relationship between the
leader’s Fundamental Moral Orientation in his/her work life and the exhibition/practice of servant
leadership. The correlations for the relationships between (a) question 13 and (b) questions 1 to 10 and
the composite servant leadership score are relevant to this set of hypotheses. Seven of the 11
correlations that pertain to this set of hypotheses are significant and positive. The significant relationships
with one’s work life FMO include six individual servant leadership measures  active listening, empathy,
listening, foresight, stewardship, and community-building  and the composite measure. The strongest
correlation (r = .275) involves the stewardship variable. The second strongest correlation (r = .237) is with
the composite servant leadership score. On balance, the results provide strong support for the second set
of hypotheses.

The third set of hypotheses involves the potential difference between leaders’ personal lives and work
lives with respect to FMO/servant leadership relationships. Empirical testing of this hypothesis set
involves comparing the results that pertain to the first two sets of hypotheses. For four of the individual
servant leadership characteristics  active listening, empathy, foresight, and community-building 
significant positive correlations appear with the work life FMO, whereas the correlations with the personal
life FMO are not significant. For another four of the individual characteristics  self-awareness,
persuasion, conceptualization, and commitment to growth  no significant correlations exist with either
FMO orientation. For the remaining two servant leadership characteristics  healing and stewardship 
and for the composite servant leadership score, significant positive correlations occur with both the
personal life FMO and the work life FMO. Thus, different FMO/servant leadership relationships exist in
only four of 11 comparisons, which suggests limited support for hypothesis set 3.

The fourth set of hypotheses  H4a, H4b, and H4c  pertain to the relationship between the
exhibition/practice of servant leadership behaviors and leadership effectiveness. The relevant correlations
for this set of hypotheses reflect the relationships between (a) questions 1 to 10 and the composite
servant leadership score, and (b) question 11. Significant positive correlations with leadership
effectiveness exist for all of the Individual servant leadership variables except persuasion. Additionally,
the composite servant leadership score is significantly and positively correlated to leadership
effectiveness  and it is the strongest correlation (r = .438) reported in Table 3. Thus, these results
compellingly support hypothesis set 4; indeed, the incidence of servant leadership behaviors is positively
correlated with perceived leadership effectiveness.

6. CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the results of our study provide limited support for hypothesis sets 1 and 3, strong support for
hypothesis set 2, and exceptionally strong support for hypothesis set 4. More specifically, limited support
exists for the predicted positive correlation between the leader’s Fundamental Moral Orientation in his/her
personal life and the exhibition/practice of servant leadership behaviors (hypotheses H1a, H1b, and H1c).
Strong support occurs for the hypothesized positive relationship between the leader’s Fundamental Moral
Orientation in his/her work life and the exhibition/practice of servant leadership behaviors (hypotheses
H2a, H2b, and H2c). Limited support appears for the possible differences between leaders’ personal lives
and their work lives with respect to the FMO/servant leadership relationships (hypotheses H 3a, H3b, and
H3c). Exceptionally strong support exists for the hypothesized positive correlation between the
exhibition/practice of servant leadership behaviors and leadership effectiveness (hypotheses H 4a, H4b,
and H4c). In the following paragraphs, we explore the implications of these findings in more depth.

For the personal life FMO, significant positive correlations exist for only two of the ten servant leadership
variables, whereas for the work life FMO there are six significant positive correlations with the individual
servant leadership variables. Thus correlations of the FMOs with the individual servant leadership
questions provide strong support for hypothesis set 2 but only limited support for hypothesis set 1. These
results indicate that, when viewed from the perspective of the individual servant leadership
characteristics, the work life FMO/servant leadership linkage is stronger than the personal life
FMO/servant leadership linkage. From a practical outlook, this suggests that servant leadership, at least
in terms of specific behaviors, is a much more relevant phenomenon for people’s careers than it is for
their personal lives.

The two significant positive correlations between personal life FMO on the one hand, and healing and
stewardship, on the other hand, provide an interesting perspective. Perhaps healing and stewardship are
more relevant to people’s personal morality than are any of the other servant leadership characteristics.
Those who seem to be more selfless in their personal moral orientation also focus to a greater extent on
“healing oneself and relationships with others in the search for wholeness and completeness.” Likewise
those who are more selfless in their personal decisions and actions will be more “committed to serving the
needs of others and the greater needs of society.” That these two servant leadership variables stand
alone in relation to personal life moral orientation is not surprising; both seem to reflect the core of what
differentiates selflessness from selfishness in people’s personal lives. Moreover, these results may
suggest that people are quite selective in connecting specific servant leadership behaviors to their
personal lives. Or it may suggest that people really don’t think of themselves as engaging much in leader
behaviors  servant or otherwise  in their non-work lives, thereby yielding less potential for
connections to personal life moral orientation

The linkage of people’s work life FMO to six specific servant leadership behaviors reflects a broader
perceived connection between work-based morality and servant leader behaviors. As suggested above,
perhaps people connect leader behavior more to the work environment than to the non-work
environment. If so, then one would reasonably expect more connections  and more potent relationships
 to be found for all sorts of work-based phenomena, including moral orientations and people’s ensuing
decisions and actions.

Some differences in the FMO/servant leadership relationship do exist when comparing personal life to
work life. Specifically, the work life FMO is significantly and positively correlated to active listening,
empathy, foresight, and community-building, whereas the personal life FMO is unrelated to these four
servant leadership characteristics. Again, the implication is that connections between moral orientation
and leader behaviors seem to be more germane to the work environment than to the non-work milieu.

The results for the relationships between the individual servant leadership variables and leadership
effectiveness provide compelling support for hypotheses H 4a, H4b, and H4c. The significant positive
correlations for nine of the ten individual servant leadership variables and for the servant leadership
composite score persuasively show that people who embrace servant leadership behaviors are more
effective leaders than those who do not embrace them. This finding is not surprising when one considers
that leadership is an interaction/influence process relative to followers, and having an orientation toward
serving followers could strengthen the quality and effectiveness of that process. For instance, servant
leadership behaviors such as active listening, empathy, commitment to growth, and community-building
could be expected to strengthen the interaction/influence transaction between leaders and followers.
Although we cannot show a causal relationship with correlation analysis, it seems plausible that
enhancing one’s servant leadership capacity should result in improved leader effectiveness. Thus, a
practical implication of our results is that people who strive to become more effective leaders can do so,
at least in part, by developing their servant leadership capabilities and behaviors.

The composite servant leadership scores are significantly and positively correlated with leadership
effectiveness, personal life FMO, and work life FMO. This indicates that when servant leadership is
viewed on an aggregate basis rather than from the perspective of individual behavioral components, it is
significantly connected not only to both personal life and work life moral orientations but also to leadership
effectiveness. Apparently, people perceive a global connection between personal moral orientation and
servant leadership behaviors even though they don’t make that connection on eight of ten individual
servant leadership behaviors. In turn, this suggests that the global (or composite) measure of servant
leadership may be more fruitful in future investigations. This observation is further strengthened by the
fact that the largest correlation in Table 3 is for the relationship between the composite score and
leadership effectiveness (r = .438 as compared to the next highest, which is r =.348).

We note with more than passing interest, the significant positive correlations between the stewardship
variable and, respectively, the personal life FMO, the work life FMO, and leader effectiveness variables.
As indicated in the questionnaire, stewardship involves trust in holding a commitment to serving the
needs of others and the greater needs of society. A lesser commitment to serving others and society is a
clear reflection of a selfish moral orientation, whereas a greater commitment to serving others and society
is a manifestation of the selfless orientation. Also, a commitment to serving others and society is an
essential aspect of influencing and interacting with followers. Judging from the magnitudes of the
correlations of the FMOs with stewardship and of stewardship with leadership effectiveness, one may
conclude that stewardship is the most important of the ten servant leadership behavioral components.

We should note that an important limitation of the present study is that the sample represents people who
are connected with churches or church-related higher education. This sample was selected, in part,
because of the respondents’ presumed sensitivity to servant leadership ideas. One can legitimately
question whether the results would hold up in other environments, such as non-religiously affiliated higher
education, non-religiously affiliated charitable organizations, different government agencies, or
businesses in a variety of industries.

In conclusion, our study contributes to the growing literature on the nature, dynamics, and implications of
servant leadership by exploring the linkages of servant leader behaviors to the Fundamental Moral
Orientations and effectiveness of people in leadership positions. Our results indicate that those who have
a more selfless moral orientation in their work lives and, to a lesser extent, in their personal lives also
exhibit/practice servant leader behaviors. Our results also strongly indicate that a servant leader
orientation is associated with greater leadership effectiveness. From a pragmatic perspective, our results
assert that making decisions and taking actions in light of moral considerations, developing one’s
behavioral capacity to serve others, and leading people effectively do not exist in isolation, but must be
understood and utilized in the context of a holistic approach to leadership. Although we cannot empirically
demonstrate it with the correlation analysis used in this study, the logic that one’s Fundamental Moral
Orientation is a precursor to servant leadership and that leadership effectiveness is a consequence of
servant leadership is nonetheless compelling!
7. REFERENCES

Bass, B.M., Cascio, W.F., and O’Connor, E.J.. “Magnitude Estimations of Expressions of Frequency and
Amount”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59 (3), 1974, 313-320.
Collins, J., Good to Great, HarperCollins, New York, NY, 2001.
Covey, S., “Foreword”, in R.K. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate
Power and Greatness, Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ, 1977, 6.
Finch, K.P., "The Image of God, Servant-Leadership and Forgiveness", The International Journal of
Servant Leadership, 2007, 203-205.
Greenleaf, R.K., Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness,
Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ, 1977.
Greenleaf, R.K., The Servant as Leader, The Robert K. Greenleaf Center, Westfield, IN, 1991.
Irving, J.A., and Longbotham, G.J., “Leading Effective Teams through Servant Leadership: An Expanded
Regression Model of Essential Servant Leadership Themes”, American Society of Business and
Behavioral Sciences Proceedings 2007, Vol. 14 (1), 2007, 806-817.
Laub, J., “From Paternalism to the Servant Organization: Expanding the Organizational Leadership
Assessment (OLA) Model”, Servant Leadership Roundtable, 2003, Regent University School of
Leadership Studies. Available online at
<http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2003/laub_from_paternalism.pdf>.
Accessed February 15, 2008.
McCuddy, M.K. “Linking Moral Alternatives and Stewardship Options to Personal and Organizational
Outcomes: A Proposed Model”, Review of Business Research, Vol. 5 (1), 2005, 141-146.
McCuddy, M.K., “Fundamental Moral Orientations: Implications for Values-Based Leadership”, The
Journal of Values Based Leadership, Vol. 1 (1), Winter/Spring 2008, 9-21.
Nadaff, T., Assessing the Effectiveness of a Leader through Four Filters, Portland, ME, Management
Research Group, 1997.
nd
Nunnally, J.C., Psychometric Theory (2 ed.), McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1978.
Patterson, K., “Servant Leadership: A Theoretical Model,” Servant Leadership Roundtable, 2003, Regent
University School of Leadership Studies. Available online at
<http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2003/patterson_servant_leadership.
pdf>. Accessed February 15, 2008.
Spears, L.C. "On Character and Servant Leadership: Ten Characteristics of Effective, Caring Leaders",
The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, 2002. Available online at
<http://www.greenleaf.org/leadership/read-about-it/articles/On-Character-and-Servant-Leadership-
Ten-Characteristics.com>. Accessed February 1, 2008.

AUTHOR PROFILES

Dr. Michael K. McCuddy earned his Ph.D. at Purdue University in 1977. He holds The Louis S. and Mary
L. Morgal Chair of Christian Business Ethics and is a Professor of Management at Valparaiso University.
He served as editor-in-chief for The Challenges of Educating People to Lead in a Challenging World,
published by Springer and sponsored by Educational Innovation in Business and Economics (EDiNEB).
He is actively involved in a variety of research projects on ethical issues and educational innovation.

Mr. Matthew C. Cavin earned a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from Valparaiso
University in 2008.