Servant Leadership

THE DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP

Michael K. McCuddy, Valparaiso UniversityMatthew C. Cavin, EMSystems

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 explored in the context of five selected demographic characteristics

—

socioeconomic status, level of

educational attainment, gender, age, and respondent’s domicile.

Five research hypotheses are tested in this study, with full support being found for one hypothesis and partial support for the other four hypotheses.

Keywords:

Demographic Characteristics, Socioeconomic Status, Education, Gender, Age, Domicile,Servant Leadership

1. INTRODUCTION

Robert Greenleaf (1999, p. 1)

argued that the characteristics of “servant” and “leader” could be fused into

one person. Moreover, Greenleaf asserted that this person could be nurtured by teachers who arecommitted to the preparation of students

called to “serve and be served”

(Greenleaf, 1977, p. 204), andthat servant leadership could be cultiva

ted by the “growing edge church”

(Greenleaf, 1977, p. 261). It isin these two arenas

—

higher education and the institutional church

—

where servant leadershippractices are typically acculturated and taught.In both religious and educational environments, individuals come from a variety of social, economic, andexperiential backgrounds. Common sense suggests that certain demographic variables affect servantleadership. Servant leadership behaviors

—

specifically, active listening, empathy, healing, awareness,persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth, and community-building(Spears, 2000)

—

may be, in part, influenced

by one’s social, economic, or power dimension

s within agiven culture. Thus, an

individual’s

relative position in society, as determined by socioeconomic status,educational attainment, gender, age, or domicile, may affect his/her perception of servant leadership.This paper specifically explores whether the servant leadership behaviors of people involved in theLutheran church and Lutheran church-related higher education are linked to the demographic variables of

socioeconomic status, educational attainment, gender, age, and geographic area of the respondent’s

residence (

i.e.

, domicile). Based upon an analysis of existing relevant literature, which is presented in thefollowing section of this article, we propose five research hypotheses. In order to test these researchhypotheses, the authors conducted an online survey of individuals associated with churches and/orchurch-related institutions of higher education. Greenleaf (1977, p. 94)

claims that the “dy

namics ofleadership

—

the vision, the values, and the staying power

—

are essentially religious concerns, and

fostering them should become the central mission” of churches and universi

ties. The model of servant

leadership has “antecedents” in the religious world, with forgiveness and expressly Christian behavior asthe “logical extension of values

embedded in servant leadership

”

(Finch, 2007, pp. 203-205). Therefore,targeting our survey toward members of churches and/or church-related institutions of higher education isquite appropriate.

2. SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND ITS DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT

Servant leadership is a form of leadership that focuses on followers and how leaders can and do servetheir followers. In this section, we first explore the fundamental nature of servant leadership, and then weconsider the possible impact that selected demographic characteristics might have on the exhibition ofservant leader behaviors.

Servant Leadership

2.1 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 thatwhich is freely and knowingly granted by the led to the leader” as a response to the “clearly evidentservant stature of the leader.” This servant stature is based on moral aut

hority, exhibited in sacrificialbehavior, which Stephen Covey (1977, p. 6)

designates as “the subordinating of one’s self or one’s ego toa higher purpose, cause, or principle.”

Operationally, servant leadership has been characterized according to ten points: active listening,empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment togrowth, and community-building (Spears, 2000). These characteristics of servant leadership, articulatedby Larry Spears as a recapit

ulation of Greenleaf’s work, proffer a framework for the identification and

measurement of servant leadership characteristics within an individual. In more rhetorical terms,however, Greenleaf (1991, p. 27) asserts that the servant leader is one who serves first, and by whom

those served “while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likelythemselves to become servants.”

Thus, the servant leader builds up leadership in a community in a

“followe

r-oriented theory of leadership

”

(Irving and Longbotham, 2007, p. 808).Some researchers

have offered variations on Spears’ ten c

haracteristics, including such virtues asagapao love, humility, altruism, vision, trust, empowerment, and service (Patterson, 2008). Others pointto characteristics of valuing people, developing people, building community, displaying authenticity,providing leadership, and sharing leadership (Laub, 2008). In each case, however, servant leadership islifted up as a practice antithetical to autocratic leadership in an organizational setting.

Whether they are evaluated in a professional or personal context, these servant leadership characteristicshave

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 organizationaleffectiveness

, including Laub’s

(2008)

Organizational Leadership Assessment

instrument, no corequantitative instrument for the measurement of servant leadership characteristics within the individualcould be found. Thus, the present study focuses on individual self-assessment of servant leadership

characteristics according to Spear’s ten points

2.2 The Demographics of Servant Leadership

Given the aforementioned operational definition of servant leadership, one might consider where thesecharacteristics are localized in a multi-demographic sample. The ten servant leadership characteristicsshould be weighed against variables such as socioeconomic status, educational attainment, gender, age,and

respondents’

domicile. Previous studies have commented differently on the impact of demographicconsiderations on servant leadership. Dannhauser and Boshoff (2006) suggest that the demographicvariables of gender, language, ethnic group, and age are not related to servant leadership. However,Parolini (2005) argues that age and gender are indicators of a servant leadership culture. Indeed, thequestion of the impact of demographic variables on the exhibition of servant leadership behaviorsrequires further investigation.Socioeconomic status may be an enlightening factor in the propensity to exhibit servant leadershipbehaviors, in that socioeconomic status reflects both relative power and relative wealth. The tie betweenservant leadership and power differentials may be particularly pronounced, insofar as those who fall onthe extraordinarily high and low ends of a socioeconomic power spectrum may become subject to eitherentitlement or self-supporting utility, respectively. In the case of entitlement, servant leadership idealsand behaviors are suppressed for personal gain. In the case of utility, fundamental needs-fulfillment andsurvival mechanisms may allow neither capacity nor prescience to practice servant leadership behaviors.As such, those who fall in the center of a power spectrum may find themselves well-poised to bothidentify and practice servant leadership behaviors. With respect to relative wealth, an analysis of servantleadership behaviors might reveal that some practices require exceptional time and energy, which may be

Servant Leadership

challenging for those whose time and energy is fully expended in support of their livelihood; therefore,servant leadership behaviors may be less prevalent among those with less wealth. Alternatively, andspeculatively, one might discover a sense of entitlement among those at the top of the socioeconomicgamut, which would not be particularly conducive to servant leadership behaviors. Given these polaropposites, perhaps servant leadership is more prevalent among those who are neither consumed by thedemands of daily economic survival nor by those who may feel entitled to their wealth and affluence.Hence, it is hypothesized that:

The propensity to exhibit servant leadership behaviors will be more prevalent among individuals of moderate socioeconomic status than among people of either lower or higher socioeconomic status.

Educational attainment may have a noticeable effect on servant leadership. Although servant leadershipis by no means dependent upon any educational benchmark, the requisite foresight, conceptualization,and subsequent modification of daily behavior may be more pervasive among those with strongeducational foundations. Greenleaf (1977, p. 18) was quick to rebuke those who claimed to be

“educated,” yet still made “gross errors in choosing whose leadership to follow.”

Nevertheless, many ofthose engaged in the active study of servant leadership find themselves at the pinnacle of educationalattainment. Servant leadership behaviors do not require advanced degrees, yet the requisiteunderstanding of characteristics such as foresight, conceptualization, and empathy may be challengingfor those without sufficient educational foundations. Indeed, the practice and exhibition of thesebehaviors in daily life does not require the abstract knowledge of their existence; however, the attention todetail required for the explicit practice of servant leadership behaviors may be localized, in part, amongthose with heightened levels of educational attainment. Therefore, the following hypothesis is offered:

The propensity to exhibit servant leadership behaviors will be more prevalent among individuals with a higher level of educational attainment.

Sometimes gender has been assumed to affect the presence of empathy, healing, and community-building, in particular. Certainly, servant leadership may be appropriate for both men and women to

embrace, but women may be particularly inclined to exhibit the “so

-called (service-oriented) feminine

characteristics,” that Patsy Sampson, former President of Stephens College, understands to be“consonant with the very best qualities of servant

leadership”

(Spears, 2002, p. 164). Observers mayconsider their own perceptions of masculinity and femininity in each servant leadership characteristic, inorder to identify servant leadership among the sexes. Indeed, some characteristics (

e.g.

, empathy andhealing) may appear more feminine at first glance, whereas others (

e.g.

, persuasion and commitment togrowth) may seem quite the opposite.

In this study, the individual’s ability to perceive his/her own servant

leadership may be partially influenced by the specific context; in some church-related settings, womenare subject to some limitations of roles. As such, women in these settings may be less inclined to overtlyidentify their own leadership or servant-leadership characteristics. Although not a major factor, it isnotable that those who are marginalized by certain organizations would be less likely to perceive a cultureof servanthood within the organization (Parolini, 2005, p. 8), and so might be similarly disinclined torecognize their own servant-leadership in that specific context. Given that some servant leader behaviorsmay be more feminine-oriented and others more masculine oriented, and given scant existing literaturewith its mixed results regard the impact of gender on servant leadership, we posit that:

The propensity to exhibit servant leadership behaviors will not differ between women and men.

In a recent study, Parolini (2005, p. 8) suggested that increases in age serve as a positive predictor forfollower perceptions of servant leadership behaviors in the workplace. According to this study, oldermembers of organizational cultures perceive a greater degree of servant leadership in their environments,which in turn suggests increased attention to servanthood and increased potential for behavioralmodification in accordance with servant leadership (Parolini, 2005, p. 8). However, lower-levelorganizational participants without managerial responsibility tend to perceive fewer servant leadershipbehaviors in supervisors, than do top leaders with respect to the same supervisors (Parolini, 2005, p. 8).