Principles of Servant Leadership That Motivate Nonpaid Volunteers To Serve On Boards of Nonprofit

UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE
La Verne, California
PRINCIPLES OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP THAT MOTIVATE NONPAID

VOLUNTEERS TO SERVE ON BOARDS OF NONPROFIT,
PHILANTHROPIC ORGANIZATIONS
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
in
Organizational Leadership
Diane J. Silvers
College of Education and Organizational Leadership
Organizational Leadership Department
February 2010
Copyright © 2010 by Diane J. Silvers
All rights reserved

ABSTRACT
Principles of Servant Leadership that Motivate Nonpaid Volunteers to Serve on Boards of

Nonprofit, Philanthropic Organizations
By Diane J. Silvers, EdD
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to reveal the degree to which the principles of
servant leadership motivate nonpaid volunteers to serve on the governing boards of
nonprofit, philanthropic organizations in the United States.
Methodology: The subjects in this study were thirty-three nonpaid volunteer members of
the boards of directors of fourteen nonprofit, philanthropic organizations located in ten
states and the District of Columbia. The aggregate number of volunteer years represented
by the thirty-three participants in this study was 771 total years. The total number of
years on boards represented by the participants was 269. The critical incident technique
was the format for the interview questions. Interviews were conducted over the
telephone. The data were categorized and analyzed to determine the frequency with
which each participant used one or more of the ten principles of servant leadership as
identified by Robert Greenleaf and Larry C. Spears.
Key Findings: The actions described by the thirty-three volunteer board members were
found to be congruent with the ten principles of servant leadership. Each one of the
thirty-three participants interviewed cited incidents that represented actions consistent
with one or more of the ten principles of servant leadership while they were board
members. The board members described a total of 855 incidents of high satisfaction and a
total of 740 incidents of high dissatisfaction for a total of 1595 incidents that were
congruent with the ten principles of servant leadership. The board members cited
incidents that included the principles of commitment to growth and building community
more often than any of the other principles of servant leadership.
Conclusions: The thirty-three board members included in this study provided data, which
demonstrated congruency with the ten principles of servant leadership. The incidents of
satisfaction described positive use of the principles of servant leadership. The incidents
of dissatisfaction described negative use, or perceived lack of use, of the principles of
servant leadership. The ten principles of servant leadership may be used as a tool for
recruitment, retention, and assessment of volunteer leaders.
Recommendations: Future studies should continue to examine the relationship(s) between

the ten principles of servant leadership and nonprofit, philanthropic volunteer board
leadership and volunteerism. The research may be expanded to include the private sector.
iv
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... x
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... xi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................... xii
Chapter
I. A PERSPECTIVE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF SERVANT

LEADERSHIP FOR NONPAID VOLUNTEER LEADERS OF
NONPROFIT, PHILANTHROPIC ORGANIZATIONS IN THE
UNITED STATES .................................................................................... 1
Introduction ............................................................................................... 1
Problem Statement .................................................................................... 3
Purpose Statement ..................................................................................... 10
Research Questions ................................................................................... 10
Significance of the Study .......................................................................... 11
Delimitations ............................................................................................. 12
Definitions of Terms ................................................................................. 13
Summary ................................................................................................... 16
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................................................................. 18
Introduction ............................................................................................... 18
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................. 19
Brief Overview of Leadership Theory ...................................................... 20
Basic Leadership Approaches ............................................................ 21

v
Transformational Leadership ............................................................. 23
Motivation Theory ............................................................................. 23
Service Model .................................................................................... 25
Philanthropy and Volunteerism ................................................................ 26
Volunteer Board Leadership of Nonprofit, Philanthropic

Organizations in U.S. ......................................................................... 30
Six Organizational Health Level Descriptions .......................................... 36
History of Servant Leadership .................................................................. 39
Servant Leadership in the Profession of Education .................................. 42
Servant Leadership in Religious Life ........................................................ 44
Ten Principles of Servant Leadership ....................................................... 44
Servant Leadership Theory and Models ................................................... 52
Chapter Summary...................................................................................... 58
III. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 60
Introduction ............................................................................................... 60
Type of Research and Design ................................................................... 61
Population and Sample.............................................................................. 61
Instrumentation ......................................................................................... 64
Validity and Field-test ............................................................................... 65
Data Collection Procedures ....................................................................... 67
vi
Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 70
Limitations ................................................................................................ 70
Chapter Summary...................................................................................... 72
IV. PRESENTATION OF THE DATA ............................................................... 74
Introduction ............................................................................................... 74
Overview of the Presentation of the Data ................................................. 74
Purpose ............................................................................................... 74
Research Questions ............................................................................ 74
Profile of the Sample Population ....................................................... 75
Profile of the Participants: Descriptive Characteristics of

Participants ................................................................................. 76
Findings .................................................................................................... 80
Overview of the Findings................................................................... 80
General Findings ................................................................................ 81
Presentation of Participants' Responses ............................................. 87
Chapter Summary...................................................................................... 122
V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 126
Introduction ............................................................................................... 126
Methodology ............................................................................................. 127
Limitations of the Research ...................................................................... 129
vii
Summary of the Key Findings .................................................................. 130
Research Question One ...................................................................... 131
Research Question Two ..................................................................... 134
Research Question Three ................................................................... 136
Conclusions ............................................................................................... 138
Implications for Actions ............................................................................ 140
Recommendations for Future Research .................................................... 141
Concluding Remarks ................................................................................. 142
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 145
A. MATRIX OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND TEN PRINCIPLES OF

SERVANT-LEADERSHIP ........................................................................... 146
B. HERZBERG'S MOTIVATORS AND HYGIENE FACTORS ..................... 148
C. USA MAP ...................................................................................................... 150
D. INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................ 152
E. LETTER TO BOARD MEMBERS REQUESTING INTERVIEW

PARTICIPATION ......................................................................................... 154
F. DR. TODD BLISS PERMISSION LETTER ................................................ 156
G. DR. KARIN LUBIN PERMISSION LETTER ............................................. 158
H. FIELD-TEST INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE FEEDBACK GUIDE ..... 160
I. SIX ORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS ................ 162
J. LETTER OF CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH ................... 164
K. URBAN INSTITUTE, NATIONAL CENTER FOR CHARITABLE

STATISTICS CHART ................................................................................... 168
viii
L. INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS' GENERAL INFORMATION AND
DEMOGRAPHICS ........................................................................................ 170
M. INTERVIEW RESPONSE DATA CLASSIFICATION CODING

SYSTEM ........................................................................................................ 173
N. FREQUENCIES OF BOARD MEMBERS' ACTIONS ................................ 175
O. PARTICIPANT VOLUNTEER SERVICE TOTALS AND

COMPARISONS ........................................................................................... 178
P. UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD

STUDY APPROVAL .................................................................................... 180
Q. MASLOW'S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS ...................................................... 182
R. DATA CLASSIFICATION CHARTS .......................................................... 184
S. NONPROFIT QUARTERLY ILLUSTRATED NONPROFIT

ECONOMY ................................................................................................... 187
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 191
ix
FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Maslow's hierarchy of needs ................................................................................ 7

................................................................................................................... 26
................................................................................................................... 55
2. Herzberg's motivators and hygiene factors .......................................................... 24
3. Six organizational health levels ........................................................................... 35
4. Servant leadership and the servant organization (OLA) model ........................... 56
5. Frequency of perceptions: Satisfaction ................................................................ 83
6. Frequency of perceptions: Dissatisfaction ........................................................... 84
7. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction compared ........................................................... 124
A1. Herzberg's motivators and hygiene factors ......................................................... 149
A2. Six organizational health levels .......................................................................... 163
A3. Maslow's hierarchy of needs ............................................................................... 183
x
TABLES
Table Page
1. Attributes of servant leadership ........................................................................... 53
2. Source of data: Interview participants—General information ............................. 77
3. Response category codes for each of the ten principles ...................................... 85
A1. Source of data: Interview participants—General information ............................ 171
A2. Response category codes for each of the ten principles...................................... 174
xi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The support of many family, friends and colleagues made this study possible. A
very special thanks goes to my husband, Jonathan Weiner, PhD, MD. His patience,
encouragement, and support were there for me throughout the process.
I would like to thank my committee chairman, Dr. Larry Kemper, who guided me
through the journey to completion of this dissertation. I am grateful for his confidence in
me and his expertise throughout my doctoral journey.
Special thanks go to Dr. Leo St. John, and Dr. Alice Talnack, my committee
members, for their patience and encouragement. Thanks for their help and support.
I would also like to thank Dr. Karin Lubin and Dr. Todd Bliss for making their
work available so that I might have a starting point and the necessary tools to begin my
research.
My deepest thanks go to all of the participants in the study. They gave so
generously of their time and allowed me to interview them in depth. The rich data
provided valuable insights into board membership and leadership. I have the utmost
respect for volunteer leaders, volunteers, and their constituencies.
And I want to thank the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership and ARNOVA
(Association for Research on Nonprofits Organizations and Voluntary Action) for the
wealth of information that was available for the study. The pioneering efforts of people
such as Robert K. Greenleaf, Larry Spears, and many others, made the research possible.
xii
I believe that the concept of Servant Leadership can serve as a valuable tool and model
for successful leadership in the 21st century.
xiii
CHAPTER I
A PERSPECTIVE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP FOR

NONPAID VOLUNTEER LEADERS OF NONPROFIT, PHILANTHROPIC
ORGANIZATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES
The servant-leader is servant first. It begins with the natural feeling that one wants
to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead.
—Robert K. Greenleaf, The Servant as Leader
Introduction
Bill and Melinda Gates, like many people, assumed that the malaria problem in
Africa was being worked on. They were looking for ways to help when they discovered
the "vacuum that does need to be stepped into" (Bower 2006, 63). According to Time
Magazine, "The Gates Foundation provides more than a third of the world's entire
malaria research funding" (63). It is this concept of volunteering and giving of one's time
that is the subject of this study, specifically, those who choose to serve on governing
boards of nonprofit philanthropic organizations. This study looks at specific motivations
that stimulate leaders to volunteer to serve on the governing boards of nonprofit,
philanthropic organizations.
Those who choose to lead and to serve may be motivated to do so by several
different factors. Specifically, this study looks at volunteer leaders who choose to lead by
using the principles of servant leadership, as presented by the Greenleaf Center for
1
2
servant leadership. Servant leaders actively work toward the betterment of those they
work with and toward the betterment of mankind.
Volunteers often make up the difference between the number of employees paid
for their work at nonprofit, philanthropic organizations and the number of people actually
required to fulfill all of the organization's functions. Without volunteers, nonprofit,
philanthropic organizations might not be able to fulfill their commitments. According to
Wymer and Starnes (2001), "Many nonprofit organizations are dependent upon their
volunteer workers. Volunteers serve in providing direct service to the nonprofit's clients.
Volunteers serve in administration (e.g., board members)" (64).
Time and money are two basic elements that motivate most people. Yet those who
choose to serve on governing boards of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations are giving
up a significant portion of their time and money when they fulfill their commitment to
their chosen organization(s). The researcher hopes that this study will lead to a better
understanding of what motivates these individuals to make this choice.
When one analyzes the economic system in the United States, we observe three
basic sectors: (1) the business sector, (2) the government sector, and (3) the nonprofit
sector. In 2001, the nonprofit sector was composed of 1.14 million nonprofit
organizations, which accounted for $621.4 billion in revenue (Wymer and Starnes 2001).
One of the most critical issues for the nonprofit sector is that nonprofit
organizations cannot provide services without volunteers. Good leadership is also vital to
their success. Examples of outstanding volunteer leaders include Bill Gates, Melinda
Gates (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), Jimmy and Rosalind Carter (Habitat for
3
Humanity), Roger Baldwin (ACLU—American Civil Liberties Union), Clara Barton
(ARC—American Red Cross), Lincoln C. Chen, MD (CARE—Cooperative for
Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc.), Dr. Ethel Percy Andrus (NRTA—National
Retired Teachers' Association, a division of the Association of Retired Persons), Don
Harris and Fred Fisher (Sierra Club/Earth Justice), Joseph Wales (ALA—American Lung
Association), David O. Wiebers, MD (HSUS—Humane Society of the United States),
and Henry Bergh (ASPCA—American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals).
Problem Statement
In 2009, with a changing economy and new leadership in the United States, the
focus on philanthropic efforts is expected to be greater than ever. Paul Schmitz (2008),
the CEO of Public Allies, says,
Now more than ever, nonprofit organizations need to get ahead of the curve. We
have entered a difficult period, when the need for nonprofit services will increase,
and the resources to pay for these services—public and private—will be
constrained. . . . Our special role in bringing citizens together to serve . . . to fulfill
our missions will be greatly challenged. In such challenging times, nonprofits
need to identify the most cutting edge organizational tools, technologies, and
behaviors that engage constituents and achieve results. . . . In many ways, [this]
has exemplified the qualities promoted in recent years . . . and symbolized the
kind of organization whose culture of innovation, inclusion, and performance
inspires and attracts workers, volunteers, donors, and champions. (1).
Servant leadership can empower volunteers to accomplish the goals of the organization.
The history of volunteer organizations in the United States begins in England with
a look at the development of the English Poor Laws in 1601. These laws allowed for the
oversight of the conditions of the poor. The concept was that those who could not fulfill
their basic needs through the ability to work and support themselves and/or their families
4
would be taken care of by the general society. "While the English Parliament was the first
to establish these laws . . . the early American settlers adopted similar principles" (Ott
2001, 99). Stephen R. Block explains that "the early implementation of poor laws in the
United States were mainly at the state level" (Ott 2001, 99). By the late 1850s, the
Industrial Revolution had led to overpopulated urban centers and mass immigration from
Europe. The responsibility of society to oversee the needs of the poor was more than
could be handled by a few designated groups or people. It is at this time that philanthropy
for the poor began to grow.
A review of the history of "poor houses" recalls several settlement houses
modeled after the Toynbee House settlement in England. For example, Hull House in
Chicago, Neighborly Guild in New York, South End House in Boston, and Northwestern
University Settlement House in Chicago were all "settlement houses" that cared for the
poor and attempted to give them hope and opportunity to improve the conditions of their
lives (Ott 2001).
Other English inventions such as the Charity Organization Society were adopted
by the United States. The desired outcomes of these organizations were to improve the
lives of those less fortunate. The business community felt that private charities would be
better administered than public charities. Over time, this led to donors seeking to create a
federal organization of charities that would regulate fund-raising activities.
During the early 1900s, periodicals devoted to charitable causes were created.
Steven Ott (2001) cites Paul Kellogg's publication of The Survey in 1909. The Survey was
one of the first national magazines devoted to both paid and nonpaid volunteer workers.
5
Is there a differentiation between volunteering and acts of charity or
philanthropy? The literature shows that all three activities require some form of giving.
While charity and philanthropy may require giving little, volunteering requires giving of
one's time and money and therefore requires direct involvement. However, it is also
important to note that volunteering does not require giving of one's time and money only
to the poor. In contemporary America we choose to volunteer for all sorts of activities
that may or may not benefit those less fortunate. In contrast, charity and philanthropy do
benefit those less fortunate in all instances.
Alexis de Tocqueville, French political thinker and historian (1835), was one of
the earliest observers of American volunteerism. He felt that American volunteerism was
unique in that it promoted our democratic society. One might note that England was
considered to be a democratic society as well and much of the volunteer efforts of that
time were adapted in some form from English "models" of volunteerism.
A brief overview of a few notable volunteers in U.S. history follows. "Clara
Barton (1821-1912) dominates the early history of the American Red Cross, which was
modeled after the International Red Cross. . . . She successfully organized the American
Association of the Red Cross in Washington, D.C. on May 21, 1881 . . . and she served as
the organization's volunteer president until 1904" (American Red Cross n.d., 1).
Another important nonprofit, philanthropic organization is the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), which was founded by Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, and
Albert DeSilver in 1920. The ACLU mission is that civil liberties must be respected.
6
Today the ACLU is composed of over 500,000 members and supporters. The ACLU
handles nearly six thousand court cases annually from all over the United States.
Dr. Ethel Percy Andrus, a retired high school principal, founded American
Association of Retired Persons (AARP) in 1958. She had originally established the
National Retired Teachers' Association (NRTA) in 1947 "to promote her philosophy of
productive aging, and in response to the need of retired teachers for health insurance"
(American Association of Retired Persons 2009, 2). Dr. Andrus was instrumental in
getting many of the benefits that today serve the needs of over 35 million AARP and
NRTA members.
CARE is a humanitarian organization that fights global poverty. The CARE
website explains CARE's work in the following manner: "We place special focus on
working alongside poor women because, equipped with the proper resources, women
have the power to help whole families and entire communities escape poverty" (1).
CARE was originally founded in 1945 to provide relief to survivors of World War II and
is today one of the world's largest humanitarian organizations "committed to helping
families in poor communities improve their lives and achieve victories over poverty" (1).
CARE provides support and services that address basic human needs, survival needs, and
quality of life issues.
When the theories of Maslow and Herzberg are reviewed, significant insight into
human needs and motivations is gained. Maslow's hierarchy of needs explains that our
needs are prioritized beginning with survival needs and culminating in highly individual
esoteric needs (see figure 1 and appendix Q).

7
Figure 1. Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Reprinted with permission.
Hertzberg's (1959) research has certain parallels with Maslow's work. Herzberg
proved that people strive to achieve hygiene needs because they are unhappy without
them. However, once they are satisfied that they have acquired these needs, they will go
on to acquire the "true motivators" (appendix B). Examples of hygiene needs (e.g.,
maintenance factors) in the workplace are the following:
Policy
Relationship with supervisor
Work conditions
8
Salary
Company car
Status
Security
Relationship with subordinates
Personal life
True motivators were found to be completely different factors (appendix B). Herzberg's
true motivating factors (appendix B) include:
Achievement
Recognition
Work itself
Responsibility
Advancement
Personal growth
With Herzberg's and Maslow's theories as a resource, one can then move on to
consider the central concept of this study—servant leadership. An overview of Robert K.
Greenleaf's concept of servant leadership begins with a brief description of servant
leadership from the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership (2006): "Servant-Leadership
is a practical philosophy which supports people who choose to serve first, and then lead
as a way of expanding service to individuals and institutions. Servant-leaders may or may
not hold formal leadership positions. Servant-leadership encourages collaboration, trust,

9
foresight, listening, and the ethical use of power and empowerment." Robert Greenleaf
(1970), the person credited with inventing the concept, put the idea into words by saying:
The servant-leader is servant first. . . . It begins with the natural feeling that one
wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead.
He or she is sharply different from the person who is leader first, perhaps because
of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions.
For such it will be a later choice to serve—after leadership is established. The
leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are
shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature. (27)
The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure
that other people's highest priority needs are being served. According to Greenleaf
(1970), "The best test, and one that is 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, will they not be further deprived?"
(Greenleaf 2002, 27).
The Hampton House at Butler University describes servant leadership this
way:
Servant Leadership is a practical philosophy supporting those who choose to lead

as a way of serving individuals and institutions. It encourages collaboration, trust,
foresight, listening, and the ethical use of power and empowerment. Servant
leaders may or may not hold formal leadership positions. (adapted from Greenleaf
1970)
This study looks specifically at individuals who are members of governing boards
of directors of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations and are working as nonpaid
volunteer leaders.
10
Gabriel Berger (1991) has written a definitive body of work about volunteerism in
the Third Sector (e.g., nonprofit sector). His dissertation was published in 1991 and
explains the "economic importance of volunteering in the planning and delivery of
fundamental social welfare services" (50). An overview of the importance of and reliance
upon voluntary leadership includes the fact that good leadership is critical to the survival
of many nonprofit, philanthropic organizations. While Toqueville looked at American
democratic society and the importance of volunteerism in the democratic society, we also
can see the influence of the biblical tradition in American volunteerism.
Gabriel Berger (1991) mentions John Winthrop's famous sermon to his fellow
Puritans, delivered in 1630, in which he preached about each individual's social
commitments and responsibility to their fellow men in society. Most important is the fact
that many of our organizations today could not provide the services to their clients if it
were not for the effective leadership provided by the volunteer leaders serving on their
governing boards.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study was to reveal the degree to which the ten principles of
servant leadership, as presented by the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, motivate
nonpaid volunteers to serve on the governing boards of nonprofit, philanthropic
organizations in the United States. The principles are: (1) listening, (2) empathy,
(3) healing, (4) awareness, (5) persuasion, (6) conceptualization, (7) foresight,
(8) stewardship, (9) commitment to growth, and (10) building community.

11
Research Questions
The researcher included the principles of servant leadership in the each of the
three research questions according to the overarching themes presented by Robert
Greenleaf (1977), Larry Spears (1995), and Dr. Kent Keith (2008), former, past, and
current Chief Executive Officers of the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. The
three overarching themes are: (1) relationship-building actions, (2) future-oriented
actions, and (3) community-building actions. The researcher adapted the research
questions used by Karen Lubin (2001) and Todd Bliss (2006) and developed an
alignment matrix to show compatibility of the research questions with the 10 principles
(appendix A). The three research questions are:
1. To what degree do volunteer board members of nonprofit, philanthropic
organizations identify incidents that reflect the servant leadership principles of listening,
empathy, healing, and awareness as their motivations to serve? The overarching theme is
relationship-building actions.
organizations identify incidents that reflect the servant leadership principles of
persuasion, conceptualization, and foresight as their motivations to serve? The
overarching theme is future-oriented actions.
stewardship, commitment to growth, and building community as their motivations to
serve? The overarching theme is community-building actions.

12
Significance of the Study
Steven J. Ott (2001), author of The Nature of the Nonprofit Sector, explains, "A
strong individual element pervades volunteerism. This element consists of the giving and
volunteering behaviors that make the work of the voluntary sector possible" (62).
Research indicates that nonprofit, sometimes called Third Sector organizations, are
constantly looking for ways and means to recruit individuals to assist with the
organization's efforts on all levels. The boards of directors (governing boards) of
nonprofit, philanthropic organizations are critical to the organization's success. Simply
put, a ship without a rudder cannot sail on course."
Delimitations
The delimitations of this study include the following features.
1. The study covered ten states within the United States and the District of
Columbia. The interview participants were from Alabama, California, Connecticut,
Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, New York, Virginia, Washington, and the District of
Columbia.
2. The demographic features of the study included thirty-three interview
participants who had chosen to serve on the boards of directors of nonprofit,
philanthropic organizations in the United States.
3. The subjects studied were all nonpaid volunteer board members.
4. The classification of organizations studied was nonprofit, philanthropic
organizations.
13
5. The interviews contained two critical incident questions regarding satisfaction
and dissatisfaction.
6. The interviews took place between April 2006 and June 2007.
7. Each interview was approximately one hour in length and conducted over the
telephone.
Definitions of Terms
The definitions of terms begin with the ten principles of servant leadership,
defined by Larry Spears, former Chief Executive Officer of the Greenleaf Center and
successor to Robert K. Greenleaf. Larry Spears felt that while the ten principles "are by
no means exhaustive, "they serve to communicate the power and promise that the concept
offers" (Spears 2004, 7). The ten principles are:
Listening. Traditionally, leaders have been valued for their communication and
decision making skills. Servant-leaders must reinforce these important skills by making a
deep commitment to listening intently to others. Servant-leaders seek to identify and
clarify the will of the group. They seek to listen receptively to what is being said (and not
said). Listening also encompasses getting in touch with one's inner voice, and seeking to
understand what one's body, spirit, and mind are communicating.
Empathy. Servant-leaders strive to understand and empathize with others. People
need to be accepted and recognized for their special and unique spirit. One must assume
the good intentions of coworkers and not reject them as people, even when forced to
reject their behavior or performance.

14
Healing. Learning to heal is a powerful force for transformation and integration.
One of the great strengths of servant-leadership is the potential for healing one's self and
others. In "The Servant as Leader," Greenleaf writes, "There is something subtle
communicated to one who is being served and led if, implicit in the compact between the
servant-leader and those led is the understanding that the search for wholeness is
something that they have."
Awareness. General awareness, and especially self-awareness, strengthens the
servant-leader. Making a commitment to foster awareness can be scary—one never
knows what one may discover! As Greenleaf observed, "Awareness is not a giver of
solace—it's just the opposite. It disturbs. They are not seekers of solace. They have their
own inner security."
Persuasion. Servant-leaders rely on persuasion, rather than positional authority in
making decisions. Servant-leaders seek to convince others, rather than coerce
compliance. This particular element offers one of the clearest distinctions between the
traditional authoritarian model and that of servant-leadership. The servant-leader is
effective at building consensus within groups.
Conceptualization. Servant-leaders seek to nurture their abilities to "dream great
dreams." The ability to look at a problem (or an organization) from a conceptualizing
perspective means that one must think beyond day-to-day realities. Servant –leaders must
seek a delicate balance between conceptualization and day-to-day focus.

15
Foresight. Foresight is a characteristic that enables servant-leaders to understand
lessons from the past, the realities of the present, and the likely consequence of a decision
in the future. It is deeply rooted in the intuitive mind.
Stewardship. Robert Greenleaf's view of all institutions was one in which CEO's,
staff, directors, and trustees all play significant roles in holding their institutions in trust
for the great good of society.
Commitment to the growth of people. Servant-leaders believe that people have an
intrinsic value beyond their tangible contributions as workers. As such, Servant-leaders
are deeply committed to a personal, professional, and spiritual growth of each and every
individual within the organization.
Building community. Servant-leaders are aware that the shift from local
communities to large institutions as the primary shaper of human lives has changed our
perceptions and caused a sense of loss. Servant-leaders seek to identify a means for
building community among those who work within a given institution.
Along with the principles of servant leadership, it is important to understand the
following terminology included in this study:
Nonprofit. Defined as "not organized or engaged in with the purpose of making a
profit," according to the Wordsworth Concise English Dictionary (1994).
Philanthropic. Defined as "characterized by philanthropy, benevolent, humane,"
according to the Oxford English Dictionary (1970).
United States. Includes the forty-eight continental United States and Alaska and
Hawaii. A map including the boundaries is included in appendix C.

16
Volunteers. Individuals who choose to use some of their time to help others
(humans or animals). They do so without receiving compensation for their work and
efforts.
Participants. Individuals who agreed to participate in this study, to be interviewed
by telephone, and to answer questions presented by the researcher.
Summary
The focus of this study was to reveal the degree to which the principles of servant
leadership motivate nonpaid volunteer leaders to serve on the governing boards of
nonprofit, philanthropic organizations in the United States. The study is presented in the
following chapters. An appendix and reference list are included at the end of the
dissertation.
Chapter I provided an introduction, a statement of the problem, the purpose of the
study, the research questions, the significance of the study, the delimitations of the study,
the definitions of terms, and this summary.
Chapter II presents the literature review including an introduction, a brief history
of servant leadership, leadership theory, and an explanatory history of nonprofit,
philanthropic board leadership, servant leadership history and models, an explanation of
the ten principles of servant leadership, and a summary.
Chapter III presents the methodology used for this study, including the kind of
research and design of the research, a description of the population and sample,
explanations of the instrumentation used, procedures used for data collection, procedures
17
used for mathematical analysis of the data, and a discussion of the limitations of the
study.
Chapter IV describes the results of the study, including the findings of the
research and data collected as well as a comprehensive summary.
Chapter V reviews conclusions as a result of this study, the implications of the
findings for the nonprofit sector, implications of the findings for people working within
the nonprofit sector, recommendations for future actions and/or research within the scope
of servant leadership and the nonprofit sector.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
The twenty-first century presents the global community with challenges such as
overpopulation, health and welfare problems, healthcare delivery problems, global
warming, energy-related issues, problems related to educational delivery systems, and the
global financial crisis. "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(Recovery Act), signed into law by President Obama included $201 million in funding
for the Corporation for National and Community Service to support an expansion of
AmeriCorps State and National and AmeriCorps VISTA programs," according to the
Corporation for National & Community Service (2009).
Each year, AmeriCorps offers 75,000 opportunities for adults of all ages and
backgrounds to serve through a network of partnerships with local and national nonprofit
groups. The expansion would incrementally increase the number of participants in this
nation-at-service program from 75,000 to 250,000 in 2017. AmeriCorps money goes to
nonprofit groups and public agencies that recruit and supervise volunteers (Perry 2009).
AmeriCorps is made up of three main programs: AmeriCorps State and National,
AmeriCorps VISTA, and AmeriCorps NCCC (National Civilian Community Corps).
AmeriCorps State and National supports a broad range of local service programs that
18
19
engage thousands of Americans in intensive service to meet critical community needs.
AmeriCorps offers individuals the opportunity to serve others in need.
Ott (2001) stated, "People everywhere respond to problems by coming together
out of mutual caring, organizing their efforts, and initiating activities and programs to
ameliorate, remedy, or 'pick up the pieces' behind society's problems or nature's disasters"
(2). Nonprofit organizations look to volunteerism to fill the gaps between available
financial and other resources and the needs of their constituents and constituencies.
This chapter looks at volunteerism and servant leadership. After briefly
considering morals, values, and ethics in relation to servant leadership, the chapter
presents an overview of leadership theory, philanthropy and volunteerism, and volunteer
board leadership of nonprofit philanthropic organizations. A brief history of servant
leadership is presented followed by leadership in education and religious life. The chapter
concludes with an in-depth look at the ten principles of servant leadership and servant
leadership theory and models.
Purpose of the Study
organizations in the United States.

20
Research Questions
empathy, healing, and awareness as their motivations to serve?
persuasion, conceptualization, and foresight as their motivations to serve?
serve?
An example of the new leadership required in this millennium is stated succinctly
by President Obama's appointment for Veteran's Affairs Secretary, General Eric K.
Shinseki. When he left his post in June 2003, Shinseki warned against arrogant leadership
when he said, "You must love those you lead before you can be an effective leader. You
can certainly command without that sense of commitment but you cannot lead without it.
And without leadership, command is a hollow experience, a vacuum often filled with
mistrust and arrogance" (© Associated Press, 2008, reprinted with permission)
Brief Overview of Leadership Theory
According to Tosi, Mero, and Rizzo (2005),
Though contemporary organizational behavior began to emerge as a distinct area

of research and academic specialization in the late 1950s and early 1960s, it can
trace its roots to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, and its conceptual
21
roots to four approaches to management: 1. The scientific management approach,

2. Administrative theory, 3. Industrial psychology, and 4. The human relations
perspective. (6)
As the field of management and management research developed, the concept of
transactional analysis and leadership evolved.
Bliss (2006) stated,
The literature is filled with theorists on leadership. Warren Bennis, Margaret

Wheatley, Peter Senge, Peter Drucker, Stephen Covey, Jim Collins, and Thomas
Sergiovanni are among the most widely respected management scholars. . . .
Recurring themes within their writings suggest that truth, integrity, building
relationships and service are essential leadership qualities. (22)
This chapter looks briefly at leadership theory and finally its relationship to servant
leadership.
Basic Leadership Approaches
First, there are behavioral approaches and models of leadership. Autocratic
leadership theory presents the leader as an authority figure and followers as subject to his
or her control. Participative leadership includes input from the members of the group
and/or organization so that members are considered to be participants rather than
followers. Laissez-faire leadership is explained as basically a "what will be, will be" type
of leadership (Tosi, Mero, and Rizzo 2005, 457).
Contingency theories include Fiedler theory, path-goal theory, and Vroom-Yetton
theory (Tosi, Mero, and Rizzo 2005). The Fiedler theory accounts for situational factors
and integrates relationships between leader and group, task structure, and the leader's
orientation toward those with whom he works rather than the leader's behavior. Path-goal
theory looks at the leader's behavior and links it to performance. In other words, the tasks
22
to achieve a goal are the path, and organizational outcomes are the goals. It is the leader's
job to basically remove barriers on the path so that the goal(s) can be achieved. The
Vroom-Yetton model is presented as a decision matrix. It is based upon situational
variables that occur within an organization and identified characteristics of the leader and
how the two interact (Tosi, Mero, and Rizzo 2005).
Process theories of leadership have been developed more recently and look at the
process(es) wherein a relationship develops between leaders and subordinates. One of
these theories is transformational leadership theory (Tosi, Mero, and Rizzo 2005).
Transformational leadership, as compared to transactional leadership, has a completely
different impact upon those being lead.
"The transactional leadership style was first described by Max Weber in 1947
and again by Bernard M. Bass in 1981" (Moneyzine.com 2004-2007, 1). One way to
think of transactional leadership is this: "It's at the opposite end of the leadership
spectrum" (Moneyzine.com 2004-2007, 1). Transactional leadership has to do with price
and payment. One person contracts with another for the purpose of exchanging
something or things of value. The transactional leader provides payment that is valued by
the follower (Tosi, Mero, and Rizzo 2005). Transactional leaders work within the
existing organizational climate.
The transactional leadership style developed by Max Weber in 1947 and
described again by Bernard M. Bass in 1981 is based on the hypothesis that followers are
motivated through a system of rewards and punishment. The transactional leader's view
of the leader/follower relationship is one of quid pro quo—or this for that. If the follower
23
does something good, he or she will be rewarded. If the follower does something wrong,
he or she will be punished (Money-zine.com 2006).
Transformational Leadership
James MacGregor Burns (1978) first introduced the concepts of transformational
and transactional leadership in his treatment of political leadership, but this term is now
used in organizational psychology as well.
Transformational leadership actually changes the organizational climate. In other
words, Burns (1978) states, "Transformational leadership occurs when one or more
persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to
higher levels of motivation and morality" (20). The online definition (Wikipedia.com),
"Transformational leadership is a leadership style where . . . a transformational leader
focuses on 'transforming' others to help each other, to look out for each other, be
encouraging, harmonious, and look out for the organization as a whole."
Todd Bliss (2006) explained the models of transactional and transformational
leadership as "two forms of leadership that would provide a conceptual framework for
how future theorists defined the role of leadership" (37). Burns (1978) defined
transactional leadership as "leaders inducing followers to act for certain goals that
represent the values and motivations and wants and needs, the aspirations and
expectations of both leaders and followers" (133).
Motivation Theory
Motivational theory deals with intrinsic and extrinsic rewards that serve as a
24
catalyst to a person's actions:
There is a great deal of evidence that people are hardwired to care about purposes.
We seem to need to see ourselves as going somewhere—as being on a journey in
pursuit of a significant purpose. . . . There is also much evidence that people
suffer when they lack purpose. Clinical studies show that people deteriorate in
various ways without purpose. (Thomas 2000, 22)
Frederick Herzberg, in his book The Motivation to Work (1959), researched what
motivates people to want to work and what motivates people to be productive in their
jobs. He developed categories of motivators and hygiene factors. As shown in the graphic
chart in figure 2, factors that lead to advancement are motivators, and factors that lead to
personal satisfaction/dissatisfaction are hygiene factors.
Figure 2. Herzberg's motivators and hygiene factors. Reprinted with permission.

25
The number one satisfier among Herzberg's (1959) motivators is achievement.
Herzberg's motivators and hygiene factors, as seen in figure 2, displays percentages of
frequency causing high and low attitude effects. The number one motivator with the
highest frequency cause of satisfaction is achievement. Second is recognition, third is the
work itself, and fourth is responsibility. In other words, when people achieve their goals
and objectives (purpose), they are the most highly satisfied. This is an example of an
intrinsic (e.g., internal) reward and validates the fact that most people need to have a
sense of purpose. Figure 2 refers to Herzberg's motivators and hygiene factors.
Dr. Tom Harvey and Dr. Bonita Drolet (2004) summed up the concept of a sense
of purpose leading to achievement when they said, "In motivation and change theory, this
concept is called 'valence'—people do things for which they expect payoff . . . not
necessarily in money, but perhaps in recognition, achievement, or interpersonal relations"
(216). When success leads to personal recognition, a personal sense of achievement, and
enhanced interpersonal relations, an individual is moving toward self-actualization (see
figure 1). The chart in figure 1 displays a pyramid with self-actualization at the top of the
pyramid. Covey, Merrill, and Merrill (1995) explained that "when the conditions of
empowerment are in place, servant leadership creates powerful results" (251).
Service Model
Kent M. Keith (2008), CEO of the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership,
explains that the service model has a base that is moral, that identifies and meets the
needs of others, and treats them as equals and partners. He explains,

26
The servant leader knows that power is a means, not an end. It is only a tool.
Often it is not even the most important tool. There are many tools, such as
listening and coaching, that turn out to be more important than power. Because
power is only a tool, great servant leaders have been willing to give it up when
they no longer need it to serve others. . . . They made the leadership contribution
that was needed at the time, and then passed the power to others. (Keith 2008, 24)
Philanthropy and Volunteerism
The roots of philanthropy date back to the time of Plato (Purcell 2001). Plato's
will stated that his farm was to be left to a nephew. The instructions stated that the
proceeds were to be used to support students and faculty at the academy he founded.
27
Throughout the following centuries, philanthropy developed and grew to be what it is
today. Charitable organizations represent healthcare, welfare, education, the ministry, and
a host of domestic and international causes.
According to Gibson (2008), "Nonprofits' role in promoting democracy . . . goes
beyond individual communities. As it has been for the past century, the nonprofit sector
is the doorway through which millions of Americans pursue a diverse array of cultural,
social, political, and religious beliefs through civic opportunities that are the hallmark of
a healthy democracy" (29).
The Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action
(ARNOVA) recognized philanthropic challenges and traditions in the book Philanthropy
in Communities of Color (Rogers 2001). Representatives of the various communities
discuss African American, Latino, Native American, and Asian American traditions and
challenges. Socioeconomic, cultural, historical, contemporary, religious, and other
philanthropic contexts specific to each group are discussed. Dr. Pier C. Rogers, editor,
concludes:
Although differences (among each group) are highlighted, there are many
parallels that emerge or that can be drawn out of the various examples . . . which
can then be incorporated into a variety of approaches that are suitably altered to
address the values of the different individuals and communities. (95).
This study makes note of the fact that philanthropy, volunteerism, and servant
leadership have no cultural, ethnic, racial, gender, socioeconomic, community, domestic,
international, or any other boundaries. Philanthropy, volunteerism, and servant leadership
are concepts and practices available to anyone throughout his or her lifetime.
28
The National Philanthropic Trust reports that there are approximately 1.1 million
charitable organizations in the United States today (appendix K). There are a reported
355,000 religious congregations in the United States. While "American giving reached a
record high in 2006, with donations totaling $295 billion," giving to the arts and
education saw donations rise more than 6 percent in 2006 (Giving USA Foundation 2007;
National Philanthropic Trust 2008). In 2006, 83 percent of total contributions came from
donations from individuals. This number includes individuals and bequests. These
numbers are astonishing when we consider the power individuals have to make a positive
impact on the domestic and global economies.
A Chronological History of Philanthropy in the United States (National
Philanthropic Trust 2008) shows the positive and lasting effect Benjamin Franklin had
during his life in Philadelphia, PA and Boston, MA. A few organizations, which he was
instrumental in starting, include The Library Company of Philadelphia, American
Philosophical Society, Proposals for Education of Youth in Pennsylvania, The
Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia Bettering House, (e.g., Pauper House), St. George
Society (e.g., oldest charity in the U.S.), and the Society for Alleviating the Miseries of
Public Prisons (e.g., earliest prison reform). Today there are millions of philanthropists
and volunteers working to improve society (see appendix K).
One study conducted by Johns Hopkins University in 2003 explains that nonprofit
employees and volunteers account for approximately 10 percent of America's work force
(Greene 2003). This number is growing during these challenging economic times. In fact,
the nonprofit sector employs 10.2 million people, accounting for 6.9 percent of the total
29
U.S. work force (see appendix K), and the number of U.S. nonprofits has doubled in the
past five years. Perhaps the most crucial component of the nonprofit sector workforce is
the volunteers. Light (2002) stated,
To get Americans into the volunteering habit, though, it will not be enough to ask
them to volunteer—or even to get them to show up for a first experience. The
service itself must be meaningful or volunteers will not come back. To the extent
that interest in work in the nonprofit sector can be used as a surrogate for future
interest in volunteering, these data suggest that the quality of the volunteer
experience matters. [The] President may well encourage more volunteers to show
up, but it is up to the organizations they serve to provide the work needed for a
longer engagement. (47)
Gabriel Berger (1991), a leading researcher on factors explaining volunteering in
the U.S., explained,
The consensus among critics of the altruistic vision of volunteering is that most
volunteer activity is the result of multiple causation, with altruism being a very
minor factor in volunteering for organizations. While altruism entails self-
sacrifice for the common good or to help others, Smith (1981) argues that there is
no absolute altruism because even in apparent altruistic acts, individuals obtain
self-satisfying psychic rewards from them. Contrary to common beliefs which
relate volunteer work solely to altruistic motives, people would have at the same
time both other and self-oriented reasons to volunteer. (80)
According to Eisner et al. (2009), "If nonprofit leaders want highly skilled
volunteers to come and stay, they need to expand their vision of volunteering by creating
an experience that is meaningful, develops skills, demonstrates impact, and taps into
volunteers' abilities and interests" (35). The most important factor here is that no matter
how truly altruistic each volunteer may be, the volunteer experience must be satisfying to
each volunteer if the organization wants to retain its volunteers.
The executive director, or president, of the organization interfaces between the
organization and the board of directors. As the point person, it is his or her responsibility
30
to convey the wishes of the board to the employees of the organization. As Dr. Berger's
(1991) dissertation clearly states, "You have to have people to manage volunteers, and
encourage volunteers, and to support volunteers" (335).
Volunteer Board Leadership of Nonprofit, Philanthropic

Organizations in the U.S.
A nonprofit board is a group of people chosen to oversee the long-term health of
the organization. Board members typically serve without financial compensation and are
responsible for (1) setting policies, (2) hiring the executive director of the organization,
(3) overseeing organization finances, and (4) raising funds. In a larger sense, board
members are charged with preserving the public trust—making sure that the organization
does not abuse the special rights it has been afforded by the government via its IRS status
as a public charity (e.g., 501 (c)(3) corp.). "In the U.S. the law ultimately holds the board
of a nonprofit organization responsible for the affairs and conduct of the organization.
The moral assumption is that the board will conduct the affairs of the charity as a public
steward, ensuring that the organization serves the interests of the larger community"
(Herman and Renz 1997, 2).
Board members are recruited from the ranks of dedicated volunteers and
community members who are dedicated to the philanthropic effort(s) of the organization.
The World Wings International board is selected by the following process. This process
is generically representative of process(es) used by most organizations in the United
States. The nominating committee proposes a slate of potential nominees prior to the
general election. The general election then takes place through U.S. mail, electronic mail,
31
and/or at a meeting of the general membership once every three years. While board
membership can potentially be political in nature, ultimately the membership has the
voting capability to select board members who appear to represent the best interests of
the organization during their campaigns.
Another class of board membership is the board members who are selected at the
discretion of the president or chairperson of the board. These appointed board members
hold positions such as membership development director, communications director, and
editor. These positions are often critical to the survival of the organization but are not
subject to general election, due to the charter of the organization and/or the nature of the
position and the qualifications necessary to carry out the job. Peter Dobkin Hall (2003)
stated,
Like property rights, the roles and responsibilities of boards of directors and the
organizations with which they are associated—as well as the broader legal,
governmental, and economic settings in which they operate—have evolved and
changed over time. . . . The antecedents of modern nonprofit governance practices
in America date back to the earliest settlers. . . . The Massachusetts Bay
Company's charter—which created the first American board . . . delegated the
right to govern. . . . Perpetual succession, in other words, became an attribute of
the corporation rather than of the individuals who comprised it. (3-4)
Hall (2003) went on to explain how the origins of lay governance occurred at
Harvard: "Recognizing the need to train future leaders, the Massachusetts colonists
established a college in 1636. The legislature placed the school under the authority of a
governing board consisting of 12 overseers, including six magistrates and six ministers"
(5). As time progressed, Yale appointed a board of trustees as well. Hall continued,
"Yale's new charter strengthened the college's capacity to govern itself by clarifying
trustees' roles as members of a corporation. But while clarifying its character to act
32
collectively, the charter left the capacities of individual trustees to act independently
undefined" (7).
As time progressed, the role of the nonprofit board and its members clearly
needed defining. According to Hall (2003),
The decision in the Dartmouth College [board] case was perhaps the single most
important judgment handed down by an American court. [Chief Justice]
Marshall's decision did more than protect corporations from legislative
interference: It advanced the notion that the will of the public could be expressed
by other than electoral and governmental means. In doing this, it legitimated the
idea of private associational initiative in the public interest. To this conception,
perhaps more than any other, the nonprofit sector owes its existence. (12)
According to John Carver (2006), considered to be the foremost authority on
board governance, "Boards control most group undertakings in the world. . . . They are
our most ubiquitous, visible, powerful instance of group servant-leadership—or lack of it.
With respect to a 'moral ownership' (if not always a legal one), the board is a group
servant-leader" (1).
Carver (2006) stated, "With respect to the board, the chairperson is a servant-
leader. The chair, therefore, holds a double servant-leader role. . . . The role of board
chairperson properly construed is the most pervasive instance of institutional servant-
leadership in our culture" (1). It is the board chairperson who is the point person for the
executive director of each organization.
It is within the context of the board as a "group servant-leader" that Dr. Carver
(2006) explains his vision of effective board leadership as transformative thereby having
the ability to produce "a substantially new institution" (3). By a new institution, Dr.
Carver explains that effective policy governance will create a board that is responsive to
33
the needs of the organization while leading with transparency and clarity. Dr. Carver
says, "The choice of servant-leadership is not something you do, but (is) an expression of
your being" (3).
Robert Greenleaf's (2002) vision of board members was, "The most important
qualification for trustees should be that they care for the institution, which means that
they care for all of the people the institution touches, and that they are determined to
make their caring count" (68). He added to the general qualifications for board
membership by explaining, "The chairman stands apart from administration, but he is
inside. He must be well informed and, as the servant-leader of the board, he must be
influential. But he must also stand outside with some objectivity that allows him to watch
and evaluate. There is a subtle paradox in his role—he is both inside and outside" (7).
The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies has put together a list of universally desirable
leadership attributes (House et al. 2004). The research included the following attributes:
trustworthy, foresight, positive, confidence builder, intelligent, win–win problem solver,
administrative skilled, excellence oriented, just plans ahead, dynamic, motivational,
decisive, communicative, coordinator, honest, encouraging, motive arouser, dependable,
effective bargainer, informed, team builder.
A review of the GLOBE universally desirable leadership attributes shows that the
attributes are aligned with the ten principles of servant leadership.
According to Hsu (2005),
America's Best Leaders were chosen by the Center for Public Leadership at
Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. The committee
used a four-point selection criteria—accomplishments within the past five years,
values, durability, and commitment to developing other leaders. All twenty-five
34
leaders share a clearly articulated vision, measurable results, and in the words of
one management guru, Big Hairy Audacious Goals. (63)
Two of the twenty-five distinguished leaders selected were Bill and Melinda
Gates. A review of board leadership history often begins with Bill and Melinda Gates
because she has been described in the following manner: "She will happily roll up her
sleeves to understand the real-world applications" (Chase 2006, R3). Melinda Gates is
quoted as telling her children about her visits to AIDS projects worldwide because "they
(her children) need to know the problems of the world and their own responsibility in
addressing them" (Chase 2006, R3). Both successful leaders and successful organizations
have been found to practice servant leadership.
Dr. Laub's (2003) OLA (organizational leadership assessment) model, "Six
Organizational Health Level Descriptions" (see chart in figure 3) has been used
extensively by many consultants and organizations as a tool for organizational leadership
assessment purposes. The model has also been used to develop the growing body of
research about servant leadership. The model represents the distinct differences between
three major leadership styles: (1) autocratic, (2) paternalistic, and (3) servant leadership.
The "Six Organizational Health Level Descriptions" can be used to assess leadership
effectiveness in small and large, old and new, and centralized and decentralized
organizations.
35
Org 6 Optimal Workers experience this organization as a servant-minded organization

Health characterized by authenticity, the valuing and developing of people, the
building of community and the providing and sharing of positive leadership.
Servant Leadership
These characteristics are evident throughout the entire organization. People

are trusted and are trustworthy throughout the organization. They are
motivated to serve the interests of each other before their own self-interest
and are open to learning from each other. Leaders and workers view each
other as partners working in a spirit of collaboration.
Org 5 Excellent Workers experience this organization as a servant-oriented organization
building of community and the providing and sharing of positive leadership.
These characteristics are evident throughout much of the organization.
People are trusted and are trustworthy. They are motivated to serve the
interests of each other before their own self-interest and are open to learning
from each other. Leaders and workers view each other as partners working
in a spirit of collaboration.
Org 4 Moderate Workers experience this organization as a positively paternalistic (parent-
Health led) organization characterized by a moderate level of trust and
trustworthiness along with occasional uncertainty and fear. Creativity is
Paternalistic Leadership
encouraged as long as it doesn't move the organization too far beyond the
status quo. Risks can be taken but failure is sometimes feared. Goals are
mostly clear, through the overall direction of the organization is sometimes
confused. Leaders often take the role of nurturing parent while workers
assume the role of the cared-for child.
Org 3 Limited Workers experience this organization as a negatively paternalistic (parent-
Health led) organization characterized by minimal to moderate levels of trust and
trustworthiness along with an underlying uncertainty and fear. People feel
that they must prove themselves and that they are only as good as their last
performance. Workers are sometimes listened to but only when they speak
in line with the values and priorities of the leaders. Conformity is expected
while individual expression is discouraged. Leaders often take the role of
critical parent while workers assume the role of the cautious child.
Org 2 Poor Workers experience this organization as an autocratic-led organization
Health characterized by low levels of trust and trustworthiness and high levels of
uncertainty and fear. People lack motivation to serve the organization
because they do not feel that it is their organization or their goals.
Autocratic Leadership
Leadership is autocratic in style and is imposed from the top levels of the
organization. It is an environment where risks are seldom taken, failure is
often punished and creativity is discouraged. Most workers do not feel
valued and often feel used by those in leadership. Change is needed but is
very difficult to achieve.
Org 1 Toxic Workers experience this organization as a dangerous place to work…a place
characterized by dishonesty and a deep lack of integrity among its workers
and leaders. Workers are devalued, used and sometimes abused. Positive
leadership is missing at all levels and power is used in ways that are harmful
to workers, and the mission of the organization. There is almost no trust and
an extremely high level of fear. This organization will find it nearly
impossible to locate, develop and maintain healthy workers who can assist
in producing positive organizational change.
Figure 3. Six organizational health levels. Source: Laub 2003. Reprinted with permission.
36
Six Organizational Health Level Descriptions
The following organizations represent a small selection of some of the thousands
of nonprofit philanthropic organizations in the United States. They fulfill some or most of
the criteria for excellent and optimal health as stated in the servant leadership portion of
the "Six Organizational Health Levels" matrix (see chart in figure 3).
1. CARE (Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc.) is a leading
humanitarian organization fighting global poverty worldwide. CARE seeks to empower
women and children globally by establishing projects throughout the developing
countries that assist the least fortunate inhabitants.
2. World Wings International was incorporated in the state of New York in 1959
as a philanthropic organization of former flight attendants of Pan American World
Airways. World Wings is a U.S.-based nonprofit organization and has partnered with
CARE in support of CARE's humanitarian efforts. While World Wings is primarily
involved in fundraising efforts, there is some participation of its members in the oversight
of international and local philanthropic projects.
3. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
works tirelessly 24/7 toward the goals of preventing animal cruelty and finding
permanent, loving homes for America's adoptable pets. Chapters of the SPCA, such as
the Peninsula Humane Society, work toward the overarching goals of the ASPCA at the
local level.
4. Breathe California is dedicated to healthy air and preventing lung and other air
pollution-related diseases by working with the community. Breathe California was a

37
chapter of The American Lung Association until 2006. They established their
independent charter in 2006. Breathe California serves over 140,000 people in the San
Francisco Bay area.
5. Japanese-American Museum of San Jose (JAMS) preserves and disseminates
information about the culture and history of Japanese Americans, with a special focus on
the Santa Clara Valley, California. JAMS board is committed to outreach throughout the
community in order to educate the community about Japanese history and culture.
6. TESOL is the acronym for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages. TESOL is the largest and most well-known organization that serves teaching
professionals worldwide. Based in Alexandria, Virginia, TESOL serves thousands of
educators by providing networking opportunities and professional development courses
to professionals who often would have no way to improve and/or enhance best practices
in the profession of teaching language acquisition and development. TESOL's mission is
to ensure excellence in English language instruction.
7. Mission Hospice provides quality professional care and compassionate support
for terminally ill patients. In March of 1979, Mission Hospice was incorporated in San
Mateo County, California. Since that time, Mission Hospice has served thousands of
terminally ill patients and their loved ones.
8. The Chaffey College Foundation was organized and established in 1987 by
friends and alumni of the college. The purpose of the foundation is to retain Chaffey's
leadership role in higher education by raising the necessary funds to fulfill student
enrichment and goals. The task is achieved through student scholarships and
38
programs/facility enhancements. The Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization of
dedicated community leaders who volunteer their time.
9. Altrusa International is a U.S.-based international association of professional
women and men who volunteer their energies and expertise in projects dedicated to
community betterment. Altrusa is also a community service organization that espouses
volunteerism, service, and fights for literacy and against AIDS.
In the twenty-first century there are a growing number of organizations that are
present in the virtual world (Internet) as well as the physical world. An example of a
successful Internet-based nonprofit organization is Bridges for Women. Collins (2007)
stated, "Bridges, offers employability programs for abused women. Opened in Victoria,
British Columbia, Canada in 1988, Bridges now runs 12 offices around B.C. and also
offers classes through its website. . . . But for Bridges, and other nonprofits like them, a
presence in a virtual world could be the future of their operations" (A19). Bridges for
Women has established its presence in the virtual world of Second Life
(http://www.secondlife.com).
When considering the operations and functions of boards, in the physical world or
in the virtual world, the board chairperson sets the tone for the board and for the
organization. In his book, The Unique Double Servant Leadership Role of the Board
Chairperson, John Carver (1999) explains the transformative role of the board
chairperson or the board president and its relationship to servant leadership. He states,
"The governing role of any board is not to administer an institution, but to be an owner-
representative . . . must recognize that proper governance is a logical impossibility if it

39
does not include the concept of servant-leadership. The board is a microcosm of the
ownership . . . the board is an organ of ownership" (6).
In the monograph, John Carver (1999) explains his Policy Governance® model
and the role of the chairperson. He coded his Policy Governance model of board
leadership and applies it to all governing. Carver then positions Policy Governance with
respect to Greenleaf's work. He explains how his vision of effective governance and the
use of servant leadership result in effective transformative board leadership and thus
transformational organizational change. Carver says, "If the judgment of history is kind,
the Policy Governance model may merit being seen as a technology of Servant-
leadership" (4). In other words, the board chairperson is the servant leader leading the
servant leaders. The Policy Governance model is explained as follows:
Policy Governance®, an integrated board leadership paradigm created by

Dr. John Carver, is a groundbreaking model of governance designed to empower
boards of directors to fulfill their obligation of accountability for the organizations
they govern. As a generic system, it is applicable to the governing body of any
enterprise. The model enables the board to focus on the larger issues, to delegate
with clarity, to control management's job without meddling, to rigorously evaluate
the accomplishment of the organization; to truly lead its organization.
In contrast to the approaches typically used by boards, Policy Governance
separates issues of organizational purpose (ENDS) from all other organizational
issues (MEANS), placing primary importance on those Ends. Policy Governance
boards demand accomplishment of purpose, and only limit the staff's available
means to those which do not violate the board's pre-stated standards of prudence
and ethics. (PolicyGovernance.com 2009)
History of Servant Leadership
The concept of servant leadership came to be as a result of Robert K. Greenleaf's
forty years at American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T). Robert Greenleaf (1904-
1990) spent much of his time working in the field of organizational management and
40
research, development, and education. He then went on to become a consultant for
twenty-five more years after his retirement from AT&T. Greenleaf concluded that
leadership should meet the needs of the members of the organization/group and should be
focused on others rather than oneself. In other words, leadership should not be guided by
self-interest. He founded the Center for Applied Ethics in 1964, and the center became
the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership in 1985. He published many essays,
monographs, papers, and books on the subject of servant leadership.
Greenleaf (1977) had a twofold concern: "First for the individual in society and
his bent to deal with the massive problems of our times wholly in terms of systems,
ideologies, and movements . . . [and] second . . . for the individual as a serving person
and his tendency to deny wholeness and creative fulfillment for himself by failing to lead
when he could lead" (7).
The concept of servant leadership came from two major sources: first, Greenleaf's
years of work with large organizations and his observations of leadership within these
organizations and second, his reading of Herman Hesse's novel Journey to the East. In
Hesse's novel a group of people take a mythical journey on a spiritual quest. The central,
sustaining person on the quest is Leo. Greenleaf (2008) relates,
Leo accompanies the party as the servant who does their menial chores, but who
also sustains them with his spirit and his song. He is a person of extraordinary
presence. All goes well until Leo disappears. Then the group falls into disarray
and the journey is abandoned. They cannot make it without the servant Leo. The
narrator, one of the party, after some years of wandering finds Leo and is taken
into the Order that had sponsored the journey. There he discovers that Leo, whom
he had known first as servant, was in fact the titular head of the Order, its guiding
spirit, a great and noble leader. (27)
41
Greenleaf (2008) finds that Hesse's story clearly says, "The great leader is seen as
servant first, and that simple fact is the key to his greatness. Leo was actually the leader
all of the time, but he was servant first because that was what he was, deep down inside"
(9). Greenleaf uses the reference to Hesse as an introduction to his writing about servant
leadership and his thesis, "that more servants should emerge as leaders, or should follow
only servant-leaders" (12).
Greenleaf (2008) recognized that his concept of servant leader was a contradiction
in terms and that the world is full of contradictions. He also prophetically recognized that
"among the legions of deprived and unsophisticated people are many true servants who
will lead, and that most of them can learn to discriminate among those who presume to
serve them and identify the true servants" (16). Robert Greenleaf coined the term servant
leader and published his first booklet about servant leadership, The Servant as Leader, in
1970. The revised printing was published in 2008.
Larry Spears, CEO of the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership until 2007,
studied the original works of Robert Greenleaf and identified the ten principles of
servant leadership: (1) listening, (2) empathy, (3) healing, (4) awareness, (5) persuasion,
(6) conceptualization, (7) foresight, (8) stewardship, (9) commitment to growth, and
(10) building community. Albert Einstein understood the concept of serving when he
said, "The high destiny of the individual is to serve rather than to rule." Servant
leadership is a way to work toward that high destiny (Keith 2008, 30).
Kent M. Keith (2008), current CEO of the Greenleaf Center for Servant
Leadership, explained, "The concept of servant leadership is closely aligned with the
42
concepts of stewardship, co-leadership and transforming leadership" (10). He went on to
explain,
A transactional leader may be a power-oriented leader. . . . A transforming leader

may be a servant-leader, a 'servant-first' because he or she satisfied higher needs,
and converts followers into leaders and leaders into moral agents. . . . The
transforming leader looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy
higher needs, and engages the full person of the follower. The result of
transforming leadership is a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that
converts followers and leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents. (12)
In his book, The Case for Servant Leadership, Keith (2008) recognized other
experts such as Ken Blanchard, who Keith said was convinced that "servant leadership is
the foundation for effective leadership" (31). Keith also recognizes Stephen Covey, Peter
Drucker, Jim Collins, and Peter Senge, among others, as advocates of servant leadership
due to their recognition of servant leadership as "the deeper territory of true leadership"
(Senge 1995).
Larry Spears (1995) stated,
We are beginning to see that traditional autocratic and hierarchical modes of

leadership are slowly yielding to a newer model—one that attempts to
simultaneously enhance the personal growth of workers and improve the quality
and caring of our many institutions through a combination of teamwork and
community, personal involvement in decision making, and ethical and caring
behavior. This emerging approach to leadership and service is called servant-
leadership. (2)
Servant Leadership in the Profession of Education
There have been studies throughout the United States that detail the work of
exemplary teachers and their successful use of servant leadership in their teaching
practice. Servant Leadership and the art of Teaching, by Joshua B. Powers and John W.
Moore (2004) examines how servant leadership is fundamental to the practice and
43
profession of successful teachers. They stated, "Recent scholarship on teaching practice
reinforces Greenleaf's ideas on serving students. . . . Their study of more collaboratively
based and active-learning approaches to teaching showed highly significant increases in
learning over the traditional passive lecture approach. Best practices in teaching display
the ten principles of servant leadership to varying degrees" (7).
In 2001, Dr. Karin A. Lubin published her dissertation about "Visionary Leader
Behaviors and Their Congruency with Servant Leadership Characteristics." The data
collection relied on oral responses to interview questions based on Larry Spears's (1995)
ten characteristics of servant leadership. Dr. Lubin interviewed "visionary leaders" at
small school sites. Based upon the questions that all of the interviewees answered, Dr.
Lubin then looked for associations between categories of data that included the ten
principles of servant leadership. Dr. Lubin found that the behaviors of visionary leaders
were congruent with nine of the ten principles of servant leadership. The evidence of this
premise was also presented in Todd Bliss's (2006) University of La Verne dissertation.
Dr. Bliss's study, "Servant Leadership in K-12 Distinguished Teacher's
Professional Practice," validated the employment of the ten principles of servant
leadership by outstanding teachers in Monterey County, California. He interviewed
"thirty-five publicly recognized distinguished teachers. The teachers were asked to give
examples of actions that are congruent with the characteristics of servant leadership. His
study examined the perceived relationships between successful teaching techniques
utilized by outstanding teachers and servant leadership practices as defined by Robert
Greenleaf (1977) and Larry Spears (1995)" (Bliss 2006, 10-12). Studies have consistently
44
validated the use of some, or all, of the ten principles of servant leadership by successful
educational leaders.
Servant Leadership in Religious Life
Servant leadership is prevalent throughout religious and secular life. Some of
those who have answered the call to be servant leaders are those who have entered the
ministry. Rick Warren, founding pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California,
gave the invocation speech at the Inauguration of President Barack Obama on January 20,
2009. The content of his speech included the concept of servant leadership. In his most
recent book, The Purpose-Driven Life, Rick Warren (2002) explains his vision of life's
purpose within a religious context. His biblical references and quotes lead the reader on a
journey of self-discovery. Rick Warren writes, "Servants think about their work, not what
others are doing. They don't compare, criticize, or compete with other servants or
ministries. They're too busy doing the work" (268). The book is written to guide the
reader toward religious discovery; however, the essence of servant leadership can be
derived from several passages throughout the book.
Ten Principles of Servant Leadership
We are all of us both leaders and followers in different parts of our lives. Servant-
Leadership encourages everyone to balance leading and serving within his or her
own lives. For people who are in leadership positions, it reminds us that our
primary responsibility is in serving others. For those in follower positions, it
encourages us to look for situational opportunities to provide leadership. The end
result of this moving back-and-forth between leading and following is to enhance
our lives as individuals, and to raise the very possibilities of our many institutions.
—Burkhardt and Spears, Servant-leadership and Philanthropic Institutions
45
The work of Robert K. Greenleaf Center inspired Larry C. Spears to become the
CEO of the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, located in Indianapolis, Indiana.
After carefully studying Greenleaf's work, Spears identified ten characteristics of servant
leadership. Larry Spears retired in 2008, and Kent M. Keith became the CEO of the
Greenleaf Center. The ten characteristics, identified by Spears, became known as the ten
principles of servant leadership (Spears 1995). The ten principles are the foundation of
servant leadership today . The principles are: listening, empathy, healing, awareness,
persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth, and
building community.
Betsy N. Hine (2008) volunteered her library skills and expertise for the benefit of
the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. She compiled The Hine Bibliography of
Selected Monographic Resources on Servant Leadership. The Hine Bibliography serves
as a definitive resource for those wishing to study servant leadership more in depth.
A review of the literature presents many writers who have expressed, as Lubin
(2001) stated, "the dilemma of leadership that is disconnected from the workers whom
the leaders serve. Emerging alternative leadership models are especially relevant in
today's world. Servant Leadership offers a model which embraces people in relationships
and incorporates ethical and caring values" (30).
Writers who were pioneers in the field of servant leadership and/or addressed one
or more of the ten principles of servant leadership in detail include Autry (2001), Bekkers
(2004a, 2004b), Berger (1991), Blanchard (2003), Block (1996), Bollier (1996), Carver
(1999), Collins (2001), Covey (1991), Covey, Merrill, and Merrill (1995), DePree (1995),
46
Greenleaf (1972, 1977), Keith (2008), Kim (2002), Kouzes and Posner (1995), Light
(2008), Maxwell (2007), Powers and Moore (2004), Senge (1990), Senge et al. (1994),
Spears (1995, 1997, 2001, 2004, 2005), Wheatley (2002), and many more. The ten
principles of servant leadership are highlighted by several of these writers and scholars as
follows:
1. Listening. Leaders have traditionally been valued for their communication and
decision-making skills. While these are also important skills for the servant leader, they
need to be reinforced by a deep commitment to listening intently to others. The servant
leader seeks to identify the will of a group and helps clarify that will. He or she seeks to
listen receptively to what is being said. Listening, coupled with regular periods of
reflection, is essential to the growth of the servant-leader. Spears (1995) stated,
"Listening, coupled with regular periods of reflection, is essential to the growth of the
servant leader" (4).
2. Empathy. The servant leader strives to understand and empathize with others.
People need to be accepted and recognized for their special and unique spirits. One
assumes the good intentions of coworkers and does not reject them as people, even if one
finds it necessary to refuse to accept their behavior or performance. Burkhardt and Spears
(2000) pointed out, "They accept and recognize others for their unique gifts and spirits.
One assumes the good intentions of co-workers and does not reject them as people" (4).
3. Healing. One of the great strengths of servant leadership is the potential for
healing oneself and others. Many people have broken spirits and have suffered from a
variety of emotional hurts. Although this is part of being human, servant leaders
47
recognize that they also have an opportunity to "help make whole" those with whom they
come in contact. In Practicing Servant Leadership, Spears (2004) writes, "There is
something subtle communicated to one who is being served and led if implicit in the
compact between servant-leader and led is the understanding that the search for
wholeness is something they share" (8). We find examples and stories about healing
oneself and healing others throughout religious and secular history. Healing is perhaps
one of the most powerful of the principles but perhaps the least publicized or understood.
4. Awareness. General awareness, and especially self-awareness, strengthens the
servant leader. Awareness also aids one in understanding issues involving ethics and
values. It lends itself to being able to view most situations from a more integrated,
holistic position. As Greenleaf (1991) observed: "Awareness is not a giver of solace--it is
just the opposite. It is a disturber and an awakener. Able leaders are usually sharply
awake and reasonably disturbed. They are not seekers after solace. They have their own
inner serenity" (29).
Best-selling author James A. Autry (2001) substantiates this concept when he
writes, "The art of acceptance does not imply that you accept everyone's ideas without
critical analysis, discussion, and judgment—only that you accept the ideas as valid for
discussion and review, and that you focus on the ideas themselves, not on the person who
presented them" (17).
5. Persuasion. Another characteristic of servant leaders is a primary reliance on
persuasion rather than positional authority in making decisions within an organization.
Spears (1995) stated, "The servant-leader seeks to convince others rather than coerce
48
compliance. This particular element offers one of the clearest distinctions between the
traditional authoritarian model and that of servant-leadership. The servant-leader is
effective at building consensus within groups" (5). Greenleaf (1977) explained persuasion
succinctly when he said, "Leadership by persuasion has the virtue of change by
convincement rather than coercion. Its advantages are obvious" (31).
Barack Obama is an example of a persuasive leader and potentially a servant
leader. His campaign speeches were both charismatic and persuasive during his campaign
to be elected as president of the United States. He campaigned on a platform for change
in the United States. The American people will ultimately decide if he was a servant
leader.
6. Conceptualization. Servant leaders seek to nurture their abilities to "dream
great dreams." The ability to look at a problem (or an organization) from a
conceptualizing perspective means that one must think beyond day-to-day realities. For
many managers this is a characteristic that requires discipline and practice. Servant
leaders are called to seek a delicate balance between conceptual thinking and a day-to-
day focused approach.
Consider the case of Howard Schultz who was recruited by one of the original
owners of Starbucks, teacher Jerry Baldwin, to be head of sales and marketing. Bollier
(1996) related that Schultz was on a buying trip to Italy and he noticed that the Italians
"were passionate about their coffee. . . . No matter what people were doing during the
day, when they entered the coffee bars, there was a feeling of safety, of warmth, of
comfort. Almost an extension of their front porch" (213). Schultz's ability to

49
conceptualize what Starbuck's could be is a classic example of servant leadership and the
employment of conceptual thinking and a day-to-day focused approach. The success of
the servant leadership at Starbuck's is self-explanatory.
7. Foresight. Foresight is a characteristic that enables the servant leader to
understand the lessons from the past, the realities of the present, and the likely
consequence of a decision for the future. It is also deeply rooted within the intuitive
mind. Foresight remains a largely unexplored area in leadership studies but one most
deserving of careful attention.
Dr. Daniel Kim (2002), author and consultant, explains that there needs to be
foresight in the face of complexity, that forecasting is different from predicting, that there
is a difference between helping and meddling, that the role of vision is important to
gaining foresight, that we have the power to choose responsibly, that we are the stewards
for our children's future, that ultimately, "Only then, from a place of authenticity, may we
answer the call to serve. . . . Foresight is about being able to perceive the significance and
nature of events before they have occurred (which is achievable)" (3).
8. Stewardship. Robert Greenleaf's view of all institutions was one in which
CEOs, staffs, and trustees all played significant roles in holding their institutions in trust
for the greater good of society. Servant leadership, like stewardship, assumes first and
foremost a commitment to serving the needs of others. It also emphasizes the use of
openness and persuasion rather than control. According to Greenleaf (1972), "The most
important qualification for trustees should be that they care for the institution, which
means that they care for all of the people the institution touches, and that they are
50
determined to make their caring count" (15). Another interpretation by Spears and
Lawrence (2004) of this fundamental principal of servant leadership is that "foundations
operate as stewards for a public interest. They hold resources on behalf of a society"
(240).
9. Commitment to the growth of people. Servant leaders believe that people have
an intrinsic value beyond their tangible contributions as workers. As a result, the servant
leader is deeply committed to the growth of each and every individual within the
institution. The servant leader recognizes the tremendous responsibility to do everything
possible to nurture the growth of employees.
Leonard O. Pellicer (2003), retired Dean of the School of Organizational
Leadership, University of La Verne, explained what nurturing others is when he wrote,
"Leaders are servants to their followers in that they seek to remove the obstacles that
prevent them from doing their jobs and to give them the freedom and incentive to live up
to their potential, while completing themselves as human beings" (17).
Kent M. Keith (2008), CEO of the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership,
noted, "The servant-leader takes great pleasure in helping others to grow and become all
that they can be" (45). He went on to say, "Servant-leaders know that the mission of the
organization is bigger than any one person. By developing their colleagues, servant-
leaders improve not only the organization's performance today but far into the future"
(46)
10. Building community. The servant leader senses that much has been lost in
recent human history as a result of the shift from local communities to large institutions
51
as the primary shaper of human lives. This awareness causes the servant leader to seek to
identify some means for building community among those who work within a given
institution. Servant leadership suggests that true community can be created among those
who work in businesses and other institutions. Robert K. Greenleaf said, "All that is
needed to rebuild community as a viable life form for large numbers of people is for
enough servant-leaders to show the way, not by mass movements, but by each servant-
leader demonstrating his own unlimited liability for a quite specific community-related
group" (Larry Spears, former CEO, Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership).
Peter Senge (1990) presents compelling evidence for the principle of building
community. Senge presents the five principles he sees as central to building learning
organizations and some issues and questions concerning the theory and practice of
learning organizations as they are related to servant leadership. Senge states, "Since 1989
our classrooms have undergone an amazing transformation. Our jobs have shifted from
dispensers of information to producers of environments that allow students to learn as
much as possible. . . . Not only are we covering more materials than just the required
curriculum, but we are covering it faster" (489). One may consider the concept of a
learning community in the bigger picture of all organizations. The emergence of the
global economy and global information at warp speed dictates that we must convert
systems learning to learning communities so that we can teach all citizens of the global
community as rapidly as possible.

52
Servant Leadership Theory and Models
Leadership, in all cultures, affects not only those who follow, but also the leaders
themselves, the products, patients, clients, customers, and all of the constituents involved
in a business and/or service. The quality of leadership shapes the long-term results for
every organization at every level. Success or failure depends upon what Robert Greenleaf
originally distinguished as the difference between the power model versus the service
model. The power model includes leaders who seek power because of their own needs,
not the needs of others. The power model rarely, if ever, endures over time because
people choose to follow leaders they love and trust. Those who seek power for their own
self-interest do not earn trust and thus have a difficult time inspiring a shared vision.
Leaders who use the power model seek compliance and offer payment for that
compliance; or they threaten lack of payment for lack of compliance (Greenleaf 2008).
In an attempt to give cohesion to the development of a theory, Stone, Russell, and
Patterson (2004) established a practical model of servant leadership. They also identified
functional and accompanying attributes of servant leadership (see table 1).
Because the practice of servant leadership is empowering, it is also considered to
be transformational. People can choose to transform the way they do things when their
values change (Kouzes and Posner 1995). Kouzes and Posner (2009) recently wrote,
"Being forward-looking—envisioning exciting possibilities and enlisting others in a
shared vision of the future—is the attribute that most distinguishes leaders from non-
leaders" (1). Examples of transformational leaders are Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther
King, Mahatma Gandhi, and Mother Teresa (Bliss 2006).

53
Table 1. Attributes of servant leadership
Functional attribute Accompanying attribute
Vision Communication
Honesty, integrity Credibility
Trust Competence
Service Stewardship
Modeling Visibility
Pioneering Influence
Persuasion
Appreciation Listening
Encouragement
Empowerment Teaching
Delegation
Tosi, Mero, and Rizzo (2005) explained,
Transformational leaders articulate a vision that subordinates can understand and

accept. [They] do this by providing an optimistic and attainable view of the
future. [They] empower subordinates. This means two things. First, you must be
willing to delegate important responsibilities to them (subordinates) to
demonstrate your confidence in their ability. Second, you have to use language
that lets them know that you believe they can succeed and that you will help them
to succeed. (480)
Since we know that persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, and
commitment to personal growth and the growth of others are all principles of servant
leadership, we can understand how servant leadership empowers others to transform
themselves and their organizations (Tosi, Mero, and Rizzo 2005).
Values are the ideas and/or beliefs that guide us through the process toward
decision(s) and action(s). It is our values that influence and direct our actions. When we
alue others we naturally work toward the betterment of each individual and ultimately the
54
group as a whole by empowering others to achieve the common goals of the organization
(Tosi, Mero, and Rizzo 2005).
Dr. Thomas J. Sergiovanni (2007), in his book Rethinking Leadership, writes
about moral leadership, instructional leadership, and building learning communities. He
explains the effects of values-based leadership this way:
The prizing of social machinery beyond its technical role is largely a reflection of
the unique way it fulfills personal or group needs. Whenever individuals become
attached to an organization or a way of doing things as persons rather than as
technicians, the result is a prizing of the device for its own sake. From the
standpoint of the committed person, the organization is changed from an
expendable tool into a valued source of personal satisfaction. (13)
Herzberg's (1959) motivators and hygiene (as shown in figure 2) show that
achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, and advancement are the primary
motivators for working individuals. Consider Sergiovanni's theory showing that work can
become a valued source of personal satisfaction and look at it through the lens of
Herzberg's motivators. One can understand the importance of leadership that empowers
individuals to take pride in themselves and their work. Servant leadership empowers
individuals to be the best they can be, thereby empowering them at work and in their
personal lives (Sergiovanni 2007).
Another perspective through which one can observe servant leadership is
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, which is reproduced here (figure 1). Maslow's theory was
the basis of most twentieth century motivational theory. The hierarchy details the
following concept. As an individual satisfies each level of need, his or her desire to
satisfy the next level of need becomes the major motivator. In this manner, the individual
satisfies survival needs, then basic needs, and finally mental and spiritual needs. As an
55
individual fulfills each level of need(s) in the pyramid, he or she approaches and achieves
self-actualization.
Table 1 presented the traits of servant leadership as seen within the "Six
Organizational Health Level Descriptions" (Laub 2005, 180). The complete model is
displayed in figure 3. The model in figure 4 presents a snapshot of the two highest levels
of organizational health, according to author Jim Laub (1999). The two highest levels of
organizational health are optimal health and excellent health. Wherever servant
56
leadership is practiced, one will observe most or all of the traits of leadership as they
appear in the top two tiers of the model.
Servant Leadership is…

an understanding and practice of leadership that places the good of those led over the self-interest of
the leader. Servant leadership promotes the valuing and development of people, the building of
community, the practice of authenticity, the providing of leadership for the good of those led and
the sharing of power and status for the common good of each individual, the total organization and
those served by the organization.
The Servant Leader…
Values People * By believing in people

* By serving other's needs before his or her own
* By receptive, non-judgmental listening
Develops People * By providing opportunities for learning and growth
* By modeling appropriate behavior
* By building others through encouragement and
affirmation
Builds Community * By building strong personal relationships
* By working collaboratively with others
* By valuing the differences of others
Displays Authenticity * By being open and accountable to others (transparency)
* By a willingness to learn from others
* By maintaining integrity and trust
Provides Leadership * By envisioning the future
* By taking initiative
* By clarifying goals
Shares Leadership * By facilitating a shared vision
* By sharing power and releasing control
* By sharing status and promoting others
The Servant Organization is…
…an organization in which the characteristics of servant leadership are displayed through the
organization culture and are valued and practiced by the leadership and workforce.
Figure 4. Servant leadership and the servant organization (OLA) model. Source: Laub 2003.
Reprinted with permission.
Dr. Laub (2003) came to the following conclusion as a result of his research and
development of the organizational leadership assessment (OLA model in figure 4):

57
Through the accumulation of these changes (evolving from paternalistic to servant

leadership) a critical mass of organizations will begin to take seriously their
responsibility to lead and serve their communities, their workers and their world
who will, through the power of their example, create a new model of leadership
that will literally transform the way organizations are experienced. (13).
During these challenging times, conclusions such as Laub's are increasing in significance
as organizations, and the people who make up the organizations, face global and personal
economic challenges of epic proportions.
Laub's OLA model, "Servant Leadership and the Servant Organization," might be
considered a rubric and/or a checklist for observing the successful practice of servant
leadership. The central theme of the OLA model (figure 4) presents the concept that the
good of the group is always more important than the interests of the individual leading
the group. When this concept is practiced, trust is built. Where there is trust there are
individuals who will work toward the good of the group, above and beyond the call of
duty and the basic requirements of the organization (Laub 1999).
The OLA Model (figure 4) is a graphic presentation that displays the principles of
servant leadership embedded within explanations of the practice of servant leadership. As
one reviews the model, the ten principles may be seen embedded within the model. The
principles are (1) listening, (2) empathy, (3) healing, (4) awareness, (5) persuasion,
(10) building community. Look for the ten principles as key words within the model.
Listening is seen next to "values people." Empathy is included as "receptive,
nonjudgmental listening." Healing is included within the concept of "building others."
Awareness may be seen as both "believing in people" and being "receptive." Persuasion
58
may be viewed in the model through the lens of "modeling appropriate behavior" and
"clarifying goals." Conceptualization is visible within the concept of "envisioning the
future." Foresight is also included within the concept of "provides leadership" by
"envisioning the future" and "taking initiative." Stewardship is clearly within the domains
of authenticity and shared leadership. Commitment to growth appears within the topic
of "develops people." Building community has its own category as seen in the model in
figure 4.
Chapter Summary
The new millennium was ushered in with all the speed and change that is a result
of the Internet, digital technology, satellite technology, population growth, environmental
and ecological change, and all of the issues that go along with rapid growth and change.
The ability to cope with rapid change and global issues will be shaped by the quality of
leaders domestically and globally. Kent Keith (2008) summed up the importance of
leadership in a changing world in his book, The Case for Servant Leadership:
The fact is that you and I, as individuals, can't control the external world. We can't
control the world economy, and the rate of population growth. We can't control
the weather, or natural disasters like fires and floods. We can't control when
terrorists may strike or wars may break out. We can't control which companies
will acquire which companies, and which jobs will be downsized and which jobs
will open up. We can work hard, and prepare, and seize opportunities – and we
should. We can join with others to influence those external events – and we
should do that, too. But there are lots of things in our external world we just can't
control. (60).
The topics in this chapter focused on leadership theory, philanthropy and
volunteerism, volunteer board leadership of nonprofit philanthropic organizations, a brief
history of servant leadership, servant leadership in education and in religious life, servant
59
leadership theory and models, and an in-depth review of the ten principles of servant
leadership.
This study examined the extent to which the ten principles of servant leadership
motivate nonpaid volunteer leaders who serve on the boards of nonprofit, philanthropic
organizations. The study showed that each of the ten principles of servant leadership
plays a key role in board leadership.
Chapter III presents the methodology used for this study. Chapter IV presents the
findings of the study. Chapter V examines to what degree each of the ten principles of
servant leadership motivates nonpaid volunteers who serve on the boards of directors of
nonprofit, philanthropic organizations. Chapter V also presents conclusions and ideas for
future study.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Chapter III presents the methodology used for this study including the kind of
research used, a description of the population and sample, an explanation of the
instrumentation developed and used by the researcher, procedures used for data
collection, and procedures used for statistical analysis of the data. The limitations of the
methodology are discussed at the end of the chapter (Roberts 2004).
Research Questions
60
61
serve?
Type of Research and Design
The type of research selected for the study was descriptive. Descriptive studies
are nonexperimental research. Descriptive research strives to accurately and
systematically describe areas of interest and/or situations that look at how often, how
much, or how many times incidents occur that either validate or invalidate the research
questions (Isaac and Michael 1990). Descriptive study employs the use of questionnaires,
surveys, and/or interviews. Descriptive studies include "task analysis studies,
questionnaire and interview studies, critical incident reports" (43). Data were collected
using interviews that were coded (appendix M), translated, and then analyzed in a logical
manner with respect to the topic(s) presented in this study (Harvey 1996).
Population and Sample
The target population of this study consisted of all nonpaid volunteer members of
the boards of directors of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations in the United States.
Not all nonprofit, philanthropic organizations have boards of directors. As noted by the
62
Urban Institute National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS), the number of small
community groups and partnerships, et cetera is unknown for reporting purposes
(appendix K). Therefore, for the purposes of this study, the number of nonprofit
organizations that would most likely have boards is listed on the chart in appendix K.
There were over 1.4 million nonprofit organizations in the United States as of 2006 (see
appendix K). The Urban Institute breaks down the classifications of 501(c)(3) public
charities into several detailed categories (appendix K).
This study included twenty participants who were on the boards of one (or more),
out of a total of ten, human welfare nonprofit organizations; ten participants who were
on the boards of one or more of three educational nonprofit organizations; and three
individuals who were on the board of an animal welfare nonprofit organization.
Board members who were paid, who worked for organizations that operated for
profit, or who worked outside of the United States were not considered for this study.
Sampling was done according to criteria defined as follows:
1. The board members were nonpaid.
2. The board members were volunteers.
3. The board members were (at that time) currently working for one or more
nonprofit, philanthropic organization(s) within the United States of America.
4. Board members agreed to be interviewed regarding the critical incidents in
their lives that had occurred during their service on their current board positions.
5. Board members were active members of the boards of their organizations.

63
6. Board members participated in board operations and decisions and had
decision-making (e.g., voting) rights on their boards.
The researcher used purposive, nonrandom, criterion-based sampling for the
study. Purposive sampling relied on asking only individuals who had volunteered to
serve, and were currently serving, on boards of directors of nonprofit, philanthropic
organizations. The sources for the sample included public records, referrals from other
board members, and volunteers in the Third Sector (ARNOVA journal). ARNOVA is the
acronym used for Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary
Action. Sources also included directories such as the ARNOVA directory, the
researcher's contacts as a result of networking at the 2006 ARNOVA Conference,
referrals to members of boards of directors by active World Wings members in the
United States, nonprofit and Third Sector journals (e.g., Nonprofit Quarterly), other
University of La Verne doctoral candidates, and other individuals who were interested in
this study (e.g., the three participants who piloted the interview process and were part of
the expert panel).
The researcher sent a formal letter of introduction about this study, along with an
explanation of the purpose of the study (appendix E and appendix K), to board members
who were potential participants. The letter requested participation in the study. It was
sent to members of boards of directors of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations serving
on boards within the United States who agreed to participate in the study and resided in
Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, New York,
Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia. The letters were sent to members of
64
the boards of directors in these states as the researcher gained access and referrals to
names, e-mail addresses, physical addresses, and phone numbers of board members. The
delimiting factor was the time available to contact potential participants.
The researcher's goal was to finish the interview process by June 2008. That
meant that all participants would need to be contacted and agree to participate in the
study prior to June 2008. The first interview was conducted in April 2007, and the last
interview was conducted in June 2008. Therefore, the goal timeline for interviews was
achieved.
The letter introduced the researcher, explained the type of research, included a
brief description of servant leadership, and requested participation in the study. The issue
of confidentiality was addressed along with the promise that all responses and discussions
would remain completely confidential. The researcher explained to each participant that
the responses would be kept in a locked, secure safe and that the responses would be
deleted from the tapes after the study was published.
Instrumentation
Interview questions were open ended. The critical incident technique (CIT) was
used to ascertain if servant leadership was being practiced and exhibited. The researcher
found two University of La Verne dissertations to be particularly applicable to this study.
Todd Bliss, in his 2006 dissertation, at the University of La Verne (ULV) adapted
questions from Karen Lubin's dissertation. Karen Lubin's dissertation had been completed
at the University of La Verne (ULV) and published in 2001. The researcher, for this
study, adapted both Todd Bliss's and Karen Lubin's questions to fit the purpose of this
65
study. Both Todd Bliss and Karen Lubin granted their permission, in writing, to the
researcher (appendix F and appendix G). The questions used in this study were a hybrid
adaptation of Karen Lubin's (2001) questions used for her dissertation, "Visionary Leader
Behaviors and Their Congruency with Servant Leadership Characteristics" and Todd
Bliss's (2006) questions used for his dissertation, "Servant Leadership in K-12
Distinguished Teacher's Professional Practice."
Validity and Field-test
The two interview questions (critical incident technique) were field-tested for
alignment with the research questions and validation of the administration of the test.
Three pilot interviews were conducted to assure construct validity and finally interrater
reliability (Harvey and Drolet 2004) (appendix H). The three individuals interviewed
were (1) a current member of the board of directors of a nonprofit, philanthropic
organization who was also a practicing LCSW (Licensed Clinical Social Worker), (2) a
professor of education from CSULB (California State University Long Beach) who is
also active on an educational board, and (3) an MFCC (Marriage, Family, and Child
Counselor), California Board Certified, who was also active on a professional nonprofit
board (Harvey 1996). The reliability evaluators were not included in the study as
participants. The Field-test Interview Questionnaire Feedback Guide was used to assure
consistency and reliability among the three evaluators' responses and finally
administrator validation (appendix H).
The pilot interviewees (e.g., expert panel) listened to the researcher's presentation
of the questions contained in the Interview Guide (appendix D). The researcher asked the
66
expert panel to critically evaluate and consider any potential corrections that might need
to be made prior to beginning the interview process. The panel observed that the
Interview Guide and use of the critical incident technique would serve as an appropriate
catalyst for responses that would be useful for the purposes of the study.
The field-test proved that the respondents understood the researcher's instructions,
that the critical incident technique questions were clear, and that answers to the questions
were adequate and showed sufficient detail. Regional differences among the expert
participants were not noted even though there were gender differences, significant age
differences (twenty years or more), and the three "pilot participants" living in different
regions of the United States. One lived in Florida, one lived in Southern California, and
one lived near Washington state. There were no difficult sections or irrelevant questions.
The questions were perceived to be the appropriate length. The critical incident questions
were neither too easy nor too difficult to be understood. The experts in the pilot group did
mention that there might be times when what appeared to be a "satisfier" for one board
member might be a "dissatisfier" for another board member. Since the purpose of the
study was to identify incidents that were the most highly satisfying and the most highly
dissatisfying, this enhanced the potential value of the findings of the study.
The researcher developed a spreadsheet, which listed the ten principles of servant
leadership as ten categories. The researcher reviewed the transcripts from the pilot
interviews and pulled quotes and responses from the pilot interviews and deposited them
into one or more of the ten categories. To assure the reliability of the classifications of
raw data, the researcher sent the completed Raw Data Classification sheets to an expert
67
panel for review. The expert panel consisted of an assistant superintendent of a school
district (EdD, University of La Verne), a university professor (PhD Education, UCLA),
and a researcher and physician (PhD, UMass-Amherst, MD, NYU). Each reliability rater
made comments regarding the reliability of the raw data classifications and returned the
data classification charts (appendix R) to the researcher. The one observation that was
made by each reliability rater included the suggestion that, in some cases, comments by
subjects interviewed could fit into more than one category. The expert panel concurred
that the researcher's placement of the raw data into one or more of the data classifications
were essentially accurate.
Data Collection Procedures
After contacting as many executive directors and board presidents of nonprofit,
philanthropic organizations as possible, members of these organization(s) nominated
forty-seven board members as potential participants for the study. The nominees were
contacted directly by U.S. mail and/or e-mail (appendix E).
Thirty-seven individuals responded that they were willing and/or interested in
participating in the study. Individuals who responded that they were willing to participate
and were qualified to participate were sent a letter of consent to participate in the study
prior to participating in the study (appendix J).
Every individual who fit the criteria and responded with interest in the study was
interviewed. Three respondents were interviewed and their interviews were used as
validity interviews as explained in the "field-test" section of this chapter. One respondent
had appeared to be qualified and was interviewed. During the course of the interview, it
68
was noted that the participant was not qualified to participate, and the interview was not
used in the study. Therefore, there were a total of thirty-three participants whose
interviews were included in the study for data analysis and interpretation.
The interviews were arranged by telephone and/or e-mail, and they were
conducted by telephone. Each participant selected the interview time of his or her choice.
The researcher made every effort to conduct the telephone interview at the time of day
that was selected by the participant. The same questions (e.g., critical incident technique)
(appendix D) were asked of each person interviewed (Isaac and Michael 1990).
Interviewees were asked for their permission to be recorded. The interviewer also took
handwritten notes during the interviews and explained to the participants that notes would
be taken to remind the researcher of interview highlights. Interviews were scheduled for,
and lasted, approximately one hour. There were some interviews that concluded after
approximately thirty to forty-five minutes, and some interviews that lasted longer than
one hour. Confidentiality remained intact throughout the process of this study.
The critical incident technique was used to format the interview process. This
technique has been used for the past fifty years and is explained in the following manner:
The traditional critical incident technique (CIT) and variants of the same have
frequently been applied in service research for several decades. The technique has
often been used to capture data on and analyze both negative and positive critical
incidents. While one technique displays hosts of critical incidents in benchmark
type series (SIT), another variant describes the dynamism in one discrete critical
incident and a third the dynamism of the configuration of critical incidents
(SPAT). (Edvardsson and Roos 2001, 251-268)
Furthermore, Wikipedia explains the critical incident technique this way:
The Critical Incident Technique (or CIT) is a set of procedures used for collecting
direct observations of human behavior that have critical significance and meet
69
methodically defined criteria. These observations are then kept track of as

incidents, which are then used to solve practical problems and develop broad
psychological principles. A critical incident can be described as one that makes a
significant contribution—either positively or negatively—to an activity or
phenomenon. Critical incidents can be gathered in various ways, but typically
respondents are asked to tell a story about an experience they have had.
The interview questions, using the critical incident technique, were designed to
allow participants to discuss events that were the most highly satisfying and/or the most
highly dissatisfying during their service as board members.
The researcher transcribed each of the responses. The transcripts of the
conversations were then analyzed and quotes were abstracted (appendix O) that
addressed one or more of the ten principles of servant leadership. The principles are as
follows: (1) listening, (2) empathy, (3) healing, (4) awareness, (5) persuasion,
(10) building community.
The quotes were deposited into a spreadsheet, which listed the ten principles as
categories (appendix N). Interviews were tested and conducted to be as close to one hour
in length as possible. The interviews allowed more depth; because interviews provide an
immediate response from the interviewee to the interviewer, and interviews are
interactive. Interviews were taped on a digital tape recorder. The interviewer took notes
during the interview to flag critical elements of the responses for future analysis.
The interview data were transcribed from the tapes of the thirty-three interviews
and included the notes taken by the researcher during the interviews. All data were coded
according to alignment with the principles of servant leadership. Appendix A displays a

70
matrix of the alignment of the research questions and the ten principles of servant
leadership.
Data Analysis
The participant database included general information and demographic
information including the following: gender, position on the board, type of organization,
location of the organization, each participant's years of service on the board, and each
participant's total years of service as a volunteer. Each participant's critical incident
responses were deposited into one or more of the ten categories taken from the ten
principles of servant leadership: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion,
commitment, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth, building community. Strands
of themes and/or events related to the ten principles of servant leadership were
recognized, categorized, and earmarked. Dr. Edward Tronaas, PhD, assisted the
researcher with the initial development and coding of the categories for potential
responses (appendix M).
After careful analysis of the coded responses, the researcher identified actions and
events that displayed the manner in which nonpaid volunteer leaders on the boards of
directors of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations exhibited alignment/congruency with
the ten principles of servant leadership.
Limitations
1. There are many boards of directors in different areas of the country, and each
organization has its own corporate culture, which can lead to differences in responses.
71
2. Due to time constraints, interviews rarely exceeded one hour, thereby limiting
lengthy responses.
3. Interview techniques are subject to potential bias. Either the interviewer or the
interviewee might want to please the other person. Bias is a possibility in any verbal
interview due to potential voice intonation(s) (Isaac and Michael 1990).
4. Interviews require much more time than other information-gathering
techniques such as questionnaires or surveys. Time is its own pressure during a one-hour
time limit.
5. Interviews provide candid answers that may not be 100 percent objective.
There is no proven method to ascertain when a respondent is telling the absolute truth and
telling it objectively.
6. Data collection relied on perception(s) and subjectivity. Because this was a
descriptive study, there was always the potential for perception to enhance or diminish a
response. There was always the possibility that the perception of the researcher was not
completely objective. The researcher consciously made every effort to remain as
objective as possible throughout the process.
7. While one cannot prove qualitative behavior(s) or their results within the + or -
.05 percent confidence level, it is widely believed and accepted that leaders who use the
ten principles of servant leadership are more effective, successful leaders and that they
guide their organizations to achieve increased organizational success (Bliss 2006; Lubin
2001).
72
Chapter Summary
Chapter III detailed the methodology used to determine the principles of servant
leadership that motivate nonpaid volunteers to serve on the boards of directors of
nonprofit, philanthropic organizations. Purposive, nonrandom, criterion-based sampling
was used. Thirty-three nonpaid volunteer members of the boards of directors of nonprofit,
philanthropic organizations within the United States were identified and interviewed.
The researcher developed interview questions based upon the questionnaires used
by Karen Lubin's (2001) University of La Verne dissertation and Todd Bliss's (2006)
University of La Verne dissertation. The researcher then modified the critical incident
technique used by the two preceding researchers and developed a questionnaire
containing two critical incident questions to be asked of each participant. Three construct
validity interviews were conducted to assure interrater reliability. The field-test
interviews and questionnaire validated the critical incident technique for reliability and
consistency. Once interrater reliability was established, the researcher was ready to
proceed with the interviews.
The responses to the critical incident questions were coded and classified
according to a potential fit into any one or more of the ten principles of servant
leadership. Dr. Edward Tronaas (EdD, ULV 1991) and Dr. Jonathan Weiner (PhD,
University of Mass-Amherst 1974, MD NYU 1976) served as reliability experts during
the development of the coding system. Data were reviewed and classified into a
spreadsheet with individual and aggregate responses included under "satisfaction" and
73
"dissatisfaction" columns (appendix N). Limitations were listed along with their
rationale. Chapter IV presents the findings of this study.

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF THE DATA
Introduction
Chapter IV presents qualitative research results using descriptive study
methodology. Thirty-three telephone interviews were conducted using the critical
incident technique, which included two questions formulated by the researcher. The two
critical incident technique questions used for the interview were:
Interview question 1: Can you tell me about a time, or times, when you were most
highly satisfied with your volunteer work as a member of the board?
highly dissatisfied with your volunteer work as a member of the board?
Overview of the Presentation of the Data
Purpose
Research Questions

74
75
serve on the board of directors?
Profile of the Sample Population
Community leaders were asked to nominate potential participants for this study.
The community leaders nominated potential study participants who were volunteer board
members serving on the boards of directors of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations in
the United States. The researcher then verified that each nominee who was selected to
participate in the study fit the criterion to participate in the study. The criterion included
that participants must be volunteer board members serving on the boards of directors of
nonprofit, philanthropic corporations within the U.S.
The researcher developed three research questions, listed on the following page.
Each research question included three or more of the ten principles of servant leadership.
The research questions were placed in a matrix on the y-axis. The ten principles of
servant leadership were placed in the matrix on the x-axis (appendix A). The ten
principles of servant leadership are: (1) listening, (2) empathy, (3) healing, (4) awareness,
76
(5) persuasion, (6) conceptualization, (7) foresight, (8) stewardship, (9) commitment to
growth, and (10) building community. The matrix served as a tool to view the potential
alignment of the research questions with the ten principles of servant leadership.
The researcher used the critical incident technique as the format for the interview
instrument. Interviews were conducted over the telephone. The two interview questions
asked were (1) Can you tell me about a time, or times, when you were most highly
satisfied with your volunteer work as a member of the board of directors? and (2) Can
you tell me about a time, or times, when you were most highly dissatisfied with your
volunteer work as a member of the board of directors?
Profile of the Participants: Descriptive

Characteristics of Participants
Thirty-seven subjects participated in the interview process (see table 2 and
appendix L). All of the interviewees were active nonpaid board members. One subject
was disqualified because he or she did not meet the criterion for the study. Three
interviews were specifically not used for the purpose of the study because they were used
as field-test (e.g., validation and reliability) interviews (appendix H). Therefore, thirty-
three interviews were used for the purpose of the study. Twelve participants revealed that
they had advanced educational degrees (e.g., masters or doctorate). Twelve participants
stated that they were past or present presidents of their current boards or of a board on
which they had previously been a member. All participants were or had been voting
members of their boards.

77
Table 2. Source of data: Interview participants—General information
Total
years
Interview Position on Years on volunteer
participant Gender board Name/type of org. board service
NBS F President WWI 9 38

SF F Treasurer WWI 4 12
JB F VP ways and WWI 9 25
means
BG M Int'l membership WWI 1 5
CC F Record. secretary WWI 15 20
LJ F VP membership WWI 9 38
LA F Convent. coord. WWI 5 50
SH F VP charity WWI 3 5
JF F Corresp. sec. WWI 6 20
MS F President Breathe CA 20 26
MP F Board member PHS/SPCA,WWI 5 23
DG F Board member PARCA 2 36
TT M Past pres., bd. Breathe CA 16 20
mbr.
JD M Board member Breathe CA 2 10
DC F Board member Breathe CA 2 25
MM F Board member Mission Hosp./WWI 2 30
BYS F Board member PHS/SPCA 10 30
DF F Board member PHS/SPCA 10 30
SR F Board member Chaffy College 10 20
Foundation
SS F President Chaffey College 20 30
Foundation
LS M Board member Chaffey College 20 40
Foundation
MF F Board member Mission Hospice-San 1 5
Mate
GC F Past pres., bd. Mission Hospice-San 1 25
mbr. Mate
SG M Asst. chairperson Vista Center. for the 15 15
Blind
JO F President Stanford Child. Aux.- 3 20
Burl.
BB1 M Board member TESOL 3 7
78
Table 2 (Continued)
Total
years
Interview Position on Years on volunteer
participant Gender board Name/type of org. board service
JA F Board member Palm Beach. County. 8 8

NTC
GL F Board member McKinley Children's 2 40
Center
GH M Past pres., ARC, McKinley Child. 7 30
bd.mbr. chair Ctr., United Way
MA M Pres.elect, TESOL 7 28
bd.mbr.
BB M Past pres., bd. David & Margaret 6 30
mbr. Family Services
JWH F Pres., board Altrusa International, 4 10
member WWI
AI F VP, past pres. Japanese American 20 20
Museum of SJC
33 participants 9 males *12 past /present Types of organizations— Total Total

24 females board presidents 10 Human welfare- board volunteer
related orgs years = years =
*3 Content *12+ board 3 Education-related 269 771
validity members orgs
interviews have 1 Animal welfare- Average Average
not included advanced related orgs per board per board
on this list degrees Bd. mbrs. interviewed member = member =
from following orgs. 8.15 yrs. 23.36 yrs.
20 human welfare orgs.
10 educational orgs.
3 animal welfare-
related orgs.
The types of organizations represented in the study included ten human welfare
organizations, three educational organizations, and one animal welfare organization. All
of the organizations represented in this study have parent organizations, subsidiary
organizations, and/or chapter organizations throughout the United States. This added to
the richness of the study because the types of organizations represented in the study were
79
representative of organizations throughout the United States. Eight participants reported
that they were concurrently serving on more than one board of more than one nonprofit,
philanthropic organization.
Appendix O presents a graphic display of the number of years each participant
served on his or her respective board as compared to the total number of years he or she
served as a volunteer in any capacity. Table 2 shows the data for those figures. Each of
the participants' total number of years as a volunteer was equal to or greater than each of
their total years of service on the board. The aggregate number of years of nonprofit
board service for all of the participants in this study (e.g., thirty-three board members)
totaled 269 years. The aggregate number of years of volunteer service in any capacity, for
the same group of thirty-three participants, totaled 771 years (see table 2).
All of the interviews were conducted by phone. Participants were given as much
time as they needed to answer the two interview questions. To reiterate, the two interview
questions were (1) Can you tell me about a time, or times, when you were most highly
satisfied with your volunteer work as a member of the board? and (2) Can you tell me
about a time, or times, when you were most highly dissatisfied with your volunteer work
as a member of the board?
The interviews ranged in length from a minimum of forty minutes to a maximum
of one hour and a half. The respondents were asked to give examples of their most highly
satisfying and most highly dissatisfying experiences during their time as nonpaid
volunteer board members. The responses were divided into two categories: (1) most
satisfying and (2) most dissatisfying.

80
In summary, this study included thirty-three nonpaid board members representing
the boards of directors of fourteen different nonprofit, philanthropic organizations. The
thirty-three respondents represented 771 total years of volunteer experience with an
average of 23.36 years of volunteer experience per person. The total years of experience
on the board, for all thirty-three respondents, was 269 years with an average of 8.13 years
on the board per person. The researcher noted that the numbers of years of board service
per person varied greatly. Three respondents had one year of experience, while four
respondents had twenty years of experience (see table 2).
Findings
Overview of the Findings
The responses are presented as descriptive actions in narrative format. The
responses are quoted directly from the transcripts to provide the most accurate data
possible. Similar actions were grouped together under one or more of three overarching
themes: (1) relationship-building actions, (2) future-oriented actions, and (3) community-
oriented actions.
The researcher included the principles of servant leadership in the each of the
three research questions according to the overarching themes presented by Greenleaf
(1977), Spears (1995), and Keith (2008). The researcher adapted the research questions
used by Karen Lubin (2001) and Todd Bliss (2006) and developed an alignment matrix to
show compatibility of the research questions with the ten principles (appendix A).
81
The three research questions were:
empathy, healing, and awareness as their motivations to serve? The overarching theme of
this question is relationship-building actions.
overarching theme of this question is future-oriented actions.
serve? The overarching theme of this question is community-oriented actions.
The researcher used the critical incident technique. This technique employed the
use of an interview guide, which included two open-ended questions (appendix D). The
questions probed for responses that included the most highly satisfying and most highly
dissatisfying incidents that occurred during the participant's (board member) tenure on
the board.
General Findings
The researcher was able to pull quotes and descriptions of actions from the
interview transcripts and place the quote(s), or incident(s) described into the appropriate
category or categories. It was noted that respondents described incidents that fit directly
82
into one or more of the categories (e.g., the ten principles of servant leadership and the
thirty-four subcategories attached to those principles). The ten principles were listening,
empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship,
commitment to growth, and building community. The responses provided rich data for
analysis.
Each incident was placed under the research classifications of satisfaction and/or
dissatisfaction. At times, one or more specific incident(s) fit into both a satisfying and a
dissatisfying classification(s), because the incident had both satisfying and dissatisfying
components.
Figure 5 and figure 6 display the frequencies of perceptions of satisfaction and
dissatisfaction, respectively, that were recorded from the tapes, transcripts, and interview
notes. Figure 5 displays the frequencies of incidents of satisfaction that were consistent
with each of the ten principles of servant leadership. Figure 6 displays the frequencies of
incidents of dissatisfaction that were consistent with the ten principles of servant
leadership.
The incidents, described by the interview participants, were then grouped by
subcategories within each of the ten principles of servant leadership. The coded
subcategories are presented in table 3. The researcher then went through all of the tables
of data and classified each statement according to the thirty-seven subcategories, as seen
in table 3.
83
84
85
Table 3. Response category codes for each of the ten principles
Listening—receptively to what is being said (and not said)

L1—to self
L2—to another person
L3—to the board
L4—to the group/population served
Empathy—seeking to understand, making positive assumptions, compassion

E1—understanding self
E2—understanding another person
E3—understanding the board
E4—the group/population served
Healing—search for wholeness (physical, mental, spiritual)

H1—search for wholeness of self
H2—search for wholeness of another person
H3—search for wholeness of the board
H4—of the group/population served
Awareness—making a commitment to foster awareness

A1—of self
A2—of another person
A3—of the board
A4—of the group/population served
Persuasion—seeking to convince rather than to coerce, building consensus

P1—of self
P2—of another person
P3—striving for board consensus
P4—the group/population served
Conceptualization—thinking beyond day-to-day realities while balancing daily focus

C1—concept/idea(s) generated by oneself
C2—concept/idea generated by another person
C3—concept/idea(s) generated by the board
Foresight—intuitive abilities to learn from past and see future consequences of actions
F1—self
F2—another person
F3—the board
Stewardship—holding the institution in trust for the good of society

S1—role of self in stewardship
S2—role of another person in stewardship
S3—role of the board in stewardship
86
Table 3 (Continued)
Commitment to growth—personal, professional, and spiritual of self and others

G1—growth of self
G2—growth of another person
G3—growth of the board
G4—growth of the group/population served
Building community—benevolent, humane, philanthropic, to benefit others

B1—role of self
B2—role of another person
B3—role of the board
B4—role of the group/population served
Note: Same codes were used for interview question 1 (satisfaction) and interview question 2
(dissatisfaction).
Appendix N, Exhibit 15.1 presents the recorded individual frequencies of actions
related to satisfaction. Appendix N, Exhibit 15.2 presents the recorded individual
frequencies of actions related to dissatisfaction. Figure 5 (satisfaction) and figure 6
(dissatisfaction) display the comparisons of the numbers of responses within each of the ten
categories (e.g., ten principles of servant leadership).
The research shows that, out of the ten principles, building community was the most
frequently mentioned and/or discussed motivating factor (e.g., principle of servant
leadership). One hundred seventy incidents of building community were mentioned during
the interviews when considering incidents of highest satisfaction (figure 5). One hundred
sixty-nine incidents of building community were mentioned during the interviews when
considering incidents of highest dissatisfaction.
The second most frequently mentioned set of incidents of satisfaction and
dissatisfaction are related to the principle of commitment to growth. There were 139
87
incidents of satisfaction cited during the interviews, and there were 138 incidents of
dissatisfaction. This finding presents the combined total for the principle building
community = 339 incidents. This is more than twice the combined total for each of the
other nine principles, excluding awareness. It is 1.83 times greater than the principle of
awareness.
Similarly, the combined totals for commitment to growth = 277 incidents. This
combined total is more than twice the combined totals for the principles of listening,
empathy, healing, foresight, and stewardship, and it exceeds the remaining totals for the
principles of awareness, persuasion, and conceptualization. The 277 incidents described
regarding commitment to growth are in second place behind the principle building
community, by 62 incidents (see figure 7). This finding shows that building community is
the most frequently cited principle of servant leadership when board members are
considering their motivations to serve on the boards of directors of nonprofit, philanthropic
organizations.
Presentation of Participants' Responses
The critical incident technique required that the researcher to ask two interview
questions. The two questions were (1) Can you tell me about a time, or times, when you
were most highly satisfied with your volunteer work as a member of the board? (2) Can
you tell me about a time, or times, when you were most highly dissatisfied with your
volunteer work as a member of the board?
The researcher digitally recorded, then transcribed, and finally classified the
responses that were presented during the interview(s). The ten principles of servant
88
leadership were divided among the three research questions. The principles were divided
and embedded within each of the three research questions in exactly the same order as
they appeared in the literature presented by the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.
The three themes were adapted from a review of the books and articles written by
Greenleaf (1977), Spears (1995), Lubin (2001), Bliss (2006), and Keith (2008). Each of
the principles of servant leadership that were included in each of the three research
questions enabled the researcher to present the data according to the three overarching
themes.
The overarching themes were (1) relationship-building actions, (2) future-oriented
actions, and (3) community-building actions. The interview participants' actions, as
derived from the critical incidents they described, were placed within one or more of the
three overarching themes: (1) relationship-building actions, (2) future-oriented actions,
and (3) community-building actions.
Research Question One
Research Question one was: To what degree do volunteer board members of
nonprofit, philanthropic organizations identify incidents that reflect the servant
leadership principles of listening, empathy, healing, and awareness as their motivations
to serve? The principles listening, empathy, healing, and awareness were viewed as
actions that build and enhance relationships (e.g., relationship-building actions).
The two critical incident technique questions allowed the researcher to probe for
responses that included the board members' motivations to serve on their boards. Again
the two probing questions were:

89
Once the interviews were completed and transcribed, the researcher was then able
to abstract the responses that included actions that were consistent with one or more of
the ten principles of servant leadership. The responses to the interview questions that
included the most highly satisfying relationship-building actions are included as follows.
1. The servant leadership principle listening was explained in the following
manner by Spears (2005): Traditionally, leaders have been valued for their
communication and decision making skills. Servant-leaders must reinforce these
important skills by making a deep commitment to listening intently to others. Servant-
leaders seek to identify and clarify the will of the group. They seek to listen receptively to
what is being said (and not said). Listening also encompasses getting in touch with one's
inner voice, and seeking to understand what one's body, spirit, and mind are
communicating.
There was a total of thirty-eight responses that included satisfaction when
considering the principle of listening. When considering the four subcategories under the
principle of listening, ten responses included incidents of listening to oneself (L1), eight
responses included listening to another person (L2), eight responses included listening to
the board (L3), and twelve responses included listening to the group/population served
90
(L4) (see figure 5). Examples of responses that included high satisfaction when
considering the principle of listening are:
"It (listening) takes you outside of yourself."
"(We) were listening to parents to what they needed to help their children."
"Parents were always volunteers. They were in volunteer mode 'give back' and
assist the community. Volunteerism comes from parents."
"(It) Listening allows people to express their opinions."
"I have a love for learning."
"When issues come up they (staff) give me a call."
"Listening, luck, empathy, negotiating to the common ground."
"A lot of people appreciate what we do. It is very gratifying."
There was a total of fifty-four responses that included incidents of dissatisfaction
when considering the principle of listening. Fifteen incidents included self-awareness.
Sixteen incidents included awareness of another person. Twelve incidents included
awareness of the board. Eleven incidents included awareness of the group/population
served (figure 6). Examples of responses that included dissatisfaction when considering
the principle of listening were:
"Either I did not reach someone or I can't reach them and I have to move on.
Some people have criticized me."
"If you don't have something good to say, go somewhere else."
"There was a difficult (person) to deal with."
"You are wishing you could do more."

91
"There was a lack of trust in the original Executive Director."
"No one wants to deal with death. Death is a fact of living but no one wants to
deal with it."
"I'm impatient with the board. They were not on time. There was too much
talking . . . gossip, pettiness. I quickly work with a disagreeable person and then move
away."
"Conflicting issues cause the most grief in the nonprofit sector."
2. The servant leadership principle empathy was explained in the following
manner by Spears (2005): Servant-leaders strive to understand and empathize with
others. People need to be accepted and recognized for their special and unique spirit.
One must assume the good intentions of coworkers and not reject them as people, even
when forced to reject their behavior or performance. Empathy is seeking to understand,
making positive assumptions, and having compassion.
There was a total of forty-two responses that included incidents of satisfaction
when considering the principle of empathy. When considering the four subcategories
under the principle of empathy, fifteen responses included the concept of empathy (e.g.,
understanding) oneself (E1), two responses included empathy for another person (E2),
five responses included empathy for the board (E3), and twenty responses included
empathy for the group/population served (E4) (figure 5). Examples of these responses
that included satisfaction when considering the principle of empathy were:
"We have a more open heart and we understand who we are. It's easier to be true
to yourself. We have a deeper understanding of what their lives are really like."
92
"They understood they weren't alone. They were talking to others in the same
situation."
"They were so grateful to see you because basically they were so isolated due to
the stigma of the disease."
"The organization provides training . . . you get to know people . . . interacting.
You meet contemporaries."
"I enjoy coming to meetings."
"We want everyone to have dignity at the end of life.
"People want to be thanked and appreciated, happy. We involve people to
empower them to do things and make decisions."
"Kids who don't fit into the general population. (We) celebrate their successes.
Role modeling, nurturing, supporting, rewards. . . . Kids are proud. They go out of their
way to greet you."
There was a total of thirty-two responses when considering the most highly
dissatisfying incidents that included the principle of empathy. Six responses included
understanding oneself. Ten responses included understanding another person. Eight
responses included understanding the board. Eight responses included understanding the
group/population served (figure 6). Examples of responses that include high
dissatisfaction when considering the principle of empathy were:
"Upheaval was negative. There was insecurity—we should be doing more."
"I don't care for board members who don't understand their purpose."
93
"When we go to other board meetings, no one wants to talk about death.
Americans are funny about death."
"People who don't feel it (the desire to help others)."
3. The servant leadership principle healing is described in the following way by
Spears (2005): Learning to heal is a powerful force for transformation and integration.
One of the great strengths of servant-leadership is the potential for healing one's self and
others. The search for wholeness includes physical, mental, and spiritual wholeness.
There was a total of sixty-four responses that included incidents of satisfaction
when considering the principle of healing. Twenty responses included the search for
wholeness of oneself (H1). Ten responses included the search for wholeness of another
person (H2). Eight responses included the search for wholeness of the board (H3).
Twenty-six responses included the search for wholeness of the group/population served
(H4) (figure 5). Examples of responses that included highly satisfying incidents, when
considering the principle of healing, were:
"We could see kids we were helping on a one-on-one basis."
"The lighting of all 178 candles of everyone who had died. I had touched people."
"It involves moms and kids. The medical, drugs, water, food—it all leads to hope
that their lives will improve—maybe their kids' lives will improve. I feel so alive,
gratified, happy. It gives me energy."
"Music has a special part to it that heals—it's healing. . . .The man's head was
down and as we began to sing his head came up and he sang with us."
"We look for toxic materials. We help others become aware of climate change."
94
"It's so outstanding to link the family with something they need. I was impressed
that they could figure out how to get to the health fair and at their ability to use the
system."
"It's also rewarding to put someone through drug and alcohol rehab and they
actually sobered up."
"You give but you deeply get back. It pays me back greatly."
"Every moment of his life was taken care of for him. Someone was there. WE
made sure he got what he needed."
"We have a ceremony as a remembrance of people that have passed. I was in on
the planning. It brought something spiritual to everyone."
"We created a library for the children. None of the kids were achieving well in
life. The library we developed is a blessing."
"We go to the hospital, take a tour and see where your dollars are going. It's very
gratifying to see the fatality rate down and the survival rate up."
"It's most gratifying to see the kids going through the school—to see kids
graduating."
"It's satisfying to work first hand with people and help families that are affected
with the disease."
"There's something so rewarding about saving a life."
There was a total of sixteen responses that included the most highly dissatisfying
incidents when considering the principle of healing. Three incidents included healing
oneself. Six incidents included healing another. One incident included healing the board.
95
Six incidents included healing the group/population served (figure 6). Examples of
responses that included high dissatisfaction when considering the principle of healing
were:
"The memorial service had put a somber cast on everything."
"The disease has a stigma attached to it."
"People have to get in tune with nature. There's too much stress. We 'bottom-line'
everything. There's no longer respect for others."
"It's so sad to see kids that are abused and neglected."
4. The servant leadership principle awareness is described in the following
manner by Spears (2005): General awareness, and especially self-awareness, strengthens
the servant-leader. Making a commitment to foster awareness can be scary—one never
knows what one may discover!
There was a total of 112 responses that included incidents of satisfaction when
considering the principle of awareness. Fifty-two responses included self-awareness.
Twelve responses included awareness of others. Twenty-one responses included
awareness of the board. Twenty-seven responses included awareness of the
group/population served (figure 5). Examples of responses that included high satisfaction
when considering the principle of awareness were:
"I felt proud . . . (it) gave me a rush of adrenalin."
"I admire everyone who worked so hard."
"It feels good to know that you help children and that children matter! It's really
rewarding to know you can make a difference—both in dollars and physical."

96
"Everyone appreciates everyone's journey. We're touching the heart. It's so
important to understand how important one little thing is. The ripple effect. That is what a
small thing can do."
"I had to overcome challenges. It's so interesting to see different personalities and
to see how they work."
"It was reassuring to know that I was in the same situation as others."
"(We) received outstanding chapter in the state (but) it wasn't more important than
my being a regular volunteer."
"In my older years I want to do something. This is a good opportunity. I had
helped out on the periphery. This is a chance to develop meaning in my existence. "
"Serving is integrated into volunteering in my life."
"It's a good feeling knowing you've helped someone because the work and money
you put out there is helping someone."
"There is joy out of giving to animals. My calling was identified. People that
volunteer do it for fulfillment. The basic nature-nurture."
"Now that we're on the road to building a successful board and organization . . . a
sense of pride will continue to grow."
"Now that I am retired from work, I can fully embrace my passion for the
organization. It's very satisfying to give back to something."
"We helped people out on the street and they helped us. All of us participate in
some way. When we help one person, it means a whole lot."

97
"Volunteering gets you out of yourself. You're in the know. You're current. You
walk into a group and get a warm feeling."
"I was named Woman of the Year!" Very satisfying, wonderful, and humbling. A
unique experience for me."
"(Mentoring) is a good use of my time. We have a responsibility to give back.
There are always people with more and with less."
"It connected me with my son. I was elected to the board of directors."
"It (board work) feels like a "calling." For some people it's a gift. I'm called to
leadership. It's a fabulous way to go to the mountaintop. That's why people volunteer. I
made a difference."
"Being and doing. Staying current is the payoff as a volunteer. It adds to my own
life. You go from working to a new purpose."
"My university appreciates that I wear a lot of hats so they are all connected."
"The only constant in life is change. I feel good about giving back."
"All of us have time, treasure, and talent."
There was a total of seventy-three responses that included incidents of
dissatisfaction when considering the principle of awareness. Twenty-six responses
included self-awareness. Sixteen responses included awareness of another person.
Twenty responses included awareness of the board. Eleven responses included awareness
of the group/population served (figure 6). Examples of responses that included high
dissatisfaction when considering the principle of awareness were:

98
"My dissatisfaction centers around the entitlement attitude of so many members.
People are not willing to work with us. The 'I'm going to get as much as I can attitude' A
lack of appreciation."
"There's a small core group."
"We had taken a vote and signed a contract. I couldn't go back on my word. I
dislike people who aren't constructive on the board. Nay-sayers, negative energy."
"When there are disrespectful e-mails. I can't take it personally. The board
sometimes has to make unpopular decisions. I'm a sensitive person and I shouldn't take it
personally."
"I'm a transparent person. I've only a few times in my life not been trusted."
"People on the board do all the work—but we do it for love."
"The fact that patients died is very sad."
"The early days on the board . . . there was a horrible, awful person."
"I don't need my name in the paper. There was friction on the board. I was tired.
The fight had gone out of me. I needed to move on."
"If other board members are destructive to the mission of the organization.
Behavior sidetracks what we're trying to accomplish. These are 'parking lot' meetings."
"Holistic medicine is not often accepted."
"Start on time and end on time."
"Volunteers haven't worked in the business world."
"We don't see what happens to people. They're disconnected after eighteen (years
of age)."
99
"Why am I here? I need to be contributing. If I'm not contributing, I move on."
"I don't like it when someone does the opposite of what they say they're going to
do. When people leave you 'holding the bag'—not coming through with what they said
they would do."
"I made friends with the local newspaper . . . the 'old guard' raised their
eyebrows."
Research Question One Summary
When considering listening, there were thirty-eight responses that included
satisfaction compared to fifty-four responses that included dissatisfaction for an overall
total of ninety-two responses for this principle. When considering empathy, there were
forty-two responses that included satisfaction compared to thirty-two responses that
included dissatisfaction for an overall total of seventy-four responses for this principle.
When considering healing, there were sixty-four responses that included satisfaction
compared to sixteen responses that included dissatisfaction for an overall total of seventy-
seven responses. When considering the principle of awareness, there were 112 responses
that included satisfaction compared to seventy-three responses that included
dissatisfaction, for an overall total of 185 responses for this principle.
Among the four principles of servant leadership that are considered to be
relationship-building actions, awareness was mentioned more than twice as often as
listening, empathy, or healing. Listening was mentioned 1.2 times more often than
empathy or healing. Empathy and healing are mentioned seventy-four and seventy-seven
times respectively. Thus healing is mentioned in three more incidents than empathy.
100
Research Question Two
Research question two was: To what degree do volunteer board members of
leadership principles of persuasion, conceptualization, and foresight as their motivations
to serve?
Research question two included the servant leadership principles of persuasion,
conceptualization, and foresight, which were considered to be future-oriented concepts.
The researcher again used the critical incident technique by asking the two
following probing questions. The interview questions enabled the participant(s) to discuss
his or her most highly satisfying and/or most highly dissatisfying incident(s) during his or
her time as a board member. The two probing questions were: Interview question 1: Can
you tell me about a time, or times, when you were most highly satisfied with your
volunteer work as a member of the board?
to abstract the responses that included actions that were consistent with at least one of the
ten principles of servant leadership. The responses to the interview questions that
included the most highly satisfying future-oriented actions are included as follows.
5. Persuasion was defined by Spears (2005): Servant-leaders rely on persuasion,
rather than positional authority in making decisions. Servant-leaders seek to convince
others, rather than coerce compliance. This particular element offers one of the clearest
101
distinctions between the traditional authoritarian model and that of servant-leadership.
The servant-leader is effective at building consensus within groups.
There was a total of eighty-four responses that included incidents of satisfaction
when considering the principle of persuasion. Seventeen incidents included self-
persuasion. Twelve incidents included persuading others. Twenty-seven incidents
included persuading the board. Twenty-eight incidents included persuading the
group/population served (exhibit 5). Examples of responses that included highly
satisfying incidents when considering the principle of persuasion were:
"We share our knowledge with our lawmakers."
"We all agreed that we wanted to do something that mattered."
"We motivated the membership."
"The board always talks about team work. People are very dedicated."
"I proposed . . . the change became the name we have now."
"It's a fun experience because it's enjoyable to see kids make progress in their
education and health. And admin implements improvements if they see how to make the
changes."
"We got all five city council members to agree to $1 per year (for the facility)."
"The most satisfying for me as a board member is turning someone around (from
accepting dying to fighting dying)."
"I ran the Gala for our party. Our children came. My daughter and her friends—
they did special projects. They're all young women."

102
"Trying to get publishers to donate books. There's a lot of synergy in all of this.
Listening, luck, empathy, negotiating to a common ground. I look for a way to set up
concepts and/or constructs (framework) for people to communicate."
"Talking to concerned members to have them put away their fears. Not a
masterpiece, but it was successful."
There was a total of fifty-seven responses that included incidents of
dissatisfaction when considering the principle of persuasion. Twelve incidents included
self-persuasion. Seventeen incidents included persuading others. Twenty-three incidents
included persuading the board. Five incidents included persuading the group/population
served (figure 6). Examples of responses that included highly dissatisfying incidents
when considering the principle of persuasion were:
"It's hard to get people to volunteer."
"A lot is said at board meetings. Nothing is decided. Do this, do that. A lot of talk
but not much action. Ideas bantered around. We need concrete discussions."
"I get irritable with someone's 'high-handedness.'"
"A board that just 'rubber-stamps' whatever the Executive Director says."
"Someone leading the group who doesn't know how to lead."
"How someone didn't agree with the way the issue was resolved. (They)
sabotaged the board's direction. 'Sour grapes' has a negative effect."
"(It's) frustrating because we can't reach more people."
"I tell them my opinion and if they don't agree that's fine. I can't be bothered with
in-fighting."
103
"I get frustrated if you try to head up a project and you can't make the volunteers
do what needs to be done."
"Conflicting issues cause the most grief in the nonprofit sector."
"Garbage-can meetings—no purpose, no goal. The leader decided where we
needed to go. I was being shot down. Not allowed to speak. There was a lack of
articulation and shared values."
6. Conceptualization is described the following way by Spears (2005): Servant-
leaders seek to nurture their abilities to "dream great dreams." The ability to look at a
problem (or an organization) from a conceptualizing perspective means that one must
think beyond day-to-day realities. Servant leaders must seek a delicate balance between
conceptualization and day-to-day focus.
There was a total of eighty-one responses that included incidents of satisfaction
when considering the principle of conceptualization. Forty-two incidents included
concepts/ideas generated by oneself. Six incidents included concepts/ideas generated by
another person. Thirty-three incidents included concepts/ideas generated by the board
(figure 5). Examples of responses that included high satisfaction when considering the
principle of conceptualization were:
"I had a vision—something slim and gorgeous."
"(It) makes me feel satisfied because they all have clean water so they can work.
It leads to a better life."
"I expanded my horizons."
"The Corgie Program. That's how the HOPE Program started."

104
"It's important to be in the 'now.'"
"We wanted to be the premier organization. Making the right decision was
definitely the most satisfying. We saw that the organization had to be run like a
business."
"Every nonprofit has a mission."
"You spend three years preparing for the position before you become president.
During your term you have the challenge to take the organization (where you want to
take it)."
"A group of us got together and said, 'What can we do to make our city better?'
We made goals and objectives."
"We hope to reach all levels of people who need us. Give them dignity. Give them
relief. Find new ways of giving the gift to people."
"(I) go out on my own and get it done. I do marketing for them. It's name-brand
recognition. Developing a marketing strategy for the corporation. The organizational
vision is a first-class environment."
"The (library) is an ongoing project. Kids never had a book in their hands. There
was a room and a box of books. Now it's a building. Now there's a chapel and spiritual
life at (the school)."
"It's gratifying to see the value of the work."
"I have the time and the tools and I feel responsible to make things happen."
"I helped to organize a campaign to take a trip to the organization. I was
enthralled with what they were doing for abandoned, neglected, abused kids."
105
"It's fabulous going to the 'mountain top'. That's why people volunteer."
"My value is to develop programs for girls. We have a program committee. The
(organization) tries to tailor programs to get money within limitations to be in keeping
with the mission statement. Leadership is about empowering others."
There was a total of sixty-five responses that included incidents of dissatisfaction
when considering the principle of conceptualization. Seventeen incidents included
concepts generated by oneself. Twenty-one incidents included concepts generated by
another person. Twenty-seven incidents included concepts generated by the board (figure
6). Examples of responses that included high dissatisfaction when considering the
principle of conceptualization were:
"How do we keep everyone focused and motivated?"
"It's a painful division to have to go out on your own (the organization)."
"It's difficult to balance everything. There's more and more work to do. There's an
ever-greater demand for services. There's pressure on education and community services.
There are clients with chronic problems."
"When dollars are wasted. When decisions are made without doing marketing
research."
"Not reaching the goals."
"The board agreed on a course of action and it can't be implemented because we
don't have the time, talent, and treasure."
"At this point there are no facilities for children."

106
"The organization is run like a company. The board is huge and unwieldy. There
are no goals and objectives. When they (subcommittees) all get into the room, everyone
wants to be involved. The executive director should delegate."
"Time commitments are difficult."
"There is a lack of organization on the part of the organizers. When meetings are
not set. Inconsistency. Things need to be consistent."
"It's sad to see volunteers take a job (volunteering) and then not want it because of
the economy."
"There's a burnout factor because there's no structure. There are great ideas but no
support structure. No org chart. No foundation." "Bureaucracy!"
7. Foresight is described the following way by Spears (2005): Foresight is a
characteristic that enables servant-leaders to understand lessons from the past, the
realities of the present, and the likely consequence of a decision in the future. It (e.g.,
Foresight) is deeply rooted in the intuitive mind.
There was a total of sixty-two highly satisfying incidents reported when
considering the principle of foresight. There were thirty-seven incidents of foresight
generated by oneself. There were five incidents of foresight generated by the board.
There were twenty incidents of foresight generated by the board (figure 5). Examples of
responses that included high satisfaction when considering the principle of foresight
were:
107
"The reward of visiting our charities and seeing where our donations were put to
use. The satisfaction is to know what we're doing is helpful. People can move on,
reconstruct their lives."
"It took so much time to put it together. It came off flawlessly and . . . "
"Lifelong learning enriches life."
"It's important that the organization continues. (The board) needs to be motivated
and working."
"Education about animals—for the children."
"(To see) levels of pollution. We're able to help people out."
"Once we targeted the director, we knew he was the right guy. Success in hiring
him/her was a major satisfier. Now we reach out more. Do more for the animals. (The
board) needs to shift focus, open doors."
"I encouraged others to be on the board because of how much they can learn and
accomplish."
"Train your employees to be your replacement. Whatever event you run for
charity has to be unbelievable. People have to be smiling. Every year we accomplish the
above. Always one step better."
"The young group is an asset. Friendships, special projects, helping each other,
camaraderie. This is very meaningful to me."
"Whenever we can recognize them (teachers), respect is part of the leadership
role."
108
"We helped any way we could. Some boys went on to bigger and better things.
They were pulled out of the ghetto. Kids got out of gangs, out of the ghetto and got an
education and wound up teaching college!"
"Giving forward—his life is working with volunteers (father). The 'aha' moment
when you know you've led people in a direction that leads to policy that leads people.
You've had an impact (positive, significant) on other people's lives. Some things work out
how they're supposed to."
"They (students) are going to become adults. If you're trying to 'break the cycle'
(of abuse) . . . caring, nurturing, valuing, makes the effort to break the cycle."
"And the family shelter . . . that was satisfying because we helped a number of
people who would have been out on the street otherwise and it also helped make that
connection again with the school district."
There was a total of seventy-three highly dissatisfying incidents reported when
considering the principle of foresight. Twenty incidents included foresight generated by
oneself. Twenty-nine incidents included foresight generated by another person. Twenty-
four incidents included foresight generated by the board (figure 6). Examples of
responses that included the most highly dissatisfying incidents when considering the
principle of foresight were:
"I used a new model and people criticized me."
"Some (people) could care less about deadlines."

109
"It feels like we're treading water. There's less motivation—memories are fading.
We have to step out of the comfort zone and try something different (for recruiting and
motivation)."
"There wasn't enough information to plan the trip."
"I told him he needed to straighten up." He blamed me for losing his job."
"The membership will discontinue over time. Charitable contributions will die
with us."
"The only negative experience is disruption of service."
"We need to ID ways to provide service and to find other services (for clients)."
"We need to find more volunteers to support services."
"Seeing people lose their jobs after time after time of getting them into rehab."
"It's not the role of the board to be involved in day-to-day operations."
"I'm dissatisfied in having committee meetings and nothing comes of it. I've been
to committee meetings where staff is afraid to ask board to take over. The board didn't
recruit younger members."
"We don't get the money because people won't face death. If we're limited in
fundraising, we're limited in how much we can do."
"We don't see what happens to people that we've helped.
"I wish we (the board) had met more often."
"It's a crisis—the diminishing ability of people to volunteer. It's always a matter
of money. Thousands of kids are on the streets now."
"The 'old guard' assumed everyone knew about the organization."

110
Research Question Two Summary
When considering the principle of persuasion, there were eighty-four responses
that included incidents of satisfaction compared to fifty-seven responses that included
incidents of dissatisfaction with a combined total of 141 incidents. When considering the
principle of conceptualization, there were eighty-one responses that included incidents of
satisfaction compared to sixty-five incidents that included dissatisfaction, for a combined
total of 146 incidents. When considering the principle of foresight, there were sixty-two
incidents that included satisfaction compared to seventy-three incidents that included
dissatisfaction for a combined total of 135 incidents.
For these three principles of servant leadership that are considered to be future-
oriented actions (e.g., persuasion, conceptualization, foresight), there is a difference of
nine incidents between the most frequently mentioned principle, persuasion, and the least
frequently mentioned principle, foresight. There were 422 incidents recorded for research
question two. Nine incidents represent 2 percent of the total number of incidents.
Research Question Three
Research question three was: To what degree do volunteer board members of
leadership principles of stewardship, commitment to growth, and building community as
their motivations to serve? The principles stewardship, commitment to growth, and
building community were considered to be community-building actions.

111
Again the researcher used the critical incident technique to probe for responses
that presented themselves as motivations to serve on the participants' respective boards.
The two probing questions were:
highly dissatisfied with your volunteer work as a member of the board? Responses to the
questions are described as follows.
to abstract the responses that included actions that were consistent with at least one of the
ten principles of servant leadership. The responses to the interview questions that
included the most highly satisfying community-building actions are included below.
8. Stewardship is described in the following way by Spears (2005): Robert
Greenleaf's view of all institutions was one in which CEO's, staff, directors, and trustees
all play significant roles in holding their institutions in trust for the great good of society.
There was a total of sixty-three incidents of satisfaction when considering the
principle of stewardship. There were twenty-six incidents where the role of self played
the major part in stewardship. There were fourteen incidents where the role of another
person played the major part in stewardship. There were twenty-three incidents where the
board played the major role in stewardship (figure 5). Examples of responses that
included the most highly satisfying incidents when considering the principle of
stewardship were:
112
"We world travelers have a duty to shine the spotlight on the rest of the world."
"We have a history."
"Both organizations are a cog in the wheel."
"I enjoy coordinating people. Being able to give guidance in finance. It's a chance
to give back in a good organization."
"I act as advice and counsel, an advisory role."
"I'm proud of the organization. We do what's good for all animals."
"I had to step up my service. The focus (of the board and the organization) began
to change. We tied up a lot of loose ends. I'm always there for the history—questions."
"It's highly satisfying to serve under the leadership of someone who is good at
what they do. S/he just deals with the group and keeps moving things forward."
"Corporate America encouraged people to donate their time, treasure, and talent."
"The goal of the co-chair group is to continue the vision."
"Employees give money. There's matching funds."
"My strength is institutional."
"The organization—no matter what happens, they're always providing ways for
people to rebuild their lives. The successor made the school blossom."
"The most highly satisfying time is when I felt that I made a significant
contribution that would have an impact on the organization that would impact people in
the field."
"Leadership is about empowering others."

113
"To see people who could work themselves for the 'cause' but did not have a
personal connection to it (the disease). This was very satisfying."
There was a total of sixty-three most highly dissatisfying incidents reported when
considering the principle of stewardship. Twenty-six incidents included the role of self.
Fourteen incidents included the role of another person. Twenty-three incidents included
the role of the board. Examples of responses that include high dissatisfaction when
considering the principle of stewardship were:
"There was a lack of focus. A loss of momentum and we'll never get it back."
"Everyone deferred to another one. Passing the buck."
"I kept the goal of the organization in mind and that's how I survived."
"It's a good organization but there's no follow-through."
"You're wishing you could do more."
"It was very challenging when we made the decision to separate from the national
organization."
"Getting on the board and everyone has duties but half the people do all the
work."
"Half the people sit back."
"It was the organization I loved and it was going downward."
"I stepped up my role and was functioning as the actual chair."
"Politics—(it) makes it hard for them (nonprofits) to function."
"Not knowing the goals of the organization. Not knowing the purpose. If I can't
see the greater good to come out of it. The leader wanted us to take a certain direction."
114
"We tend to chase grant dollars—public or private. People try to conform the
mission to get dollars. People are making policy and are not the ones that are the most
informed. It's the organization and mission that are far more complex than policies can
be."
"The past (board officer) disappeared from the board. After many e-mails I had to
go out to explain."
9. Commitment to growth is described as follows by Spears (2005): Servant-
leaders believe that people have an intrinsic value beyond their tangible contributions as
workers. As such, Servant-leaders are deeply committed to a personal, professional, and
spiritual growth of each and every individual within the organization.
There were 139 incidents of satisfaction when considering the principle of
commitment to growth. Fifty-one incidents involved self-growth. Eighteen incidents
involved the growth of another person. Thirty-one incidents involved the growth of the
board. Thirty-nine incidents involved the growth of the group/population served (figure
5). Examples of responses that included the most highly satisfying incidents when
considering the principle of commitment to growth were:
"We give much more than money. . . . (It) creates a very heady feeling."
"This helped us grow from a group of ladies who might have spare change to a
force that they (the organization) take into account!"
"God's hand was directing everyone. Afterwards was incredible. It was
unexpected. Something magical and divine. It (the ceremony) had special meaning. It
was a very spiritual experience."

115
"People can have a little business and then they can expand. The idea of
sponsorship."
"It opened doors."
"People can come to us and we can go to you."
"It's a sense of accomplishment—an intern joins me. The intern helps out. I love
teaching."
"We're providing support and direction."
"Satisfaction comes from growth and development of children. By providing
counsel to administration about clinical issues. I assist the population to advocate for
themselves."
"We're helping someone to do the job."
"We're tutoring kids. They're inspired. There are swimming days and field trips."
"The goals I had set had been accomplished. I didn't do it myself. You gently
encourage, nudge, show people the way."
"I learned how to handle the situation. After 5-10 years I had more self-esteem. I
encouraged others to be on the board because of how much they can learn and
accomplish. I had personal experience with your services . . . created good people.
Trainers are mentors, helping kids. We provide education to people . . . and also classes."
"It is satisfying to set a goal and reach it."
"We did youth mentoring, raising money for after-school programs. We wanted
the best for the kids."

116
"The basic satisfaction was to create more enthusiasm to work toward goals and
developing young people."
"The coaches are nurturing, close, comfortable."
"The library opens up an opportunity for a child. It teaches kids to read who have
never read. Women are being released from a facility and turned loose. Their entire life
had to be created. It's a rewarding experience from the point that we helped."
"We recognize new board-certified teachers. Mentoring is very successful. We're
part of the world to learn at the spiritual level. I keep moving forward. I do course
development. Always moving forward."
"I began to get more and more involved. I got financially involved. It's wonderful
to see teachers who manage kids who are highly disruptive. Then there's the growth of
the organization. Most kids turn out pretty good with a little bit of nurturing."
"The idea of volunteering is deeply involved. We give back. Everyone takes their
turn. Sometimes the busiest people are giving back. They feel a commitment. You've had
an impact, a positive impact on other people's lives. It can be from one-on-one to a larger
impact of several thousand."
"You look at your work. Some parents get involved. Everybody has a purpose."
"Professional involvement gave me opportunities to meet well-connected people
that I might not meet otherwise."
"I'm very proud of our accomplishments. We painted the wall on the domestic
violence center."
117
There were 138 most highly dissatisfying incidents when considering the principle
of commitment to growth. Fifty one incidents included self-growth. Eighteen incidents
included the growth of another person. Thirty-one incidents included the growth of the
board. Thirty-eight incidents included the growth of the group/population served (figure
6). Examples of responses that included high dissatisfaction when considering the
principle of commitment to growth were:
"When I failed to achieve my goals."
"The inability of people to adjust and to get out of the time warp."
"It feels like we are treading water. The motivation—the memories are fading."
"Women in leadership have to take care of themselves."
"Meetings were painful . . . made even more painful because of the division."
"You're always wishing you could do more."
"Disruption (separation of the two organizations) occurred in the volunteers
lives."
"If I'm not given an opportunity to do anything."
"Board members not willing to do what they're there to do."
"If people don't know who you are (the organization). You need to get the
message out."
"When you empower people to do their work and sometimes they go too far and
sometimes they don't make any decisions."

118
"Volunteers don't see the results of their efforts. There is little or no follow
through with the children I've helped. You lose track quickly. There's no continuity.
When others just disappear—it's very frustrating."
10. Building community is described as follows by Spears (2005): Servant-leaders
are aware that the shift from local communities to large institutions as the primary
shaper of human lives has changed our perceptions and caused a sense of loss. Servant-
leaders seek to identify a means for building community among those who work within a
given institution. Servant leaders look for benevolent, humane, and philanthropic ways to
benefit others.
There were 170 incidents of high satisfaction when considering the principle of
building community. There were sixty-six incidents where the role of self was discussed
when building community. There were seven incidents where the role of another person
was the focus in building community. There were thirty-eight incidents where the role of
the board was the focus in building community. There were fifty-nine incidents where the
participant perceived his or her role to be highly satisfying when considering the
group/population served within the context of building community (figure 5). Examples
of responses that included the most highly satisfying incidents when considering the
principle of building community were:
"We are ambassadors for (the organization). We want to be true partners. It's the
gift that keeps on giving. The rest of the world matters. We became active partners."
"What is very important for me is fundraising—giving. We give amenities to
make their lives easier."

119
"To give back to make someone else's life better. Working together as a large
group. It (philanthropy) kept a very large group of people very close together."
"It (the organization) has a positive impact on kids."
"I never met a more dedicated group. Our organization is a team effort out of love
and respect of what to honor and respect. We give back. We are lucky. We serve. It has to
do with our life. Being part of a like-minded group. We support each other. It's a team
effort, a joint effort, socializing is important too."
"It is satisfying to be part of a team—a great team-building experience. I enjoy
being at the convention and meeting everyone."
"The board expressed their appreciation for the staff and the way we work as a
team."
"We are a family. We raise money for hospice and the shelter."
"We talk to others in the same situation. We find way to go out into the
community and work together."
"To make the world a better place."
"I volunteer because of work with community agencies. It's a chance to give back
and assist the community. I have a team of students who do healthcare teaching. It's
satisfying when we make decisions that benefit others. It's satisfying working as a team."
"What we're doing helps the community—fun raising money—fun people.
Someone out there is being helped. You are anonymous."
"We're focusing on animals and animal rights."

120
"We're going to build a new shelter (animal). Kids influence parents about
contributing."
"A group of us got together and said what can we do to make our city better. It's
very satisfying to see the community come together. We didn't know each other when we
first came together. Networking served as a springboard to make contacts to help. It's
satisfying to see kids involved with community organizations."
"We want to have everyone around them (clients) at the end of life. Our board
tries to find ways to reach out."
"As a board member I worked with outreach. I went out to educate the
community."
"Sometimes the collective good is better than individual work."
"The blessing of giving back and being part of a community. Those that have the
opportunity give back."
"It's about connecting with kids. As a board of directors, we feel we're all part of
one team, part of the family, part of the community."
"The times when I feel best are when I can communicate with membership and
communicate everyone's needs.
""We had a lot of new people moving into the community. This year we got
eighty people to attend our event!"
"We identified the number of homeless people in the community. That led to
granting and then a partnership because those kids at the shelter were in our schools and
121
then we could follow up with them. We could close the loop and make sure the kids did
not fall through the cracks."
There were 169 incidents of dissatisfaction when considering the principle of
building community. Sixty-six incidents included the role of self. Five incidents included
the role of another person. Thirty-nine incidents included the role of the board. Fifty
incidents included the role of the group/population served (figure 6). Examples of
responses that included the most highly dissatisfying incidents when considering the
principle of building community were:
"I get dissatisfied with people who won't help. A lack of participation. Everything
was done by a 'committee of three.'"
"A lot of people just don't give. Some people are takers—not givers. There are
people who never become officers."
"During the early days on the board, there were horrible people on the board. The
organization I loved was going downward. The upheaval was negative."
"There are board members who won't be an officer. Other people should
participate on the board. The same people year after year are doing the work. There is a
lack of publicity. It's frustrating when we can't get known in the community."
Research Question Three Summary
When considering the principle of stewardship, there were sixty-three incidents
that included satisfaction compared to sixty-three incidents of dissatisfaction for a
combined total of 126 incidents. When considering the principle of commitment to
growth, there were 139 incidents that included satisfaction compared to 138 incidents that
122
included dissatisfaction, for a combined total of 277 incidents. When considering the
principle of building community, there were 170 incidents that included satisfaction
compared to 169 incidents that included dissatisfaction for a combined total of 339
incidents.
When comparing the three principles of servant leadership that are considered to
be community-building actions (e.g., stewardship, commitment to growth, and building
community), commitment to growth was mentioned 2.2 times more often than
stewardship. Building community was mentioned 1.2 times more often than commitment
to growth. Building community was mentioned 2.7 times more often than stewardship.
Chapter Summary
This study examined the degree to which the principles of servant leadership
motivate nonpaid volunteers to serve on the boards of directors of nonprofit,
philanthropic organizations. The aggregate number of years of volunteer service in any
capacity for the participants totaled 771 years. The aggregate number of years of
nonprofit board service for all of the participants in the study (e.g., thirty-three board
members) totaled 269 years. As a point of reference, consider the following passage from
John C. Burkhardt and Larry C. Spears (2000):
We are all of us both leaders and followers in different parts of our lives. Servant-
Leadership encourages everyone to balance leading and serving within his or her
own life. For people who are in leadership positions, it reminds us that our
primary responsibility is in serving others. For those in follower positions, it
encourages us to look for situational opportunities to provide leadership. The end
result of this moving back-and-forth between leading and following is to enhance
our lives as individuals, and to raise the very possibilities of our many institutions.
(3-4)
123
There were 1592 incidents of satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction described and
recorded during the interviews. Due to the large number of incidents, not every incident
was quoted. Figure 7 shows the aggregated totals for incidents of satisfaction and
incidents of dissatisfaction. The combined totals were: (1) listening—92 incidents,
(2) empathy—74 incidents, (3) healing—77 incidents, (4) awareness—185 incidents,
(5) persuasion—141 incidents, (6) conceptualization—146 incidents, (7) foresight—135
incidents, (8) stewardship—126 incidents, (9) commitment to growth—277 incidents,
(10) building community—339 incidents.
All responses were placed within at least one of the three overarching themes for
analysis. Appendix N, exhibit 15.1 displays a spreadsheet with tallies of all of the
frequencies of actions that were most highly satisfying and their alignment with the
ten principles of servant leadership. Subtotals and aggregated totals are presented.
Appendix N, exhibit 15.2 presents a spreadsheet with tallies of the frequencies of
actions that were most highly dissatisfying and their alignment with the ten principles of
servant leadership. Subtotals and aggregated totals are presented.
The principles of servant leadership, according to their aggregated totals, are
listed in order from the largest number of incidents to the least number of incidents, for
comparison purposes: (1) building community, (2) commitment to growth, (3) awareness,
(4) conceptualization, (5) persuasion, (6) foresight, (7) stewardship, (8) listening, and
(10) empathy (see figure 7).

124
125
The disaggregated totals for incidents of satisfaction and dissatisfaction follow the
same pattern, for comparison purposes. The relative numbers and order of appearance of
incidents are the same.
The 1592 specific examples of actions (satisfaction and dissatisfaction combined)
that reflected the respondents' personal motivations to serve on their respective boards
were found to be congruent with the ten principles of servant leadership as described by
Greenleaf (1977), Spears (2005), and Keith (2008). The participants' time limitations and
interview time limitations allowed for 1592 specific examples of satisfaction and/or
dissatisfaction to be described. If there had been no time limitations, it is highly likely
that more incidents would have been described. However, the data from the study show
consistency and congruency with the ten principles of servant leadership as seen in
figure 7.
Chapter V presents a summary of the key findings related to the literature,
conclusions, implications for action, recommendations for future research, and
concluding remarks which include personal reflections.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
This chapter includes the purpose of the study, research questions, and a review of
the methodology. Limitations of the research are presented. The summary of key findings
presents the data in relationship to the research questions. Conclusions are presented with
regard to the key findings. Implications for actions, recommendations, and suggestions
for further research are followed by the chapter summary. Finally, concluding remarks,
including personal reflections about the study, are presented.
organizations in the United States. The principles are (1) listening, (2) empathy,
(3) healing, (4) awareness, (5) persuasion, (6) conceptualization, (7) foresight,
(8) stewardship, (9) commitment to growth, and (10) building community.
Research Questions

126
127
empathy, healing, and awareness as their motivations to serve? The overarching theme is
relationship-building actions.
overarching theme is future-oriented actions.
serve? The overarching theme is community-building actions.
Methodology
The study sample included thirty-three nonpaid volunteer members of the boards
of directors of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations in the United States. The volunteer
board members were nominated as potential participants in this study by civic and
community businessmen and women who felt the volunteers had provided exceptional
service to their communities and organizations. All of the nominees were contacted by
U.S. mail, phone, and e-mail to request their participation in the study.
The nominees were screened to be participants in the study if they met the
following criteria: (1) The board members were nonpaid; (2) The board members were
volunteers; (3) The board members were, at that time, currently working for one, or
more, nonprofit, philanthropic organization(s) within the United States; (4) Board
128
members agreed to be interviewed regarding the critical incidents in their lives that had
occurred during their service on their current board positions; (5) Board members were
active members of the boards of their organizations; (6) Board members participated in
board operations and decisions and had decision-making (e.g., voting rights) on their
boards.
The critical incident technique was used as the interview method. Two open-
ended questions were asked. The questions were (1) Can you tell me about a time, or
times, when you were most highly satisfied with your volunteer work as a member of the
board? (2) Can you tell me about a time, or times, when you were most highly
dissatisfied with your volunteer work as a member of the board? The two interview
questions allowed the participants to speak about their experiences on their board, or
boards, if they served on more than one boards, openly and candidly.
The interview data were transcribed from the researcher's notes taken during the
interviews and digital tape recordings taped during the interviews. The researcher then
abstracted quotes from the notes and transcripts that addressed any of the ten principles of
servant leadership. The actions were first sorted according to each of the ten principles
and then clustered according to the three research questions. The ten principles of servant
leadership are (1) listening, (2) empathy, (3) healing, (4) awareness, (5) persuasion,
(10) building community.
The ten principles were divided among the three research questions according to
the order in which they were presented by the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.
129
As a result, three categories (e.g., overarching themes) were revealed. They were
(1) relationship-building actions, (2) future-oriented actions, and (3) community-building
actions. Described incidents included actions that were identified to be consistent with
the ten principles of servant leadership. The actions could then be placed into categories
according to which of the three research questions they addressed.
For purposes of analysis and comparison, the findings were divided into two
categories according to the two interview questions. The two categories were (1) most
highly satisfying incidents, and (2) most highly dissatisfying incidents. Any/all of the
incidents described herein were described by nonpaid volunteer members of boards of
directors of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations.
Limitations of the Research
The study was limited to volunteer members of the boards of directors of
nonprofit, philanthropic organizations within the United States. While potential study
participants were nominated throughout the United States, the participants who agreed to
participate in the study and also fit the criteria to participate in the study, and were
therefore selected to participate in the study, were from the following: Alabama,
California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, New York, Virginia,
Washington, and the District of Columbia. These states are located in the West,
Northwest, Midwest, South, and the East. Therefore, the study participants were
considered to be representative of board members throughout the United States.
However, there is the possibility that board member responses in this study were not
130
completely reflective of potential board member responses that might have been gathered
throughout the fifty United States.
The length of the telephone interviews was thirty-five minutes for the shortest
interview and ninety minutes for the longest interview. The average time for each
interview was forty-five minutes. If time had been unlimited, there might have been a
greater number of responses indicating a greater number of incidents that reflected most
highly satisfying and most highly dissatisfying incidents. The researcher noted that at the
conclusion of the interviews, most of the board members stated that they had thought of
and detailed all of the incidents they could remember that were most highly satisfying
and/or most highly dissatisfying during their service as board members.
Phone interviews were the most efficient way to conduct interviews across the
United States. The interviews were not done in person, thus limiting the opportunity for
the researcher to assess body language and other possible physical details that might have
added to the data. The researcher noted that almost all of the participants stated that their
responses came "from the heart" and that they continued their commitments to their
organizations and/or similar organizations and causes.
Summary of the Key Findings
The summary of key findings for the three research questions describes the degree
to which the one or more of the ten principles of servant leadership motivated nonpaid
volunteers to serve on the boards of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations. The
importance of the key findings and conclusions were determined in the following
manner: (1) Data were taken directly from the interviews, recordings of the interviews,
131
and transcripts of the interviews; (2) Key points were abstracted while the researcher was
listening during the interview process; and (3) Findings were related to key issues about
servant leadership that were discovered during the literature review. The key findings
follow; they are organized within the context of each of the three research questions.
Research question one includes the principles of listening, empathy, healing, and
awareness. Research question two includes the principles of persuasion,
conceptualization, and foresight. Research question three includes the principles of
stewardship, commitment to growth, and building community.
Research Question One
To what degree do volunteer board members of nonprofit, philanthropic
(1) listening, (2) empathy, (3) healing, and (4) awareness as their motivations to serve?
This research question looked at incidents that presented examples of
relationship-building actions that were perceived to have occurred while each participant
(e.g., board member) was serving as a volunteer member on the board of directors of a
nonprofit, philanthropic organization.
The first principle, listening (i.e., listening receptively to what is being said and
not said—Greenleaf 1970), produced thirty-eight responses that included most highly
satisfying actions. This resulted in an average of 1.15 most highly satisfying actions per
board member.
Listening produced forty-five responses that included most highly dissatisfying
actions for an average of 1.64 responses per board member. The combined total for
132
listening was ninety-two described actions for an average of 2.79 responses per board
member.
There were twenty-five responses (i.e., the largest number of responses) that
included listening to oneself, twenty-four responses that included listening to others,
twenty responses that included listening to the board, and twenty-three responses that
included listening to the group/population served.
The second principle, empathy (i.e., seeking to understand, making positive
assumptions, having compassion—Greenleaf), produced forty-two responses that
included satisfaction, for an average of 1.27 actions per board member. Empathy
produced thirty-two responses that included dissatisfaction with an average of 0.97 (e.g.,
one) responses per board member. The combined total for empathy was seventy-four
responses with an average of 2.24 responses per board member.
There were twenty-one responses that included understanding oneself, twelve
responses that included understanding another person, thirteen responses that included
understanding the members of the board, and twenty-eight responses (e.g., the largest
number of responses) that included understanding the group/population served.
The third principle, healing (i.e., searching for wholeness; physical, mental, and
spiritual—Greenleaf), produced sixty-four responses that included satisfaction, for an
average of 1.94 actions per board member. Healing produced sixteen responses that
included dissatisfaction for an average of forty-eight (e.g., one-half) response per board
member.
133
The combined total number of responses for healing was eighty responses for an
average of 2.42 responses per board member. There were twenty-three responses (e.g.,
the largest number) that included searching for wholeness of self, sixteen responses that
included searching for wholeness of another person, nine responses that included
searching for wholeness of the board, and thirty-two responses (i.e., the largest number of
responses) that included searching for wholeness of the group/population served.
The fourth principle for research question one, awareness (i.e., making a
commitment to foster awareness—Greenleaf), produced 112 responses that included
satisfaction for an average of 3.4 actions per board member. Awareness produced
seventy-three responses that included dissatisfaction for an average of 2.2 responses per
board member. The combined total for awareness was 185 described actions for an
average of 5.6 responses per board member. There were seventy-eight responses (i.e., the
largest number of responses) that included awareness of self, twenty-eight responses that
included awareness of another person, forty-one responses that included awareness of the
board, and thirty-eight responses that included awareness of the group/population served.
The interview responses resulted in 256 incidents describing most highly
satisfying actions and 175 incidents describing most highly dissatisfying actions. The
combined total for most highly satisfying and most highly dissatisfying actions attributed
to this research question (research question one) was 431 actions. The average number of
responses per board member was 13.06.

134
Research Question Two
(5) persuasion, (6) conceptualization, and (7) foresight as their motivations to serve?
This research question looked for incidents that presented examples of future-
oriented actions when considering the future of the organization and the people it serves.
The first principle for research question two, persuasion (i.e., seeking to convince
rather than to coerce and building consensus), produced eighty-four responses that
included satisfaction, for an average of 2.6 actions per board member.
Persuasion produced fifty-seven responses that included dissatisfaction with an
average of 1.73 responses per board member. The combined total for persuasion was 141
responses with an average of 4.27 responses per board member. There were twenty-nine
responses that included persuading oneself, twenty-nine responses that included
persuading another person, fifty responses (i.e., the largest number of responses) that
included striving for board consensus (e.g., persuading the board to make a decision as
one), and thirty-three responses that included persuading the group/population served.
The second principle included in research question two, conceptualization (i.e.,
thinking beyond day-to-day realities while balancing daily focus), resulted in eighty-one
descriptions of actions that were most highly satisfying with an average of 2.5 responses
per board member.
There were sixty-five responses that included incidents of dissatisfaction with an
average of two responses per board member. The combined total number of responses for
135
the principle conceptualization was 146 responses. There were fifty-nine responses that
included concepts/ideas generated by oneself, twenty-seven responses that included
concepts/ideas generated by another person, and sixty responses (i.e., the largest number
of responses) that included concepts/ideas generated by the board.
The third principle included in research question two, foresight (i.e., intuitive
abilities to learn from the past and to see future consequences of actions), resulted in
sixty-two responses that included actions of high satisfaction for an average of 1.9
responses per board member. There was a combined total of 135 incidents that described
most highly satisfying and most highly dissatisfying actions with an average of 4.1
actions described per board member.
There were seventy-three responses that described incidents of highly
dissatisfying actions for an average of 2.2 responses per board member. There were fifty-
seven responses (i.e., the largest number of responses) that included the respondent's own
foresight, thirty-four responses that included foresight of another person, and forty-four
responses that included foresight of the board.
The total number of responses that included most highly satisfying incidents for
research question two was 227 responses. The total number of responses that included
most highly dissatisfying incidents for the same principles within research question two
was 195 responses.
The combined total for most highly satisfying and most highly dissatisfying
actions attributed to this research question (i.e., research question two) was 422 actions.
This resulted in an average of 12.8 responses per board member.

136
Research Question Three
(8) stewardship, (9) commitment to professional and/or spiritual growth, and
(10) building community as their motivations to serve?
This research question looked at community-building actions that study
participants perceived to be evident during their service on their respective boards of
directors of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations.
The first principle included in research question three was stewardship (i.e.,
holding the institution in trust for the good of society). Study participants (e.g., board
members) presented sixty-three responses that included actions perceived to be the most
highly satisfying with an average of 1.9 responses per board member.
There were also sixty-three responses that described the most highly dissatisfying
incidents of stewardship for an average of 1.9 responses per board member. The total
number of responses including most highly satisfying and most highly dissatisfying
incidents that included the principle of stewardship was 126 incidents for an average of
3.8 incident responses per board member. There were fifty-two responses (i.e., the largest
number of responses) that included the role of oneself in the act of stewardship. There
were twenty-eight responses that included the role of another person in stewardship.
There were forty-six responses that included the role of the board in stewardship.
The second principle included in research question three was commitment to
growth (i.e., personal, professional, and spiritual growth of self and others—Greenleaf).
137
There were 139 described incidents that included most highly satisfying actions for an
average of 4.2 incidents per board member.
There were 138 incidents of dissatisfaction for an average of 4.1 responses per
board member. The combined total of responses that included actions describing
commitment to growth (i.e., personal, professional, and spiritual growth of self and
others—Greenleaf) was 277 incidents for an average of 8.4 responses per board member.
There were 102 responses (i.e., the largest number of responses) that included the
growth of oneself, thirty-six responses that included the growth of another person, sixty-
two responses that included the growth of the board, and seventy-seven responses that
included the growth of the group/population served.
The third principle included in research question three and the last principle to be
discussed in this section was building community (e.g., benevolent, humane,
philanthropic, and that benefits others—Greenleaf). There were 170 responses in the
category of highly satisfying that included building community. The average number of
responses for most highly satisfying incidents of building community was 5.2 responses.
There were 169 responses in the category of most highly dissatisfying that
included Building Community. The average number of responses for most highly
dissatisfying incidents of building community was 5.1 incidents per board member. The
combined total number of responses for building community was 339 incidents with an
average of 10.3 responses per board member.
There were 132 responses (i.e., the largest number of responses), which included
the role of oneself in building community. This number of responses (i.e., 132 responses)
138
was also the largest number of responses for any principle and any category in the entire
study.
The overall combined total for most highly satisfying and most highly
dissatisfying actions attributed to this research question (research question three) was 742
actions. This was the largest total number of actions described in this study. This resulted
in an average of 22.5 actions described per board member. Again, this was the largest
number of actions described throughout the study.
Conclusions
There were 1595 incidents describing actions that included one or more of the ten
principles of servant leadership. The written works of Robert K. Greenleaf (1970, 1972,
1977), Larry Spears (1997, 2004) and Dr. Kent M. Keith (2008), along with the
observations of the researcher during the interview process, lead to the conclusion that
the thirty-three volunteer board members interviewed in the study were motivated by the
ten principles of servant leadership while serving their constituents (i.e., their fellow
board members, their organizations, and their populations served).
Most of the volunteer board members stated that they had volunteered because
they were seeking purpose and/or meaning in their lives. The idea of a "purpose-driven
life" is supported by Rick Warren (2002) in his book about the ministry. Thus some
volunteer board members volunteer due to what they believe to be a spiritual calling in
their lives.
The sense of purpose is also supported by nonsectarian writers such as Ken
Blanchard (2003, 2006), Robert K. Greenleaf (1970, 1972, 1977), Michael Josephson
139
(2002), Kent Keith (2008), and a host of other writers. The researcher concluded that all
of the volunteer board members interviewed sought a greater purpose and meaning for
their lives, and in doing so they described incidents that reflected the practice of servant
leadership. The researcher noted that many volunteer board members had experienced the
concept of volunteerism during their formative years and were thus predisposed to
volunteer during their adult lives. Thus President Obama's call to service is potentially a
good role model for our youth during these transitional times in our economy and our
democracy.
All of the volunteer board members expressed a desire to "give back" to the
community. This concept is evident in the finding that shows that the greatest number of
incidents that described actions of highest satisfaction is the principle of building
community, as seen in figure 7 in chapter IV of this study. Every participant discussed
incidents of high satisfaction during their terms as volunteer board members. Thus the
researcher observed that volunteer board members were likely to continue their service to
their boards and organizations. They perceived their service to be valuable while
achieving the goals of building and improving the community served along with
enhancing the growth of members of the community served.
If we are to achieve a civil society in which each citizen has opportunity to grow
and thrive, then the principles of servant leadership will serve to enhance the possibility
of achieving that goal. The volunteer board members cited more incidents that included
the principles of awareness, commitment to growth, and building community more than
any of the remaining principles of servant leadership. While all of the principles are
140
important, as detailed by the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership library of
publications, awareness, commitment to growth, and building community perhaps best
describe the principles necessary to achieve a civil society that is moving forward in a
positive direction during the twenty-first century.
Implications for Actions
Servant leadership is recognized as a model for effective leadership in the
nonprofit and private sectors (Keith 2008). It is also recognized as a leadership model in
the ministry as evidenced by the numerous sectarian organizations and their
representatives present within the Greenleaf Center membership and at conferences and
in publications (Warren 2002).
Servant leadership is also becoming widespread throughout nonsectarian society,
in part as a result of the "call to serve" presented by President and Mrs. Obama and the
President's administration
A week from tomorrow marks the 100th day of my administration. In those next
eight days, I ask every American to make an enduring commitment to serving
your community and your country in whatever way you can. Visit
WhiteHouse.gov to share your stories of service and success. And together, we
will measure our progress not just in number of hours served or volunteers
mobilized—but in the impact our efforts have on the life of this nation. (President
Obama, The White House, April 21, 2009)
Karin A. Lubin (2001) and Todd Bliss (2006) each explained the importance of
servant leadership within the profession of education. This study presented the concept
that servant leadership, while already evident within volunteerism and volunteer
leadership, can be taken one step further. If servant leadership were recognized as the
standard for successful volunteer leadership, its inclusion in the recruitment, selection,
141
training, and evaluation process for volunteer leaders would have a positive impact on
service and volunteerism in the United States.
One can take the concept of servant leadership a step further and consider the
implications of introducing servant leadership to all volunteers who have chosen to
answer the call to serve. When individuals have the foresight to be stewards for a better
nation and a better world, the call to serve and the concept of servant leadership will
empower those served.
One can also consider the utilitarian value of using the ten principles of servant
leadership as a guide for recruitment, retention, and assessment of volunteer leaders in all
sectors.
Recommendations for Future Research
Further research is needed to study the relationship(s) between servant leadership
and nonprofit, philanthropic volunteer board leadership. Some ideas and/or suggestions
for future studies follow.
1. A replication of this study throughout any/all types/levels of volunteerism for
nonprofit, philanthropic organizations to see if servant leadership is practiced at all levels
of organizations
2. A replication of the study that focuses on board members specifically to
determine if there is a relationship between the practice of servant leadership and
successful board outcomes
3. A survey of volunteers of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations to find out if
they perceive the board of directors as exhibiting the characteristics of servant leadership
142
4. A study of the clergy in the United States to see the degree to which they
exhibit the characteristics of servant leadership in their clerical activities and lives
5. A study of leaders of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations to see the degree to
which they exhibit the characteristics of servant leadership in their activities as leaders
6. A study of leaders in the private sector (i.e., corporations) to see the degree to
which they exhibit the characteristics of servant leadership in their activities as corporate
leaders
7. A study of school administrators to see the degree to which they exhibit the
characteristics of servant leadership in their activities as school leaders.
8. A study that looks for differences between the ten principles when considering
most highly satisfying incidents and most highly dissatisfying incidents
9. A study that seeks to discover if an individual's length of time as a volunteer
has an effect on the degree to which that individual uses one or more of the principles of
servant leadership
10. A study to find out if the individual's perceived level of commitment to the
board/organization/constituents is correlated to the number of incidents of
satisfaction/dissatisfaction described by that individual.
Concluding Remarks
The creation of a civilized society has been one of the most important goals of
society throughout history. Listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion,
conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth, and building
community (i.e., the ten principles of servant leadership) can provide the building blocks
143
to successfully build a civilized society. Civilized society begins with each person
working to be the best that they can be and at the same time making every effort to
enhance the lives of others. Perhaps the best way to observe whether or not we have
evolved to a truly civilized society is to observe our leaders. Servant leadership has
proven to be transformational in part because it enhances the lives of those served. To
find the servant leaders among us, we can consider the following model.
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 1970, 15)
We have entered an era wherein the global community is changing at the speed of
the Internet and the facts about that change are available within a heartbeat of time. The
global community depends upon leadership that will sustain and improve the world for
generations to come. If the United States is to continue to be a country that is a leader
among nations, we need leaders that are prepared to serve on an unprecedented level, for
all to observe and learn from. The nonprofit economy in the United States has net assets
in trillions of dollars (appendix U).
Wiener et al. (2001) state, "For the 1.23 million charities, social welfare
organizations, and religious congregations in the United States, giving and volunteering
is at the heart of citizen action and central to their ability to serve their communities" (2).
The volunteer board members who serve these organizations and guide them into the
future are and will be the leaders who guide all of those who work with the organizations
144
they serve. Servant leadership can guide us into a better future for all of our organizations
and better communities for all of our citizens.

APPENDICES
145
APPENDIX A
MATRIX OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND TEN PRINCIPLES

OF SERVANT-LEADERSHIP
146
Research Questions
QUESTIONS
E
#3.
#2.
#1.
S
T
ION
S
X
1. Listening
X
2. Empathizing
X
3. Healing
X
4. Awareness
X
5. Persuasion
Alignment Matrix
6. Conceptualization
X
7. Foresight
Research Questions and Ten Principles of Servant-Leadership
8. Stewardship
X
9. Growth
10. Building
X
147 Community
APPENDIX B
HERZBERG'S MOTIVATORS AND HYGIENE FACTORS
148
Figure A1. Herzberg's motivators and hygiene factors. Reprinted with permission.
149
APPENDIX C
USA MAP
150
151
APPENDIX D
INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
152
153
Critical Incident Technique

Interview Questions – Diane Silvers
Approved by Dr. Kemper
4/25/07
Question #1: Can you tell me about a time, or times, when you were most highly
satisfied with your volunteer work as a member of the board?
Question #2: Can you tell me about a time, or times, when you were most highly
dissatisfied with your volunteer work as a member of the board?
APPENDIX E
LETTER TO BOARD MEMBERS REQUESTING

INTERVIEW PARTICIPATION
154
155
LETTER TO BOARD MEMBERS
REQUESTING PARTICIPATION IN AN INTERVIEW FOR THE STUDY
July 1, 2007
Dear [Name of Volunteer Board Member]:
I am writing to ask you to consider being part of a leadership study. You have been
selected to participate in this study because you are a volunteer member of the board of
directors of a nonprofit, philanthropic organization. The importance of volunteer
leadership is emerging as one of the most important aspects of philanthropy in America
today.
My doctoral dissertation is being completed through the College of Education and

Organizational Leadership at the University of La Verne. I am conducting a study of
volunteer board members to determine if they exhibit characteristics of the leadership
style known as Servant Leadership. You have been nominated as a potential candidate for
this study.
Servant Leadership has been found to be extremely successful in today’s business

world. Servant leadership stresses the importance and benefits of serving the welfare of
employees, customers and communities. The Ten Principles of Servant Leadership are:
1) Listening, 2) Empathy, 3) Healing, 4) Awareness, 5) Persuasion, 6) Conceptualization,
7) Foresight, 8) Stewardship, 9) Commitment, 10) Building Community.
The interview will consist of two open-ended questions. I would like to conduct
telephone interviews. Participants will remain completely anonymous. I will be glad to
call you at the time and number that is most convenient for you.
Please take a moment to complete the enclosed stamped response card and drop it in
the mail to me. If you prefer, please respond by email or telephone. The numbers are
listed below. Thank you for considering this request. I look forward to an interview with
you!
Sincerely,
Signature on file
Diane J. Silvers
xxxxxxx@xxx.xxx
(xxx) xxx-xxxx
APPENDIX F
DR. TODD BLISS PERMISSION LETTER
156
157
Subject: Re: Dissertation permission request

Date: 9/24/2006 12:32:37 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.net
To: xxxxxxx@xxx.xxx
Dear Diane:
Feel free to adapt my interview instrument for your
study. It seemed to work well for me.
Dr. Kemper is a fantastic chair. He will guide you
safely through the process.
todd
APPENDIX G
DR. KARIN LUBIN PERMISSION LETTER
158
159
Subject: Re: Request to adapt dissertation interview questions

Date: 9/24/2006 6:27:04 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx
To: xxxxxxx@xxx.xxx
Dear Diane Silvers,
It would be my pleasure to have you use some or all of the questions from my dissertation,
VISIONARY LEADER BEHAVIORS AND THEIR CONGRUENCY WITH SERVANT
LEADERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS. I believe using the characteristics of servant leadership will
be very valuable for volunteer leaders serving on non-profit boards. I wish you all the best. Please
let me know if I can be of further assistance, any time!
Sincerely,
Karin Lubin
--
Karin Lubin, Ed.D
xxxxx
xxxxxx, XX xxxxx
xxx-xxx-xxxx
APPENDIX H
FIELD-TEST INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

FEEDBACK GUIDE
160
161
Field-Test
Interview Questionnaire Feedback Guide
1. Was the introduction to the interview process clear and understandable?
Yes________ No__________
If not, what changes would you suggest for improvement?
2. Was the critical incident technique question regarding most highly satisfying time(s)
as a board member, clear and understandable?
Yes__________ No__________
If not, what changes would you suggest for improvement?
3. Was the critical incident technique question regarding most highly dissatisfying
time(s) as a board member, clear and understandable?
Yes__________ No__________
4. Do you believe that there are any other questions that need to be asked?
5. Do you have any other suggestions that would make the interview instrument/process
more clear and productive?
Thank you for your participation in this validation process.

APPENDIX I
SIX ORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS
162
163
Org 6 Optimal Workers experience this organization as a servant-minded organization

building of community, and the providing and sharing of positive leadership.
These characteristics are evident throughout the entire organization. People
Servant Leadership
are trusted and are trustworthy throughout the organization. They are
motivated to serve the interests of each other before their own self-interest
and are open to learning from each other. Leaders and workers view each
other as partners working in a spirit of collaboration.
Org 5 Excellent Workers experience this organization as a servant-oriented organization
building of community, and the providing and sharing of positive leadership.
These characteristics are evident throughout much of the organization. People
are trusted and are trustworthy. They are motivated to serve the interests of
each other before their own self-interest and are open to learning from each
other. Leaders and workers view each other as partners working in a spirit of
collaboration.
Org Moderate Workers experience this organization as a positively paternalistic (parent-led)
4 Health organization characterized by a moderate level of trust and trustworthiness
along with occasional uncertainty and fear. Creativity is encouraged as long
Paternalistic Leadership
as it doesn’t move the organization too far beyond the status quo. Risks can
be taken but failure is sometimes feared. Goals are mostly clear, through the
overall direction of the organization is sometimes confused. Leaders often
take the role of nurturing parent while workers assume the role of the
cared-for child.
Org Limited Workers experience this organization as a negatively paternalistic
3 Health (parent-led) organization characterized by minimal to moderate levels of trust
and trustworthiness along with an underlying uncertainty and fear. People feel
that they must prove themselves and that they are only as good as their last
performance. Workers are sometimes listened to but only when they speak in
line with the values and priorities of the leaders. Conformity is expected
while individual expression is discouraged. Leaders often take the role of
critical parent while workers assume the role of the cautious child.
Org Poor Workers experience this organization as an autocratic-led organization
2 Health characterized by low levels of trust and trustworthiness and high levels of
uncertainty and fear. People lack motivation to serve the organization because
they do not feel that it is their organization or their goals. Leadership is
Autocratic Leadership
autocratic in style and is imposed from the top levels of the organization. It is
an environment where risks are seldom taken, failure is often punished and
creativity is discouraged. Most workers do not feel valued and often feel used
by those in leadership. Change is needed but is very difficult to achieve.
Workers experience this organization as a dangerous place to work . . . a
Org Toxic place characterized by dishonesty and a deep lack of integrity among its
1 workers and leaders. Workers are devalued, used and sometimes abused.
Positive leadership is missing at all levels and power is used in ways that are
harmful to workers, and the mission of the organization. There is almost no
trust and an extremely high level of fear. This organization will find it nearly
impossible to locate, develop, and maintain healthy workers who can assist in
producing positive organizational change.
Figure A2. Six organizational health levels Source: Laub 2003. Reprinted with permission.
APPENDIX J
LETTER OF CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
164
165
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

Principles of Servant Leadership that Motivate Nonpaid Volunteers to Serve on
the Boards of Nonprofit, Philanthropic Organizations.
You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by Diane

Silvers, from the College of Education and Organizational Leadership at the
University of La Verne. The results will contribute to the completion of my
doctoral dissertation. Your participation is completely voluntary. You were
selected as a possible participant in this study because you are a nonpaid,
volunteer board member serving on the board of directors of a nonprofit,
philanthropic organization.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study is to reveal the degree to which the Ten Principles of
Servant Leadership motivate nonpaid volunteers to serve on the governing
boards of philanthropic, nonprofit organizations.
PROCEDURES
If you decide to participate in this study, we will ask you to do the following
things:
Participate in a telephone interview with the researcher. The researcher will ask
two specific questions about your service as a volunteer board member. You
may respond by discussing your experiences as a member of the Board.
The interview takes approximately 45 minutes. The interview will be recorded

with a digital recorder. The interviewer will take hand-written notes during the
interview. The information will remain strictly confidential and no personal
information will ever be divulged in writing or any other means of communication.
This is a telephone interview and may be responded to from the location of your
choice.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There is minimal risk and/or minimal discomfort for participants in this study.
However, if the individual being interviewed were to decide to retract any
information, the information can be purged from the tape and notes.
166
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
A benefit to the participant(s) is that a Summary of the Study will be sent directly
to the individual who is interviewed.
The potential benefit(s) to the nonprofit, philanthropic organization(s) will be the

information gained from the study.
PAYMENT FOR PARTICIPATION
There is no payment for participation in the study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law. Confidentiality will be maintained by means of
strict coding of the information so that no one other than the researcher will have
access to information. The information will be locked in a safe in the
researcher’s home office until the dissertation is completed at which time all
information will be purged.
The participant has the right to review his/her portion of the tape. At the
conclusion of the study, the digital tape will be purged.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You
may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still
remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if
circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to
contact Diane Silvers: Principal Investigator, and/or Faculty Sponsor:
Dr. Lawrence Kemper – (xxx) xxx-xxxx, X. xxxx
Diane Silvers – (xxx) xxx-xxxx
167
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of
your participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your
rights as a research participant, contact Paul Alvarez, PhD, ATC, University
Research Chair at xxx-xxx-xxxx, extension xxxx (Institutional Review Board,
1950 Third Street, La Verne, CA 91750).
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT OR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
I understand the procedures described above. My questions have been

answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been
given a copy of this form.
______________________________________________________________
Printed Name of Participant
_______________ _________________________________________________
Signature of Participant Date
SIGNATURE OR INVESTIGATOR
In my judgment the participant is voluntarily and knowingly giving informed

consent and possesses the legal capacity to give informed consent to participate
in this research study.
Signature on file
__ __ __ __ __ _____________________
Signature of Investigator – Diane J. Silvers Date
APPENDIX K
URBAN INSTITUTE, NATIONAL CENTER FOR

CHARITABLE STATISTICS CHART
168
169
Number of Nonprofit Organizations in the United States, 1996-2006
1996 2006
Percent Percent
Number Number Pct.
of All of All
of Orgs. of Orgs. Change
Orgs. Orgs.
All Nonprofit Organizations 1,084,939 100.0% 1,478,194 100.0% 36.2%
501(c)(3) Public Charities 535,930 49.4% 904,313 61.2% 68.7%
501(c)(3) Private Foundations 58,774 5.4% 109,852 7.4% 86.9%
Other 501(c) Nonprofit Organizations 490,235 45.2% 464,029 31.4% -5.3%
Small community groups and partnerships,
Unknown NA Unknown NA NA
etc.
501(c)(3) Public Charities 535,930 49.4% 904,313 61.2% 68.7%
501(c)(3) Public Charities Registered with
the IRS 535,930 49.4% 904,313 61.2% 68.7%
(including registered congregations)
Reporting Public Charities 224,316 20.7% 347,414 23.5% 54.9%
Operating Public Charities 192,927 17.8% 295,355 20.0% 53.1%
Supporting Public Charities 31,389 2.9% 52,059 3.5% 65.9%
Non-Reporting, or with less than $25,000
311,614 28.7% 556,899 37.7% 78.7%
in Gross Receipts
Congregations (about half are registered
- 0.0% 385,874 26.1% NA
with IRS)*
501(c)(3) Private Foundations 58,774 5.4% 109,852 7.4% 86.9%
Private Grantmaking (Non-Operating)
56,377 5.2% 105,187 7.1% 86.6%
Foundations
Private Operating Foundations 2,397 0.2% 4,665 0.3% 94.6%
Other 501(c) Nonprofit Organizations 490,235 45.2% 464,029 31.4% -5.3%
Civic leagues, social welfare orgs, etc. 127,567 11.8% 116,539 7.9% -8.6%
Fraternal beneficiary societies 102,592 9.5% 84,049 5.7% -18.1%
Business leagues, chambers of commerce,
68,575 6.3% 72,549 4.9% 5.8%
etc.
Labor, agricultural, horticultural orgs 61,729 5.7% 56,460 3.8% -8.5%
Social and recreational clubs 57,090 5.3% 56,778 3.8% -0.5%
Post or organization of war veterans 30,578 2.8% 35,164 2.4% 15.0%
All Other Nonprofit Organizations 42,104 3.9% 42,490 2.9% 0.9%
Note: Excludes out-of-scope organizations.
Sources: IRS Business Master File 01/2007 (with modifications by the National Center for Charitable
Statistics at the Urban Institute to exclude foreign and governmental organizations).
* The number of congregations is from the website of American Church Lists
(http://list.infousa.com/acl.htm), 2004. These numbers are excluded from the totals for the state since
approximately half of the congregations are included under registered public charities.
APPENDIX L
INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS' GENERAL INFORMATION

AND DEMOGRAPHICS
170
171
Table A1
Source of Data: Interview Participants—General Information
Total years
Interview Years on volunteer
participant Gender Position on board Name/type of org. board service
NBS F President WWI 9 38
SF F Treasurer WWI 4 12
JB F VP ways & means WWI 9 25
BG M Int'l membership WWI 1 5
CC F Record. secretary WWI 15 20
LJ F VP membership WWI 9 38
LA F Convent. coord. WWI 5 50
SH F VP charity WWI 3 5
JF F Corres. secretary WWI 6 20
MS F President Breathe CA 20 26
MP F Board member PHS/SPCA,WWI 5 23
DG F Board member PARCA 2 36
TT M Past pres., bd. Breathe CA 16 20
member
JD M Board member Breathe CA 2 10
DC F Board member Breathe CA 2 25
MM F Board member Mission Hosp./WWI 2 30
BYS F Board member PHS/SPCA 10 30
DF F Board member PHS/SPCA 10 30
SR F Board member Chaffey Coll. Found. 10 20
SS F President Chaffey Coll. Found. 20 30
LS M Board member Chaffey Coll. Found. 20 40
MF F Board member Mission Hospice-San 1 5
Mate
GC F Past pres., bd. mbr. Mission Hospice-San 1 25
Mate
SG M Asst. chairperson Vista Center. for the 15 15
Blind
JO F President Stanford Child. 3 20
Aux.-Burl.
BB1 M Board member TESOL 3 7
JA F Board member Palm Beach. County. 8 8
NTC
GL F Board member McKinley Childrens 2 40
Center
GH M Past pres., bd.mbr., ARC, McKinley 7 30
chair Child. Ctr., Un.Wy
MA M Pres. elect, bd.mbr. TESOL 7 28
BB M Past pres., bd. mbr. David & Margaret 6 30
Family Services
JWH F Pres., board Altrusa International, 4 10
member WWI
172
Table A1 (continued)
Total years
Interview Years on volunteer
participant Gender Position on board Name/type of org. board service
AI F VP, past pres. Japanese American 20 20
Museum of SJC
Totals
33 participants 9 males *12 past /present Types of Total Total

24 females board presidents organizations – board volunteer
10 Human welfare- years = years = 771
*3 Content *12+ related orgs 269
validity advanced 3 Education-related Average =
interviews not degrees orgs Average= 23.36
included on known 1 Animal welfare- 8.15
this list related orgs
Types of
organizational
interviews
20 human welfare
nonprofit orgs.
10 educational
nonprofit orgs.
3 animal welfare-
related nonprofit
orgs.
APPENDIX M
INTERVIEW RESPONSE DATA CLASSIFICATION

CODING SYSTEM
173
174
Table A2. Response category codes for each of the ten principles
Interview Question # 1 (Satisfaction); Interview Question # 2 (Dissatisfaction)

Listening – receptively to what is being said (and not said)
L1 – to self
L2 – to another person
L3 – to the board
L4 – to the group/population served
Empathy – seeking to understand, making positive assumptions, compassion
E1 – understanding self
E2 – understanding another person
E3 – understanding the board
E4 – the group/population served
Healing – search for wholeness (physical, mental, spiritual)
H1 – search for wholeness of self
H2 – search for wholeness of another person
H3 – search for wholeness of the board
H4 – of the group/population served
Awareness – making a commitment to foster awareness
A1 – of self
A2 – of another person
A3 – of the board
A4 – of the group/population served
Persuasion – seeking to convince rather than to coerce, building consensus
P1 – of self
P2 – of another person
P3 – striving for board consensus
P4 – the group/population served
Conceptualization – thinking beyond day-to-day realities while balancing daily focus
C1 – concept/idea(s) generated by oneself
C2 – concept/idea generated by another person
C3 – concept/idea(s) generated by the board
Foresight - intuitive abilities to learn from past and see future consequences of actions
F1 – self
F2 – another person
F3 – the board
Stewardship – holding the institution in trust for the good of society
S1 – role of self in stewardship
S2 – role of another person in stewardship
S3 – role of the board in stewardship
Commitment to Growth – personal, professional, and spiritual of self and others
G1 – growth of self
G2 – growth of another person
G3 – growth of the board
G4 – growth of the group/population served
Building Community – benevolent, humane, philanthropic, to benefit others
B1 – role of self
B2 – role of another person
B3 – role of the board
B4 – role of the group/population served
APPENDIX N
FREQUENCIES OF BOARD MEMBERS' ACTIONS
175
176
177
APPENDIX O
PARTICIPANT VOLUNTEER SERVICE TOTALS

AND COMPARISONS
178
APPENDIX P
UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE INSTITUTIONAL

REVIEW BOARD STUDY APPROVAL
180
181
APPENDIX Q
MASLOW'S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS
182
183
Figure A3. Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Reprinted with permission.

APPENDIX R
DATA CLASSIFICATION CHARTS
184
185
Participant AB Q#1 Satisfaction
Listening (to self and others –
Empathy (understanding) –
Healing (search for wholeness of self and others) –
Awareness (Self and of others) -
Persuasion (building consensus) –
Conceptualization (dreams and balance of day-to-day operations) –
Foresight (intuitive abilities to learn from past and see future consequences) –
Stewardship ( holding institution in trust for the good of society) –
Committment to Growth (Personal, Professional, and spiritual of self and others) –
Building Community – (benevolent, humane, philanthropic, to benefit others) –

186
Participant AB Q#2 Dissatisfaction
Listening (to self and others –
Empathy (understanding) –
Healing (search for wholeness of self and others) –
Awareness (Self and of others) -
Persuasion (building consensus) –
Conceptualization (dreams and balance of day-to-day operations) –
Foresight (intuitive abilities to learn from past and see future consequences) –
Stewardship ( holding institution in trust for the good of society) –
Committment to Growth (Personal, Professional, and spiritual of self and others) –
Building Community – (benevolent, humane, philanthropic, to benefit others) –

APPENDIX S
NONPROFIT QUARTERLY ILLUSTRATED

NONPROFIT ECONOMY
187
188
189
Reprinted with permission.
190
REFERENCES
191
REFERENCES
Abramson, Alan J. 2006. Aspen philanthropy letter. Report 139, June. New York: Aspen
Institute.
ACSA Staff. 2006. Leadership. ACSA News.
American Association of Retired Persons. 2009. AARP history. http://www.aarp.org/

aarp/About_AARP/articles/History.html (accessed May 14, 2006).
American Red Cross. n.d. Museum: Explore our history. http://www.redcross.org/

museum/history/pre1900_a.asp (accessed May 14, 2006).
Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) Staff. 2006. Leadership. ACSA

News.
Autry, James A. 2001. The servant leader: How to build a creative team, develop morale,
and improve bottom-line performance. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Baghdady, Georgette, and Joanne M. Maddock. 2008. Marching to a different mission.

Stanford Social Innovation Review 6, no. 2 (Spring): 60-65.
Baker, J. Howard. 2001. Is servant leadership part of your worldview. weLEAD Online
Magazine (January): 1-5.
Banks, James A. 2008. Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global
age. Educational Researcher 37, no. 3 (April): 129-139.
Barbuto Jr., John E., and Richard W. Scholl. 1998. Motivation sources inventory:
development and validation of new scales to measure an integrative taxonomy of
motivation. Psychological Reports 82: 1011-1022.
Barroso, Donzelina A. 2006. Powerful and innovative ideas for grantmakers, investors,
and nonprofits. New York: Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.
Bauer, Stephen. 2006. Meeting the leadership challenge: The nonprofit sector workforce
coalition. Paper presented at conference of Association for Research on Nonprofit
Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA), Chicago, IL.
192
193
Behar, Howard. 2007. It's not about the coffee: Leadership principles from a life at
Starbucks. New York: Penguin Group.
Bekkers, Rene. 2004a. Giving & volunteering in the Netherlands. PhD Diss., University
of Utrecht.
———. 2004b. Giving & volunteering in the Netherlands: Social and psychological
perspectives. Translated by Rene Bekkers. Utrecht: University of Utrecht.
Bell, Jeanne. 2006. Daring to lead: A national study of nonprofit executive leadership. In
Daring to lead, ed. Richard Moyers, 36. San Francisco, CA: CompassPoint
Nonprofit Services.
Bennis, Warren, and Joan Goldsmith. 2003. Learning to lead. 3rd ed. New York: Basic
Books.
Berger, Gabriel. 1991. Factors explaining volunteering for organizations in general, and
for social welfare organizations in particular. PhD diss., Brandeis University.
Blanchard, Ken. 2003. Servant leader. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
———. 2006. Leading at a higher level: Blanchard on leadership and creating high
performing organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.
Blankenship, Michael. 2007. Biel's spiel. All Animals (Summer): 24.
Bliss, Todd W. 2006. Servant leadership in K-12 distinguished teacher's professional

practice. EdD diss., University of La Verne.
Block, Peter. 1996. Stewardship. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
BoardSource. 2005. The source: Twelve principles of governance that power exceptional
boards. Washington DC: BoardSource.
Bollier, David. 1996. Aiming higher. New York: Amacom.
Bonet, Diana. 2001. The business of listening. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Course Technology.
(Orig. pub. 1994.)
Bower, Amanda. 2006. Bill & Melinda Gates: Giving money and hope to the world.
Time, April 30, 63.
Bowman, H. Woods. 2006. Arnova abstracts. ARNOVA 28, no. 3: 1-22.

194
Boyd, Jim. 2008. A servant leader's journey. New York and Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Braden, Bill. 2002-2004. The planning imperative. Winning strategies: Lessons from the
Alford-Axelson award for nonprofit managerial excellence program 2005, no.
2005: 3.
———. 2002-2004. Visionary planning for long-term success. Winning strategies:

Lessons from the Alford-Axelson award for nonprofit managerial excellence
program: 3-6.
Brokaw, Leslie. 2006. The woman who wants to fix the future. NRTA (Spring): 6-7.
Brown, Meghan. 2004. Call to leadership: Profiles of board chairs. Nonprofit Quarterly
11, no. 4 (2004): 43-50.
Brudney, Jeffrey L. 2005. Emerging areas of volunteering. ARNOVA Occasional Paper

Series 1, no. 2: 121.
Burchard, Brendon. 2009. The student leadership guide. 4th ed. Garden City, NY:
Morgan James Publishing.
Burkhardt, John C., and Larry C. Spears. 2000. Servant-leadership and philanthropic
institutions. Vol. 4. 2nd ed. Voices of Servant-Leadership, ed. The Greenleaf
Center for Servant-Leadership. Indianapolis, IN: The Greenleaf Center for
Servant-Leadership.
Burlson, Susan W. 1998. Getting extraordinary things done: Perceptions of behaviors that
superintendents use to obtain and manage additional resources in ways that result
in improved student learning. EdD diss., University of La Verne.
Burns, James MacGregor. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
CARE. n.d. About CARE. http://www.care.org/about/index.asp (accessed December 2,

2006).
Carver, John. 1999. The unique double servant leadership role of the board chairperson.
Vol. 2. 2nd ed. Voices of Servant-Leadership Series. Indianapolis, IN: The
Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership.
———. 2006. Boards that make a difference. 3rd ed. J-B Carver Board Governance
Series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Carver, John, and Miriam Carver. 2006. Reinventing your board. Rev. ed. J-B Carver
Board Governance Series, ed. John Carver. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
195
Center for Creative Leadership. 2006. Adaptability: A leadership imperative. Leading

Effectively, 1-3, March. http://www.ccl.org/leadingeffectively (accessed March
22, 2006).
Chase, Marilyn. 2006. Melinda Gates tops the list. Wall Street Journal, November 20,
R3.
Clark, Ron. 2003. The essential 55. New York: Hyperion Books.
Clinton, Hillary Rodham. 2003. Living history. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Cohen, Rick. 2008. Volunteering by the numbers. Nonprofit Quarterly 15, no. 3: 34-41.
Collins, Jim. 2001. Good to great. New York: HarperCollins.
———. 2008. What makes powerful nonprofit leaders. Nonprofit Quarterly (Summer).
Collins, Leah. 2007. Brave new world for non-profits. Times Colonist (August 17): A19.
Conner, Alana. 2008. With love comes war: Xenophobia and altruism may have evolved
hand in hand. Stanford Social Innovation Review 6, no. 2: 14.
Connerley, Mary L., and Paul B. Pedersen. 2005. Leadership in a diverse and
multicultural environment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cooperrider, David L., and Suresh Srivastva. 1987. Appreciative inquiry in

organizational life. Organizational Change and Development 1: 129-169.
Cornelius, Maria. 2008. Ready to Lead? Next Generation Leaders Speak Out. In Ready to
Lead?, ed. Patrick Corvington, 32. Omaha, NE: CompassPoint Nonprofit
Services.
Corporation for National & Community Service. 2009. American recovery and
reinvestment act of 2009. Washington DC: U.S. Government.
http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/recovery/index.asp (accessed April 9,
2009).
Covey, Stephen R. 1991. Principle centered leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster.
———. 2003. Principle centered leadership. 3rd ed. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Covey, Stephen R., A. Roger Merrill, and Rebecca R. Merrill. 1995. First things first.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
196
Cravens, Jayne. 2007. Online volunteering enters middle age. Nonprofit Quarterly 14, no.
1: 65-68.
Davidson, G. W., M. A. Seaton, and J. Simpson. 1994. The Wordsworth concise English
dictionary. Hertfordshire, England: Wordsworth Editions.
Deal, Terrence E., and Allen A. Kennedy. 1984. Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals
of corporate life. 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
DePree, Max. 1995. Forward to Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's

theory of servant-leadership influenced today's top management thinkers, by
Larry C. Spears. New York: Wiley.
Donahue, Lynn. 2003. "Servant-leaders," once again, receive prestigious leadership

awards. Coast Guard News, no. 22: 1-5.
Dracker, Pune. 1996. "Regarding Henry": A "Bergh's-eye" view of 140 years at the
ASPCA. ASPCA Animal Watch (Spring).
Drayton, Bill. 2006. Everyone a changemaker: Social entrepreneurship's ultimate goal.

Innovations (Winter): 1-27.
Dym, Barry, and Harry Hutson. 2005. Leadership in nonprofit organizations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Edvardsson, Bo, and Inger Roos. 2001. Critical incident techniques: Towards a
framework for analysing the criticality of critical incidents. International Journal
of Service Industry Management 12, no. 3: 251-268.
Edwards, Michael. 2008. Just another emperor? The myths and realities of
philanthrocapitalism. New York: The Young Foundation.
Edwards, Paul, and Sarah Edwards. 2007. Making criticism work for you. Costco
Connection, (June): 9.
Eisner, David, Robert T. Grimm, Shannon Maynard, and Susannah Washburn. 2009. The
new volunteer workforce. Stanford Social Innovation Review 7, no. 1 (Winter):
32-37.
Emanuel, Rahm, and Bruce Reed. 2006. Asked not: Universal citizen service. In The
Plan: Big Ideas for America, 58-68. New York: Public Affairs, Perseus Books
Group.
197
Ferch, Shann. 2005. Servant-leadership: A way of life. International Journal of Servant-

leadership: 3-8.
Ferraro, Patrick. 2008. New survey looks at tomorrow's nonprofit leaders. Philanthropic
Research. http://www.GuideStar.com (accessed June 30, 2008).
Forbes. 2008. Soros on philanthropy. Forbes Magazine, May 17. Online video.
http://www.forbes.com (accessed May 30, 2008).
Foster-Bey, John, Robert Grimm Jr., and Nathan Dietz. 2007. Keeping baby boomers
volunteering: A research brief on volunteer retention and turnover. Washington,
DC: Corporation for National and Community Service.
Fox, Justin. 2008. Employees first! TIME Magazine, July 8, 45.
Freiberg, Kevin, and Jackie Freiberg. 1998. Nuts. New York: Broadway Books.
Frick, Don M. 2009. Implementing servant leadership: Stories from the field. LaCrosse,
WI: D. B. Reinhart Institute for Ethics in Leadership, Viterbo University.
Frick, Don M., and Larry C. Spears. 1996. On becoming a servant leader: The private
writings of Robert K. Greenleaf. Indianapolis, IN: Jossey-Bass.
———. 2004. Robert K. Greenleaf: A life of servant leadership. San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler.
Fullerton, J. 2005. Review of the fifth discipline, 1-12.

http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/jfullerton/review/learning.htm.
Galaskiewicz, Joseph, and Wolfgang Bielefeld. 2000. Facts and findings: Nonprofits in
an age of uncertainty. Independent Sector 2, no. 1 (Summer): 1-4.
Gawel, Joseph E. 2006. Herzberg's theory of motivation and Maslow's Hierarchy of

needs. ERIC Digest. http://wwwericdigests.org/1999-1/needs.html.
Gervase, Bushe, R. 1998. Appreciative inquiry with teams. Organizational Development

Journal 16, no. 3: 41-50.
Gibson, Cynthia M. 2008. Nonprofits: The DNA of democracy. Nonprofit Quarterly 15,
no. 4 (Winter): 27-30.
Gibson, Melissa. 2006. Foundation report warns against "one size fits all" standards.
ARNOVA NEWS (Fall): 3-4.
198
Giving USA Foundation. 2007. U.S. charitable giving reaches $295.02 billion in 2006.
Giving USA Yearbook. Glenview, IL: Giving USA Foundation.
Glashagel, Jerry. 2009. Servant institutions in business. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center
for Servant Leadership.
Gottfredson, Mark, Steve Schaubert, and Elisabeth Babcock. 2008. Achieving

breakthrough performance. Stanford Social Innovation Review 6, no. 3: 32-40.
Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. 2006. What is servant leadership?

http://www.greenleaf.org (accessed March 30, 2006).
Greenleaf, Robert K. 1970. The servant as leader. Westfield, IN: The Greenleaf Center
———. 1972. The institution as servant. Westfield, IN: The Greenleaf Center for Servant
Leadership.
———. 1977. Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and
greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
———. 1991. The servant as leader. Westfield, IN: The Greenleaf Center for Servant
Leadership. (Orig pub. 1970.)
———. 1998. The power of servant leadership. 2nd ed., ed. Larry C. Spears. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
———. 2002. Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and
greatness. 25th anniversary ed., ed. Larry C. Spears. New York: Paulist Press.
(Orig. pub. 1977.)
———. 2003. The servant-leader within: Transformative path, ed. Hamilton Beazley,
Julie Beggs, and Larry C. Spears. Indianapolis, IN: Paulist Press.
———. 2008. The servant as leader. Westfield, IN: The Greenleaf Center for Servant
Leadership. (Orig pub. 1970.)
———. 2009. The institution as servant. Westfield, IN: The Greenleaf Center for Servant
Leadership. (Orig. pub. 1972.)
Grobman, Gary M. 2006. An introduction to the nonprofit sector: Practical approach for
the twenty-first century. 2nd ed. Harrisburg, PA: White Hat Communications.
199
Guo, Chao. 2007. Government funding and community representation on nonprofit

boards: The bargain we strike. Nonprofit Quarterly 14, no. 4: 73-75.
Hall, Peter Dobkin. 2003. A history of nonprofit boards in the United States. E-Book
Series. Washington, DC: BoardSource. http://www.boardsource.org (accessed
November 6, 2006).
Halpern, Patrick R. 2006. Workforce issues in the nonprofit sector: Generational

leadership change and diversity. Report, May. Kansas City, MO: American
Humanics.
Harrison, Yvonne, and Vic Murray. 2006. The role and impact of chairs of nonprofit
organization boards of directors: An exploratory study. Paper presented at
conference of Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and
Voluntary Action (ARNOVA), Chicago, IL.
Harvey, Thomas R. 1996. The elements of research. La Verne, CA: University of La

Verne.
Harvey, Thomas R., William L. Bearley, and Sharon M. Corkrum. 2002. The practical
decision maker: A handbook for decision making and problem solving in
organizations. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Harvey, Thomas R., and Bonita Drolet. 2004. Building teams, building people:
Expanding the fifth resource. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.
Hayghe, Howard V. 1991. Volunteers in the U.S.: Who donates the time? Monthly Labor
Review: 17-23.
Heifetz, Ronald A., and Marty Linsky. 2002. Leadership on the line: Staying alive
through the dangers of leading. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Herman, Robert D. 2005. Board members of nonprofit organizations as volunteers.

Emerging Areas of Volunteering 1, no. 2: 77-91.
Herman, Robert D., and David O. Renz. 1997. Board practices of especially effective and
less effective local nonprofit organizations. Paper presented at conference of
Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action
(ARNOVA), 1-16. Indianapolis, IN: Nonprofit Sector Research Fund Grant.
Herzberg, Frederick. 1959. The motivation to work. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
200
———. 1975. One more time: How do you motivate employees? In Business classics:
Fifteen key concepts for managerial success, 13-22. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business Review. (Orig. pub. January-February, 1968.)
Herzberg, Frederick, Bernard Mausner, and Barbara Bloch Snyderman. 2010. The
motivation to work. 12th ed. New Brunswick: Transaction. (Orig. pub. 1959
1968.)
Hine, Betsy N. 2008. The Hine bibliography of selected monographic resources on

servant leadership. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.
Horsman, J. H. 2001. Perspectives of servant-leadership and spirit in organizations. PhD

diss., Gonzaga University.
House, R. J., P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, and V. Gupta, eds. 2004. Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Hsu, Caroline. Entrepreneur for social change. US News & World Report, October 31,
2005, Special Report.
Huard, Megan. 2008. A different kind of ladder. Pepperdine Voice (Winter): 18.
Hunter, James C. 1998. The servant: A simple story about the true essence of leadership.
Roseville, CA: Crown Business.
———. 2004. The world's most powerful leadership principle: How to become a servant
leader. Roseville, CA: Crown Business.
Ihrke, Douglas M., Grant E. MacDonald, and Kristi Luzar. 2006. The nature and extent
of conflict on nonprofit boards in two counties. Paper presented at conference of
(ARNOVA), Chicago, IL.
Irving, Justin A. 2004. Servant leadership and the effectiveness of teams: Findings and
implications. In Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable,
Regent University, August.
———. 2005. Servant leadership and the effectiveness of teams. Department of

Leadership Studies (March): 77.
Isaac, Stephen, and William Michael. 1990. Handbook in research and evaluation. 2nd
ed. San Diego, CA: EdITS.
201
Isham, Jonathan, and Jane Kolodinsky. 2006. The effects of volunteering for nonprofit
organizations on social capital formation: Evidence from a statewide survey.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 35, no. 3 (September): 367-383.
Izzo, John. 2008. The five secrets you must discover before you die. San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler.
Jensen, Bill. 2003. The simplicity survival handbook. New York: Basic Books, Perseus
Books Group.
Josephson, Michael. 2002. Making ethical decisions, ed. Wes Hanson. Los Angeles, CA:
Josephson Institute of Ethics.
Juergens, Julie M., and Bruce R. Sievers, ed. 2007. Stanford conversations in
philanthropy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Kadlec, Daniel. 2006. The right way to volunteer. Time, September 4, 76.
Kahl, Jack, and Tom Donelan. 2004. Leading from the heart: Choosing to be a servant
leader. Westlake, OH: Kahl & Associates.
Katz, Ralph. 2003. Managing creativity and innovation. Harvard Business Essentials.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Keith, Kent M. 2008. The case for servant leadership. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center
Kennedy, Caroline. 2007. Called to action: Inspired to give back. TIME, July 2, 61-64.
Kim, Daniel. 2002. Foresight as the central ethic of leadership. Vol. 8. Voices of
servant-leadership series, ed. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.
Indianapolis, IN: Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.
Kinkade, Thomas, Robert Goodwin, and Pam Proctor. 2006. Points of light: A
celebration of the American spirit of giving. New York: Center Street Warner
Books.
Kinlaw, Dennis C. 1999. Coaching for commitment. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass/Pfeiffer.
Klug, Lisa Alcalay. 2006. Following a moral compass. Costco Connection, October, 19.
Kotter, John P. 1996. Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
202
Kouzes, James M., and Barry Z. Posner. 1995. The leadership challenge. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
———. 2009. To lead, create a shared vision. Harvard Business Review (January).
Laub, James Alan. 1999. Assessing the servant organization: Development of the servant
organizational leadership assessment (SOLA) instrument. EdD diss., Florida
Atlantic University.
———. 2003. From paternalism to the servant organization: Expanding the

organizational leadership assessment (OLA) model. In Proceedings of the Servant
Leadership Research Roundtable, Regent University, August.
———. 2005. From paternalism to the servant organization: Expanding the

organizational leadership assessment (OLA) model. International Journal of
Servant Leadership 1, no. 1: 155-186.
Lear, Robert W., and Boris Yavitz 1994. Performance in the boardroom: The best and
worst boards of 1994. Chief Executive, November 1, 1-16.
Levesque, Lynn, C. 2001. Breakthrough creativity. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Leviner, Noga, Leslie R. Crutchfield, and Diana Wells. 2006. Understanding the impact
of social entrepreneurs: Ashoka's answer to the challenge of measuring
effectiveness. Research on Social Entrepreneurship: Understanding and
Contributing to an Emerging Field 1, no. 3: 89-104.
Light, Paul C. 2002. The volunteering decision: What prompts it? What sustains it?
Brookings Review 20, no. 4: 45-47.
———. 2008. The search for social entrepreneurship. Washington DC: Brookings
Institution Press.
Little, William, H. W. Fowler, and J. Coulson. 1970. Shorter Oxford English dictionary.
3rd ed., ed. C. T. Onions. London, England: Oxford University Press, 1970. (Orig.
pub. 1934.)
Lobell, Jean R., and Paul M. Connolly. 2007. Peak performance: Nonprofit leaders rate
highest in 360-degree reviews. Nonprofit Quarterly 14, no. 4 (Winter): 12-27.
Loehr, Jim, and Tony Schwartz. 2003. The power of full engagement: Managing energy,
not time, is the key to high performance and personal renewal. New York: Free
Press.
203
Lubin, Karin A. 2001. Visionary leader behaviors and their congruency with servant
leadership characteristics. EdD diss., University of La Verne.
Luthans, Fred. 1977. Organizational behavior. Mcgraw-Hill Series in Management, ed.

Keith Davis and Fred Luthans. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Matteson, Jeffrey A., and Justin A. Irving. 2006. Exploring servant versus self-sacrificial
leadership: A research proposal for assessing the commonalities and distinctions
of two follower-oriented leadership theories. American Society of Business and
Behavioral Sciences 13, no. 1: 1305-1319.
Maxwell, John C. 2007. The "big 5" challenges in life. Leadership Wired 10, no. 10: 1-2.
McCambridge, Ruth. 2008. the shifting tides of nonprofit governance: An interview with
Paul Light. Nonprofit Quarterly 15, no. 2 (Summer): 50-53.
McCambridge, Ruth, and Andrew Crosby. 2007. Doing the right thing: The nonprofit
ethicist. Nonprofit Quarterly 13, no. 3: 1-34.
McCauley, Cynthia D. 2006. Learn, grow, lead . . . without changing your job,
developmental assignments: How to grow as a leader. CCL e-Newsletter: 1-2.
McGee-Cooper, Ann, and Gary Looper. 2001. The essentials of servant-leadership:

Principles in practice. Innovations in management series, ed. Kelly Wardman
O'Reilly, 1-15. Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communications.
McGee-Cooper, Ann, and Duane Trammell. 1999. From hero as leader to servant as
leader. Systems Thinker 10, no. 3: 1-9.
McIvor, Olivia. 2008. Four generations, one workplace. Greenleaf Newsletter, May.
Michelli, Joseph A. 2007. The Starbucks experience. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Millesen, Judity I., and Bradley E. Wright. 2006. Understanding the motive to serve on a
nonprofit board of directors: Does service field matter? Paper presented at
conference of Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and
Voluntary Action (ARNOVA), Chicago, IL.
Minkler, Meredith, and Marty Martinson. 2007. Charity work isn't the solution for all
older Americans. Chronicle of Philanthropy, May 17, 33.
Mintzberg, Henry. 1989. Mintzberg on management. New York: Free Press.

204
Money-zine.com. 2004-2007. Transactional leadership. http://www.money-

zine.com/Career-Development/Leadership-Skill/Transactional-Leadership/
(accessed April 23, 2006).
Morris, Peter S. 2005. Servant inspirational management leadership theory (SIM): A

study of SIM, a full-range leadership model. PhD diss., Rowan University.
Mosher-Williams, Rachel. 2006. Research on social entrepreneurship: Understanding and

contributing to an emerging field. ARNOVA Occasional Paper Series 1, no. 3:
149.
Myer, Brad W., Katherine Fraccastoro, and Lisa D. McNary. 2007. The relationship
among organizational-based self-esteem and various factors motivating
volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 36, no. 2: 327-340.
Nakai, Paul. 2005. The crucial role of coaching in servant-leadership development.

International Journal of Servant Leadership 1, no. 1: 213-228.
National Philanthropic Trust. 2008. Chronological history of philanthropy in the United

States. http://www.nptrust.org/philanthropy_top_five.
Nemenoff, Erin, and Teresa Kwon. 2008. The U.S. national nonprofit infrastrcuture, map
1 and map 2. In Nonprofit Quarterly, ed. Ruth McCambridge, Infrastructure Maps
of U.S. Organizations. Boston, MA: Nonprofit Information Networking
Association.
Newcomb, Amelia. 2004. Heifetz on public leadership. School Administrator

(November): 20-25.
Nonprofit Academic Centers Council. 2006. Indicators of high quality service.

Cleveland, OH: Nonprofit Academic Centers Council.
Norsman, Annette. 2006. Your acts of kindness. NRTA 5, no. 1: 3.
Northouse, Peter G. 2006. Leadership: Theory and practice. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Ott, J. Steven. 2001. The nature of the nonprofit sector. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Patterson, Kerry, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler. 2002. Crucial
conversations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
———. 2005. Crucial confrontations. 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

205
Pellicer, Leonard O. 2003. Caring enough to lead. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Perry, Suzanne. 2009. Charities get ready to put millions of federal volunteers to work.
Chronicle of Philanthropy 21, no. 12 (April 9): 18.
Phills Jr., James A., Kriss Deiglmeier, and Dale T. Miller. 2008. Rediscovering social
innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review 6, no. 4 (Fall): 34-44.
Pitino, Rick. 2000. Lead to succeed. New York: Broadway Books.
PolicyGovernance.com. 2009. http://www.policygovernance.com/
Pollard, C. William. 1996. The soul of the firm. Grand Rapids, MI: HarperBusiness and
Zondervan.
Pollard-Terry, Gayle. 2008. University receives presidential recognition for its service to
the community. Northridge Magazine (Spring): 5.
Powers, Joshua B., and John W. Moore. 2004. Servant-leadership and the art of teaching.
Vol. 11. Voices of Servant-Leadership Series, ed. Greenleaf Center for Servant-
Leadership. Indianapolis, IN: Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership.
Purcell, Philip M. 2001. Issues and opportunities in endowment fundraising.

Indianapolis, IN: Planned Giving Resource Center for the Central Indiana
Community Foundation.
Roberts, Brenda. 2006. Dedicated volunteers saluted at university's annual tribute. CSUN
@Community (November): 1-2.
Roberts, Carol M. 2004. The dissertation journey. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Rogers, Pier C., ed. 2001. Philanthropy in communities of color: Traditions and
challenges. ARNOVA occasional papers series. Indianapolis, IN: Association for
Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action.
Rothschild, William E. 1976. Putting it all together: A guide to strategic thinking. 6th ed.
New York: AMACOM.
Rose, Alexander. 2002. Kings in the north: The house of Percy in British history. 1st ed.
London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
206
San Juan, Karel. 2005. Re-imagining power in leadership: Reflection, integration, and
servant-leadership. International Journal of Servant Leadership 1, no. 1: 187-209.
Sapper, Jon G. 2003. A research study measuring the effects of a frequency-of-

communication norm and project completion on group trust levels in temporary
virtual school work groups. EdD diss., University of La Verne.
Schervish, Paul G., and John J. Havens. 2006. New findings and trends on the
relationship of wealth, income, and philanthropy. Paper presented at conference
of Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action
(ARNOVA). Chicago, IL.
Schmitz, Paul. 2008. In a successful campaign: Lessons for nonprofits. Nonprofit

Quarterly 15, no. 4: 1-3.
Seel, Keith. 2006. New learnings about governance. Paper presented at conference of
(ARNOVA). Chicago, IL.
Seidman, Irving. 2006. Interviewing as qualitative research. New York: Teachers

College Press.
Senge, Peter. 1990. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell.
———. 1995. Robert Greenleaf's legacy: A new foundation for twenty-first century
institutions. In Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's theory of
servant-leadership influenced today's top management thinkers, ed. Larry C.
Spears, 217-240. New York: Wiley.
Senge, Peter, Art Kleiner, Charlotte Roberts, Richard Ross, and Bryan Smith. 1994. The
fifth discipline fieldbook. New York: Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, Thomas J. 2007. Rethinking leadership: A collection of articles. 2nd ed.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press/Sage.
Shoaf, Robb W. 2006. Isomorphic metaphor as a tool in identifying social goals and the
quest for wholeness. Paper presented at conference of Association for Research
on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA). Chicago, IL.
Sipe, James W., and Don M. Frick. 2009. Seven pillars of servant leadership. New York
and Manwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Smart, Maya Payne. 2009. How to set up your board.

207
Spears, Larry C. 1995. Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's theory of

servant-leadership influenced today's top management thinkers. New York:
Wiley.
———, ed. 1997. Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
———. 2001. Focus on leadership: Servant-leadership for the 21st century, ed. Michele
Lawrence and Ken Blanchard. 3rd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.
———. 2004. Practicing servant-leadership. Leader to Leader Institute 1, no. 34: 7-11.
———. 2005. The understanding and practice of servant-leadership. In Proceedings of

the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, Regent University, August.
Spears, Larry C., and Michele Lawrence. 2004. Practicing servant-leadership:

Succeeding through trust, bravery, and forgiveness. New York: Jossey-Bass.
Steiner, George A., and John B. Miner. 1977. Management Policy and Strategy: Text,
Readings, and Cases. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Stengel, Richard. 2007a. The case for national service. TIME.
———. 2007b. A time to serve. TIME, August 30, 1-7.
———. 2008. The service agenda. TIME, July 28, 4.
Stoesz, Edgar, and Chester Raber. 1997. Doing good better!: How to be an effective
board member of a nonprofit organization. Intercourse, PA: Good Books. (Orig.
pub. 1994.)
Stone, A. Gregory, Russell F. Russell, and Kathleen Patterson. 2004. Transformational

versus servant leadership: A difference in leader focus. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal 25, no. 4: 349-361.
Talnack, Alice S. 2000. A case study: The impact of the Santa Cruz County Educational
Leadership Consortium Academy on the skill development and practices of
school principles. EdD diss., University of La Verne.
Taub, Eric. 2007. Where have all the leaders gone? Lee Iacocca pulls no punches in his
new book. Costco Connection, June, 17.
Thomas, Kenneth W. 2000. Intrinsic motivation at work: Building energy & commitment.
1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
208
Thompson, Jim. 1998. Shooting in the dark. Portola Valley, CA: Warde.
Tichy, Noel M., and Warren G. Bennis. 2007. Judgment: How winning leaders make
great calls. New York: Penguin Group.
Tosi, Henry L., Neal P. Mero, and John R. Rizzo. 2005. Managing organizational
behavior. 4th ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Traynor, Bill. 2008. The bright future of community building. Nonprofit Quarterly 15,
no. 1 (Spring): 24-29.
Tregaskis, Sharon R. 2006. Autism speaks. NYU (Spring): 21-23.
Tuckman, Bruce W. 1999. Conducting educational research. 5th ed. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning.
Warren, Rick. 2002. The purpose driven life. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Watkins, Jane Magruder, and Bernard J. Mohr. 2001. Appreciative Inquiry. Practicing
Organization Development: The Change Agent Series for Groups and
Organizations, ed. William J. Rothwell. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
West, Diana. 2006. American Red Cross: Volunteers power the nation's largest relief
organization. American Profile (May 14-20).
Wheatley, Margaret. 2002. The servant-leader: From hero to host. An interview with
Margaret Wheatley. Indianapolis, IN: Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.
White, Patricia, Thomas R. Harvey, and Lawrence Kemper. 2007. The politically
intelligent leader: Dealing with the dilemmas of a high-stakes educational
environment. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Wiener, Susan, Chris Toppe, Nadine Jalandoni, Arthur D. Kirsch, and Murray S.
Weitzman. 2001. Giving and volunteering in the United States. Washington, DC:
Independent Sector.
Wolf, Kevin. 1994. The makings of a good meeting, 1-30. http://members.dcn.org/kjwolf.
Wolfe, Rebecca E. 2006. Community foundations' community leadership: Traditional,

change agent, or nonexistent? In ARNOVA. Chicago, IL: Stanford University
School of Education.
Wright, Robert Grandford. 1977. The nature of organizations. Encino, CA: Dickenson.
209
Wymer, Walter W., Jr., and Becky J. Starnes. 2001. Conceptual foundations and practical
guidelines for recruiting volunteers to serve in local nonprofit organizations, Part
I. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 9, no. 1: 63-96.

Principles of Servant Leadership That Motivate Nonpaid Volunteers To Serve On Boards of Nonprofit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Principles of Servant Leadership That Motivate Nonpaid Volunteers To Serve On Boards of Nonprofit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE

PRINCIPLES OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP THAT MOTIVATE NONPAID

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

College of Education and Organizational Leadership

Organizational Leadership Department

All rights reserved

Principles of Servant Leadership that Motivate Nonpaid Volunteers to Serve on Boards of

By Diane J. Silvers, EdD

Recommendations: Future studies should continue to examine the relationship(s) between

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... x

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................... xii

I. A PERSPECTIVE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF SERVANT

Problem Statement .................................................................................... 3

Purpose Statement ..................................................................................... 10

Research Questions ................................................................................... 10

Significance of the Study .......................................................................... 11

Definitions of Terms ................................................................................. 13

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................................................................. 18

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................. 19

Research Questions ................................................................................... 20

Brief Overview of Leadership Theory ...................................................... 20

Basic Leadership Approaches ............................................................ 21

Motivation Theory ............................................................................. 23

Service Model .................................................................................... 25

Philanthropy and Volunteerism ................................................................ 26

Volunteer Board Leadership of Nonprofit, Philanthropic

Six Organizational Health Level Descriptions .......................................... 36

History of Servant Leadership .................................................................. 39

Servant Leadership in the Profession of Education .................................. 42

Servant Leadership in Religious Life ........................................................ 44

Ten Principles of Servant Leadership ....................................................... 44

Servant Leadership Theory and Models ................................................... 52

III. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 60

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................. 60

Research Questions ................................................................................... 60

Type of Research and Design ................................................................... 61

Population and Sample.............................................................................. 61

Validity and Field-test ............................................................................... 65

Data Collection Procedures ....................................................................... 67

IV. PRESENTATION OF THE DATA ............................................................... 74

Overview of the Presentation of the Data ................................................. 74

Research Questions ............................................................................ 74

Profile of the Sample Population ....................................................... 75

Profile of the Participants: Descriptive Characteristics of

Overview of the Findings................................................................... 80

General Findings ................................................................................ 81

Presentation of Participants' Responses ............................................. 87

Chapter Summary...................................................................................... 122

V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND

Introduction ............................................................................................... 126

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................. 126

Research Questions ................................................................................... 126

Methodology ............................................................................................. 127

Limitations of the Research ...................................................................... 129

Research Question One ...................................................................... 131

Research Question Two ..................................................................... 134

Research Question Three ................................................................... 136

Conclusions ............................................................................................... 138

Implications for Actions ............................................................................ 140

Recommendations for Future Research .................................................... 141

Concluding Remarks ................................................................................. 142