8

Spiritual Leadership: A Study of the Relationship Between Spiritual
Leadership Theory and Transformational Leadership
Submitted to Regent University

School of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Organizational Leadership
Richard Boorom
May 2009
UMI Number: 3377759

Copyright 2009 by
Boorom, Richard
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
______________________________________________________________
UMI Microform 3377759
Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
_______________________________________________________________
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
Spiritual Leadership
ii
iii
Abstract
Spirituality and its application to workplace culture is a compelling issue for
management practitioners and academicians as contemporary research has
suggested that the spiritual domain is an integral element of leadership.
Specifically, scholars have advocated that spiritual leadership theory (SLT)
incorporates and extends the characteristics associated with transformational
leadership. However, little empirical work has been completed on the topic. For
example, the construct validity of the spiritual leadership causal model (Fry, 2003,
2005a, 2008; Fry, Vitucci, & Cedillo, 2005; Fry & Whittington, 2005) has been
subject to limited examination. The purpose of this study is to examine the extent to
which the variables contained within SLT are related to transformational leadership
behaviors of leaders as perceived by leaders and followers. The study also
examines the relationship between self-reported levels of spiritual leadership and a
leaders perceived spiritual well-being and concern for spirituality. In addition,
followers are asked to assess the effectiveness of the leader to establish a
relationship between spiritual leadership and leadership effectiveness. The study
examines the moderating effects of spiritual health and leader concern for
spirituality on the relationship between transformational and spiritual leadership
and leadership effectiveness. Using a sample population of almost 150 selfidentified leaders and over 350 followers, multivariate analysis is applied to
provide insight to the spiritual leadership construct.
iv
Dedication
This dissertation is first and foremost dedicated to God and His ever-living
Holy Spirit. The 7-year journey to complete the program has been governed
through His grace. As I entered and now completed my doctoral studies, I
acknowledge God for carrying me through the processthank you! I pray that I
would apply the degree towards His glory.
I also dedicate this work to the love of my life and my best friendCarol. I
am grounded through her humor, intelligence, and jest for life. Her never-ending
support and constant encouragement have fueled my dreams. Her love truly makes
me a better person. I am blessed to call her my wife.
In addition, I dedicate this work to my two beautiful girls Grace and Elise.
While it is wonderful to be called Doctor, I am more grateful to be called Daddy.
Finally, I would like to thank Bob and Virginia for always believing in me.
My life is enriched daily through their love.
Acknowledgements
Dr. Edward Cooper was persistent in prodding me to enter a doctorate
program. I am grateful for his encouragement and belief in my writing and research
skills. He was an outstanding boss and is a visionary leader in the academic
community.
Dr. Dail Fields, my dissertation chair, has provided exceptional insight
throughout the dissertation process. His patience, humor, intellect, and
encouragement have been invaluable. I would also like to thank Dr. Bekker and Dr.
Fry for serving on my committee. Their feedback and shared wisdom have been a
blessing.
Finally, I would like to thank Regis University, my employer for the last 10
years, for their financial support and for allowing me to invest professional time
throughout this process.
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................... ii
Dedication ................................................................................................................ iv
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................v
List of Tables ........................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures ........................................................................................................ xiii
Chapter 1 Introduction to the Study ........................................................................1
Spirituality and the Workplace ...........................................................................2
SLT .....................................................................................................................3
Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................5
Research Questions .............................................................................................6
Significance of the Study ....................................................................................7
Scope of the Study ..............................................................................................8
Limitations and Delimitations.............................................................................9
Definition of Terms...........................................................................................10
Spirituality .................................................................................................10
Leadership..................................................................................................10
Transformational Leadership .....................................................................11
SLT ............................................................................................................11
Organization of the Study .................................................................................13
Summary of Chapter 1 ......................................................................................14
Chapter 2 Literature Review .................................................................................15
Leadership and Spirituality ...............................................................................15
Spirituality.........................................................................................................17
Spiritual Growth and Well-being...............................................................19
Spirituality and Religion ............................................................................20
Workplace Spirituality ......................................................................................24
A Brief History of Leadership Research ...........................................................27
Transformational and Transactional Leadership ..............................................29
Spiritual Leadership ..........................................................................................33
SLT ...................................................................................................................38
Vision .........................................................................................................40
vii
Altruistic Love ...........................................................................................40

Hope/Faith .................................................................................................41
Hope/Faith .................................................................................................41
A New Paradigm for Leadership Studies..........................................................43
Chapter 3 Method..................................................................................................49
Data Sample ......................................................................................................50
Demographics ...................................................................................................51
Measures ...........................................................................................................52
Bass and Avolios (1990b, 1995, 1997) MLQ ..........................................52
Kass et al.s (1991) INSPIRIT ...................................................................54
Ashmos and Duchons (2000) Inner Life Scale ........................................54
Fry et al.s (2005) SLT Instrument ............................................................55
Ehrhart and Kleins (2001) Leader Effectiveness Measure .......................56
Procedures .........................................................................................................56
Chapter 4 Results ..................................................................................................59
Interrater Agreement .........................................................................................59
Correlation Analysis .........................................................................................60
Multiple Regression Analysis: Response to Research Question 1 ...................62
Multiple Regression Analysis: Response to Research Question 5 .................105
Chapter 5 Discussion ..........................................................................................112
Overview of Findings .....................................................................................113
Findings in Response to Research Questions .................................................118
Theoretical Implications of Study Findings ....................................................118
Finding That Transformational Leadership Helps Explain SLT .............118
Finding of Noncorrelation Between Leaders and Follower SLT Variables
.................................................................................................................120
viii
Finding That Spiritual Leadership Mediates the Relationship of

Transformational Leader Characteristics and Perceived Leader
Effectiveness as Reported by Followers ..................................................121
Finding That Leader Spiritual Health and Leader Concern for Spirituality
Help Explain Leader Hope/Faith .............................................................122
Finding of Leader Age Helping Explain SLT Leader Behaviors Hope,
Love, Calling, and Membership ..............................................................123
Finding of Negative Correlations Between Leader Spiritual Health and
Leader Concern for Spirituality With SLT Leader Variables as Reported
by Followers ............................................................................................123
Practical Implications of Study Findings ........................................................124
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Study..........................................................125
Directions for Future Research .......................................................................126
SLT as a Mediating Variable ...................................................................126
Leader Age and SLT Leader Behaviors ..................................................127
Negative Relationship Between Leader Spiritual Health and Leader
Concern for Spirituality and SLT Leader Behaviors as Reported by
Followers .................................................................................................127
Generalization and Longitudinal Efforts in Future Studies .....................127
References ..............................................................................................................128
Appendix A Leader Survey .................................................................................149
Appendix B Follower Survey .............................................................................152
Appendix C Rewording of SLT Survey ..............................................................155
Appendix D Regis University Institutional Review Board Approval .................158
Appendix E Human Subject Research Review Application Form .....................159
ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Comparison of Transformational Leadership Characteristics and Spiritual
Leadership Variables ........................................................................................32
Table 2: Qualities of Spiritual Leadership ...............................................................41
Table 3: Participation Rates from Self-Identified Leaders ......................................51
Table 4: Demographics by Leader Age Group ........................................................51
Table 5: Demographics by Leader Employer ..........................................................52
Table 6: SLT Reliability Scores for Leader and Follower Data ..............................55
Table 7: Data Collected............................................................................................58
Table 8: Interrater Agreement of Follower Variables ..............................................59
Table 9: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Study Variables ..63
Table 10: Regression Analysis Model Summary for SLT Leader Vision, Dependent
Variable SLT Vision as Reported by Leaders ...............................................64
Table 11: Regression Coefficients Predicting SLT Leader Vision, Dependent
Variable SLT Leader Vision as Reported by Leaders ...................................65
Table 12: Regression Analysis Model Summary for SLT Leader Hope, Dependent
Variable SLT Hope as Reported by Leaders .................................................66
Table 13: Regression Coefficients Predicting SLT Leader Hope, Dependent
Variable SLT Leader Hope as Reported by Leaders .....................................67
Table 14: Regression Analysis Model Summary for SLT Leader Love, Dependent
Variable SLT Love as Reported by Leaders ..................................................68
Table 15: Regression Coefficients Predicting SLT Leader Love, Dependent
Variable SLT Love as Reported by Leaders ..................................................69
Table 16: Regression Analysis Model Summary for SLT Leader Calling/Meaning,
Dependent Variable SLT Calling as Reported by Leaders ............................70
Table 17: Regression Coefficients Predicting SLT Leader Calling/Meaning,
Dependent Variable SLT Calling as Reported by Leaders ............................71
Table 18: Regression Analysis Model Summary for SLT Leader Membership,
Dependent Variable SLT Membership as Reported by Leaders ...................72
Table 19: Regression Coefficients Predicting SLT Leader Membership, Dependent
Variable SLT Membership as Reported by Leaders ......................................73
Table 20: Regression Analysis Model Summary for SLT Vision, Dependent
Variable SLT Leader Vision as Reported by Followers ................................74
Table 21: Regression Coefficients Predicting SLT Vision, Dependent Variable
SLT Leader Vision as Reported by Followers ..................................................75
Table 22: Regression Analysis Model Summary for SLT Hope (fr), Dependent
Variable SLT Leader Hope as Reported by Followers ..................................76
Table 23: Regression Coefficients Predicting SLT Hope, Dependent Variable
SLT Leader Hope as Reported by Followers ....................................................77
Table 24: Regression Analysis Model Summary for SLT Love, Dependent Variable
SLT Leader Love as Reported by Followers .................................................78
Table 25: Regression Coefficients Predicting SLT Love, Dependent Variable
SLT Leader Love as Reported by Followers ....................................................79
Table 26: Regression Analysis Model Summary for SLT Calling/Meaning (fr),
Dependent Variable SLT Leader Calling as Reported by Followers ............80
Table 27: Regression Coefficients Predicting SLT Calling/Meaning (fr), Dependent
Variable SLT Leader Calling as Reported by Followers ...............................81
Table 28: Regression Analysis Model Summary for SLT Membership (fr),
Dependent Variable SLT Leader Membership as Reported by Followers ....82
Table 29: Regression Coefficients Predicting SLT Membership (fr), Dependent
Variable SLT Leader Membership as Reported by Followers ......................83
Table 30: Summary for Research Question 1 Variables Predicting SLT .............84
Table 31: Regression Analysis Model Summary for Control Variables, MLQ
Variables, and SLT Variables Reported by Leaders as Predictor of Leader
Effectiveness .....................................................................................................86
Table 32: Regression Coefficients for Control Variables, MLQ Variables, and SLT
Variables Reported by Leaders Predicting Leader Effectiveness .....................87
Variables, and SLT Variables Reported by Followers as Predictor of Leader
Effectiveness .....................................................................................................88
Variables Reported by Followers Predicting Leader Effectiveness .................89
xi
Table 35: Regression Analysis Model Summary for SLT Variables Reported by
Leaders as Predictor of Leader Effectiveness ...................................................91
Table 36: Regression Coefficients SLT Variables Reported by Leaders Predicting
Effectiveness .....................................................................................................91
Followers as Predictor of Leadership Effectiveness .........................................92
Table 38: Regression Coefficients SLT Variables as Reported by Followers
Predicting Effectiveness....................................................................................92
Table 39: Regression Analysis Model Summary for Control Variables,
Transformational Leadership, Leader Spiritual Health, and Leader Concern for
Spirituality as Predictor of Leadership Effectiveness .......................................93
Table 40: Regression Coefficients Control Variables, Transformational Leadership,
Leader Spiritual Health, and Leader Concern for Spirituality Leader Predicting
Effectiveness .....................................................................................................94
Transformational Leadership, Leader Spiritual Health, Leader Concern for
Spirituality, and SLT Variables Reported by Followers as Predictor of Leader
Effectiveness .....................................................................................................95
Leader Spiritual Health, Leader Concern for Spirituality, and SLT Variables
Reported by Followers Predicting Leader Effectiveness ..................................96
Transformational Leadership, Leader Spiritual Health, and TLSH Moderating
as Predictor of Leader Effectiveness.................................................................99
Table 44: Regression Coefficients for Control Variables, Transformational
Leadership, Leader Spiritual Health, and TLSH Predicting Leader
Effectiveness ...................................................................................................100
Table 45: Regression Analysis Model Summary for Control Variables, SLT Vision
as Reported by Followers, and SLTFVSH Moderating as Predictor of Leader
Effectiveness ...................................................................................................101
Table 46: Regression Coefficients Control Variables, SLT Vision as Reported by
Followers, and SLTFVSH Predicting Leader Effectiveness ..........................102
xii
Table 47: Regression Analysis Model Summary for Control Variables, SLT Love
as Reported by Followers and SLTFLSH Moderating as Predictor of Leader
Effectiveness ...................................................................................................103
Table 48: Regression Coefficients Control Variables, SLT Love as Reported by
Followers and SLTFLSH Predicting Leader Effectiveness ............................104
Transformational Leadership, Leader Concern for Spirituality, and TLCS
Moderating as Predictor of Leader Effectiveness ...........................................106
Leader Concern for Spirituality, and TLCS Predicting Leader Effectiveness 107
(fr), and SLTFVCS Moderating as Predictor of Leader Effectiveness ...........108
Table 52: Regression Coefficients Control Variables, SLT Vision (fr), and
SLTFVCS Predicting Leader Effectiveness ...................................................109
(fr), and SLTFLCS Moderating as Predictor of Leader Effectiveness ...........110
Table 54: Regression Coefficients Control Variables, SLT Love (fr), and SLTFLCS
Predicting Leader Effectiveness .....................................................................111
Table 55: Relationship of the Variables as Reported by Leaders ..........................114
Table 56: Relationship of Variables as Reported by Followers .............................116
Table 57: Cross-Source Relationships of Variables as Reported by Leaders and
Followers.........................................................................................................117
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Model of organizational, empowered team, and personal transformation
through spiritual leadership...............................................................................13
Figure 2: The interplay of theological reflection and cognitive elements in decision
making...............................................................................................................23
Figure 3: Frys causal model of spiritual leadership. ...............................................39
Figure 4: Independent variables predicting leader effectiveness. ............................45
Figure 5: Mediating the relationship of leader effectiveness. ..................................46
Figure 6: Spiritual health altering leader effectiveness. ...........................................46
Figure 7: Concern for spirituality altering leader effectiveness. ..............................47
Figure 8: Spiritual leadership mediating the relationship of transformational
leadership on leadership effectiveness. ...........................................................118
Chapter 1 Introduction to the Study

An exponentially accelerating force for global, societal, and organizational
change is emerging, yielding a call for holistic leadership where the fundamental
arenas of human existence are interrelated. Specifically, leaders are called to
acknowledge the four segments of human existence: (a) the body (physical), (b)
mind (logical/rational thought), (c) heart (emotions/feelings), and (d) spirit
(Moxley, 2000). Recent developments in strategic scorecards, performance
measurement, and quality have noted the pivotal role that employee well-being,
satisfaction, and productivity play in predicting key organizational performance
indicators (Baldrige National Quality Program, 2005; Kaplan & Norton, 1992,
1996). As such, employee commitment is the central and leading indicator. It is,
therefore, significant that employee commitment, as a driver of organizational
performance and productivity, may be fostered through workplace spirituality and
spiritual leadership (Fry & Matherly, 2007).
In her book Megatrends 2010, Patricia Aburdene suggested that a focus on
spirituality in business is becoming so pervasive that it stands as todays greatest
megatrend. An evolving American culture and a variable business climate are
driving the revitalization of the workplace through an infusion of spirituality
(Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003). A spiritual renaissance in the United States is
exemplified by a developing sense of corporate social responsibility (Neal, 2001).
The reality of constant workplace change (Mitroff & Denton, 1999), downsizing,
reengineering, and new technologies (Cash, Gray, & Rood, 2000) and the
perception that employees see themselves as expendable resources (Cohen, 1996)
have been proffered as catalysts for the accelerated interest in workplace
spirituality. As such, Reave (2005) stated:
There is a clear consistency between the values (in the sense of established
ideals) and practices emphasized by many different spiritual teachers, and
the values and practices of leaders who are able to motivate followers,
create a positive ethical climate, inspire trust, promote positive work
relationships, and achieve organizational goals. These spiritual values and
practices also allow leaders to achieve organizational goals such as
increased productivity, lowered rates of turnover, greater sustainability, and
improved employee health. (p. 657)
Some have hypothesized that spirituality is at the core of leadership

effectiveness (Conger, 1998; Fry, 2003, 2005b; Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996;
Marcic, 1997; Mitroff & Denton, 1999) as a transcendent purpose along with
meaning and values which are central elements of both transformational leadership
(Bass & Avolio, 1994; Burns, 1978) and spirituality as defined by Paloutzian and
Ellison (1982). Hence, this study attempts to make a significant contribution in
understanding the relationship between spirituality and leadership. Specifically,
levels of agreement are identified between the variables contained in Frys (2003)
spiritual leadership theory (SLT) and the characteristics of transformational
leadership (Avolio & Bass, 1993) as perceived by followers. In addition, the
relationship between spiritual leadership and a leaders overall spiritual health,
concern for spirituality, and perceived effectiveness are assessed.
Spirituality and the Workplace
Spirituality and its application to workplace culture is a compelling issue for
management practitioners and academicians. Popular literature on the topic has
expanded considerably in the last decade (Dent, Higgins, & Wharff, 2005;
Gibbons, 2000). The subject has gained sufficient interest that the Academy of
Management has created an interest group on the topic with over 500 members
(Robbins, 2003). In addition, The Journal of Organizational Change Management
devoted an entire recent issue to the topic of the relationship between spirituality
and leadership. Topics associated with workplace spirituality are now commonly
taught in both graduate and undergraduate business programs (Biberman &
Altman, 2004).
Satisfying workplace spiritual needs positively influences human health and
psychological well-being, as leaders who emphasize spiritual values are often able
to awaken a latent motivation in others (Reave, 2005). By tapping into basic human
needs, spiritual leaders foster follower trust, intrinsic motivation, and the
commitment that is necessary to simultaneously optimize performance (Fry,
2005a). Spirituality gives us one way of looking at leadership, a way that can
integrate character, behavior, effect on followers, and achievement of group goals,

stated Reave (p. 660). Hence, Mitroff and Denton (1999) stated:
After years of study and practice, we have been forced to a painful
conclusion: by themselves, all of the conventional techniques in the world
will not produce fundamental and long-lasting changes. . . . We believe that
todays organizations are impoverished spiritually and that many of their
most important problems are due to their impoverishment. We believe that
organizational science can no longer avoid analyzing, understanding, and
treating organizations as spiritual entities. (p. xiii-xiv)
When workplace spirituality is fostered, the culture of the organization is
modified, allowing leadership to be transformed. Hence, humanistic practices and
polices become an integral part of the organizations day-to-day functions (GarciaZamor, 2003). Employees who view their work as a means to advance spiritually
are likely to exert greater effort than those who see it merely as a means to a
paycheck (Zinnbauer, Pargament, & Scott, 1999).
Spiritual leadership has been built upon Giacalone and Jurkiewiczs (2003)
definition of workplace spirituality: A framework of organizational values
evidenced in the culture that promotes employees experience of transcendence
through the work process, facilitating their sense of being connected in a way that
provides feeling of compassion and joy (p. 13). Likewise, in defining the
transformational leader paradigm, Burns (1978) suggested that the inner soul
houses a transcendent vision and purpose where the transformational leader draws
strength. Hence, transcendence and the need for membership are central to the
theory of spiritual leadership and provide the foundation for any premise of
workplace spirituality. Spiritual leadership, therefore, establishes a sense of leader
and follower spiritual survival to create value congruence across the organization.
Ultimately, the values foster empowered teams and individual accountability
yielding high levels of organizational commitment, productivity, and employee
well-being (Fry, 2005b).
SLT
Frys (2003) SLT incorporates vision, hope/faith, altruistic love, theories of
workplace spirituality, and spiritual survival to create value congruence across
strategic, empowered teams, and individual levels, fostering a higher level or

organizational commitment and productivity. SLT is a causal leadership theory for
organizational transformation where members have a sense of spiritual survival
through calling and membership. SLT prescribes a set of consensus values and
motives that, when combined with hope/faith in a compelling vision, produces
intrinsic motivation to satisfy needs for spiritual survival and, ultimately, positively
influence human health and psychological well-being, stated Fry and Whittington
(2005, p. 196). The paradigm provides an integrated framework, increasing levels
of intrinsic motivation, commitment, productivity, and well-being (Fry et al.,
2005). As such, Fry et al. stated:
We conclude that spiritual leadership theory offers promise as a springboard
for a new leadership theory, research, and practice given that it (1)
incorporates and extends transformational and charismatic theories as well
as ethicsand values-based theories (e.g., authentic and servant leadership)
and (2) avoids the pitfalls of measure model misspecification. (p. 834)
Spiritual leadership (Fry, 2003) and transformational leadership (Bass,
1990a) both claim to elevate the interests of employees through value congruence
and the establishment of a common vision for the organization, stirring employees
to look beyond their own self-interests for the greater good of the larger
organization. Bass (1990a) suggested that transformational leaders achieve results
by meeting the emotional need of employees. Similarly, Fry et al. (2005) asserted
that through hope/faith, leaders keep followers looking forward to the future,
providing the desire and positive expectation that fuels effort through intrinsic
motivation.
In defining spiritual leadership, Fry and Whittington (2005) stated,
Altruistic love is given unconditionally upon entry into the organization and is
received in turn from followers in pursuit of a common vision that drives our and
removes fears associated with worry, anger, jealousy, selfishness, failure and guilt
(p. 187). An analogous relationship is evident in transformational leadership where
the inner soul houses the transcendent vision, purpose, and values of the leader,
sourcing his or her strength, contagious vision, and transcendent purpose (Bass &
Avolio, 1994; Burns, 1978).
Transformational leaders transcend their own interest and needs for the sake
of followers, motivating followers towards higher level of effectiveness (Burns,
1978). Transformational leadership is sourced in the leaders spirituality where
followers form an emotional bond with the leader which involves an unwavering
trust in the leader (Conger, 1998). Conger (1998) stated, Although leadership can
take various forms, such as participate or charismatic or transformational
leadership, it is only when leadership takes on a more truly transformation form
that the spiritual dimensions comes to the front (p. 184).
Statement of the Problem
Although little empirical work has been completed on the topic,
contemporary research has suggested that the spiritual domain is an integral
element of leadership (Sanders, Hopkins, & Geroy, 2003; Thompson, 2000;
Wilber, 2000). As such, while some initial support has been documented for the
SLT causal model (Fry, 2003, 2005b, 2008), the construct validity of SLT has been
subject to very limited examination. Fry and Whittington (2005) stated, Research
on several fronts is necessary to establish the validity of SLT. . . . The conceptual
distinction between SLT constructs and other leadership theories and constructs
need to be refined (p. 197). Hence, while Fry et al. (2005) suggested that SLT
incorporates and extends the characteristics associated with transformational
leadership, gaps in the literature exist. For example, the relationships between SLT
and transformational leadership variables have not been investigated quantitatively.
Therefore, this study seeks to examine the extent to which five variables contained
within SLT are related to transformational leadership behaviors of leaders as
perceived by followers.
Second, while SLT references faith and altruistic love, little attention has
been given to defining a spiritual leaders relationship with God. A connection
between spirituality and God often has been referenced in the literature (Berry,
1988; Carter, 1993; Cavanaugh, 1999; de Chardin, 1959; Fowler, 1981, 1996). For
example, Bierly, Kessler, and Christensen (2000) defined spirituality as moral and
emotional, involving an understanding and appreciation of ones position in the
universe, ones soul, and the role of a God. In addition, the Dalai Lama XIV (1999)
asserted that a quest for God and ultimately joy, peace, and serenity, along with
organizational commitment, are qualities developed through spirituality. Because
God is central to the spirituality construct, the SLT model would gain greater
credibility if congruence was established between SLT variables and a leaders
perceived spiritual connection with God. Therefore, levels of agreement are
discerned between the SLT variables and a leaders self-reported relationship to
God, including a belief in Gods existence and a sense of unity or closeness to God.
Third, the SLT model claims to incorporate characteristics often associated
with spirituality and spiritual development (i.e., faith, calling, and altruistic love).
For example, Fry and Whittington (2005) suggested that both leaders and followers
must adhere to and practice spiritual practices in a quest for ethical and spiritual
well-being for the development of spiritual leadership. The dimensions of the SLT
model, therefore, should be strongly related to a leaders concern for spirituality.
However, relationships between SLT variables and those customarily used to
measure spiritual awareness have not been assessed. Hence, this study examines the
relationship between self-reported levels of SLT variables and a leaders concern
for spirituality, including hopefulness and leader awareness of personal values.
Finally, followers are asked to assess the effectiveness of the leader to
establish a relationship between spiritual leadership and leadership effectiveness.
Hence, the study examines the moderating effects of spiritual well-being on the
relationship between transformational and spiritual leadership and leadership
effectiveness.
Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to seek to answer five questions. First, to what
extent do transformational leader characteristics as perceived by followers, a
leaders concern for spirituality, and the self-reported spiritual health of the leader
explain spiritual leadership? Second, to what extent does spiritual leadership
explain leadership effectiveness over and above the explanation provided by a
leaders transformational leadership behaviors? Third, to what extent does spiritual
leadership mediate the relationship of a leaders transformational leadership

behaviors, the leaders self-reported spiritual health, and/or the leaders concern for
spirituality with leadership effectiveness? Fourth, to what extent does a leaders
self-reported spiritual health moderate the relationships of transformational
leadership and spiritual leadership with leadership effectiveness? Fifth, to what
extent does a leaders concern for spirituality moderate the relationships of
transformational leadership and spiritual leadership with leadership effectiveness?
To answer these questions, SLT survey data (self-reported leader and
follower assessments) are related to follower perceptions of the leader as
transformational or transactional (Avolio & Bass, 1993). In addition, leader and
follower respondent data from the SLT instrument, Inner Life Scale (Ashmos &
Duchon, 2000), and the Index of Core Spiritual Experiences (INSPIRT; Kass,
Friedman, Lessermand, Zuttermeister, & Benson, 1991) are analyzed to identify
positive relationships among the variables contained within the instruments.
Finally, followers are asked to respond to six questions regarding leader
effectiveness (Ehrhart & Klein, 2001) to assess the relationship between spiritual
leadership variables, the leaders self-reported spiritual health, leader concern for
spirituality, transformational/transactional leadership variables, and perceived
effectiveness of the leader.
The demographic data of survey respondents are also analyzed to determine
how gender, age, and type of employer (profit or nonprofit) impact perceptions of
leader effectiveness. These variables are controlled in the multivariate analysis.
Significance of the Study
Companies as diverse as Taco Bell; BioGenenex; Aetna International; Pizza
Hut; Deloitte and Touches; and law firm Kaye, Scholoer, Fieman, Hays, and
Haroler have explored the merits of workplace spirituality and leadership (Mitroff
& Denton, 1999). An increasingly number of U.S. workers aspires to feel that they
are making a significant contribution in the workplace. They seek to be known by
more than their nametag (Marques, 2005). Employees who feel connected and
believe that their work has meaning perform better, show up more often, and
contribute more devotedly, creating a more positive work environment (Duchon &
Plowman, 2005; Gul & Doh, 2004).
However, while some studies have found a correlation between the strength
of an organizations spiritual corporate culture and its profitability (Thompson,
2000), empirical research is just beginning to explore the relationship between the
qualities of spiritual leadership and organizational outcomes (Fry et al., 2005;
Giacalone, Jurkiewicz, & Fry, 2005; Malone & Fry, 2003; Townsend, 1984). As
such, while scholars have clearly identified spirituality as a central thesis in
organizational and leadership theory, the constructs have not been uniformly
defined. According to Dent et al. (2005), The ontology of spirituality in the
workplace closely resembles the literature on leadership in that there are many
dynamic dimensions or contexts for describing and measuring the phenomenon (p.
628). For example, SLT offers promise as a springboard for a new paradigm for
leadership theory, research, and practice (Fry et al., 2005); however, the conceptual
distinction and similarities between SLT variables and other leadership theories
requires further refinement.
Scope of the Study
This study is based upon data from a convenience sample of almost 150
working adult supervisors and managers who are students at Regis Universitys
College for Professional Studies, Denver, Colorado. Each self-identified leader
(primary respondent) was asked to respond to the 27-item SLT Survey (Fry et al.,
2005). The questionnaires utilize a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Secondly, in addition to the SLT survey, leaders
were asked to respond to the six questions contained within the INSPIRIT scale
developed by Kass et al. (1991). INSPIRIT contains two subscales, closeness to
God and conviction of Gods existence. Leaders also were asked to respond to five
questions included in the Inner Life Scale (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000) assessing the
leaders concern for spirituality. Finally, leaders were asked to provide their gender,
age, and employer type (profit or nonprofit) for demographic analysis purposes.
Upon completion of the leader instrument, each survey respondent was

asked to identify a minimum of three followers to complete an assessment of the
primary respondents leadership qualities. Followers (those who have had the
opportunity to appraise the leadership approach of the primary respondent) were
asked to respond to questions assessing the leadership style of the designated leader
using the Multifactor Leadership Questinnaire (MLQ) 5X (Avolio & Bass, 1993).
The instrument utilizes a Likert scale format and is divisible into subscales scores
for each of the four components of transformational as well as transactional and
laissez-faire leadership. A leader will generally manifest some aspects of both
transformational and transactional styles but maintain an overall profile that trends
more towards one or another. In addition, followers were asked to respond to the
SLT instrument and the six-item Leadership Effectiveness Scale (Ehrhart & Klein,
2001).
Limitations and Delimitations
The analysis and conclusions drawn from this study are not generalizable to
other individuals and organizations. The research sample was selected from
graduate students attending one faith-based university which limits the applicability
of the results to the greater population. While the sample is diverse
demographically, survey participants are more highly educated than the general
population. Secondly, a larger majority of survey participants indicated that they
are Christian than would likely be found in a random population. Finally, a larger
percentage of survey participants indicated that they are employed in the nonprofit
sector than likely would be found in the general population.
A second limitation is the use of surveys for collecting data. Some
measurement instruments consist of self-reported indices, increasing the potential
for social desirability to bias respondents. This limitation could be a threat to the
external validity of the study (Trochim, 1999).
10
Definition of Terms
Spirituality
Spirit comes for the Latin word spiritus, meaning breath, as in the breath of
life. Spirit, the unseen force that infuses and energizes, that gives us energy and
life, gets covered up in individuals and organizations in which the executive-asleader casts a large shadow, stated Moxley (2000, p. 9). Hence, spirituality is
defined as human belief in, movement toward, and relationship with a higher
purpose or power, self, and others from which a sense of purpose, consciousness,
interconnectedness, and destiny may be derived (Swift, 2003). The spiritual quest
emphasizes a dynamic process where individuals seek to discover their potential,
purpose, and a personal relationship with a higher power that may or may not be
called God (Tart, 2001; Wulff, 1996). In the context of this study, spirituality has
been operationalized as spiritual health as measured by the INSPIRIT scale and
leader concern for spirituality as measured by the Inner Life Scale.
Leadership
Kouzes and Posner (1987) stated, Leadership is the art of mobilizing
others to want to struggle for shared aspirations (p. 30). They suggested that
leaders motivate followers by creating a vision of a long-term challenging,
desirable, compelling, and different future. This vision, when combined with a
sense of mission, fosters a sense of professional and organizational identity which
establishes the organizations culture with a fundamental system of ethics and core
values. Highly successful leaders initiate the structure of interaction among
colleagues with consideration for their welfare, provide intellectual stimulation for
employees, frequently raise standards, take calculated risks, and motivate others to
join them in their vision for the future. Rather than working within the
organizational culture, they challenge and change the culture (Bass, 1990b).
Leadership has an inherently moral foundation (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999).
A leaders spirituality sets the tone for an organization and is transformative to the
followers that partner with the leader (Geaney, 2003). Spirituality may inform
leadership practices by providing a purpose and meaning to the role. Spiritual
11
leaders transform themselves, others, and their organizations (G. W. Fairholm,

1998).
Transformational Leadership
As an inspirational, visionary form of leadership characterized as highly
relational, transformational leadership consists of four components: (a) idealized
influence, (b) inspirational motivation, (c) intellectual stimulation, and (d)
individualized consideration (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Idealized influence fosters
follower desire to emulate the leaders behavior and results in heightened levels of
respect and trust for the leader. Inspirational motivation is defined by the actions of
the leader and followers where emotions are used to yield an increased awareness
and understanding of mutually desired goals, mission, and overall purpose. Bass
and Avolio (1995) defined intellectual stimulation as the ability to encourage
followers to gain a wider perspective on possibilities and direction. Individualized
consideration involves coaching followers towards higher levels of motivation and
effectiveness, developing positive relations between the leader and follower.
Transformational leadership occurs when leaders broaden and elevate the interests
of their employees, when they generate awareness and acceptance of the purpose
and mission of the group, and when they stir their employees to look beyond their
own self-interest for the good for the group, asserted Bass (1990a, p. 20).
Bass and Avolio (1994) suggested that transformational leadership is an
inspirational, visionary form of leadership that is charismatic and highly relational.
As such, transformational leadership transforms followers, yielding a level of
performance that is driven by intrinsic factors not simply through extrinsic rewards.
SLT
Chaleff (1998), Palmer (1994), Starratt and Guare (1995), and Vaill (1998)
added a dimension, a spiritual element, to systems thinking leadership. The
spiritual aspects of leadership are rooted in the following three concepts: (a)
spirituality is a deep belief in ones life purpose (Becvar, 1997; Hagberg, 1994;
Richards & Bergin, 1999), (b) life is sacred and interconnected (Palmer, 1999;
Vaill, 1998), and (c) the spirit is motivating (Drucker, 1954). According to
Blanchard (1999), spiritual leadership is a kinder, more inclusive form of
12
leadership: leadership is not something you do to people, its something you do

with people (p. 140). Fry (2003) defined spiritual leadership as
comprising the values, attitude, and behaviors necessary to intrinsically
motive ones self and others so that they have a sense of spiritual survival
through calling and membership. This entails: (1) creating a vision wherein
organization members experience a sense of calling in that their life has
meaning and makes a difference and (2) establishing a social/organizational
culture based on altruistic love whereby leaders and followers have genuine
care, concern, and appreciation for both self and others, thereby producing a
sense of membership and feel understood and appreciated. (p. 695)
SLT is a causal theory for organizational transformation designed to foster a
motivated, learning organization. It comprises the values, attitudes, and behaviors
required to intrinsically motivate the individual and others in order to have a sense
of spiritual survival through calling and membership. Spiritual leaders experience
meaning in their lives, have a sense of making a difference, and feel understood and
appreciated (Fry, 2005b).
Using longitudinal data, the SLT causal model, presented in Figure 1,
hypothesizes positive relationships among the qualities of spiritual leadership,
spiritual survival, and organizational productivity and commitment (Fry, 2003).
While the model does not show a direct link between spiritual leadership
and transformational leadership, Fry et al. (2005) stated that SLT incorporates and
extends transformational and charismatic theories as well as ethicsand valuesbased theories (p. 834).
13
Figure 1: Model of organizational, empowered team, and personal transformation

through spiritual leadership.
1
From Toward a Theory of Spiritual Leadership, by L. W. Fry, 2003, The Leadership
Quarterly, 14(6), p, 695. Copyright 2003 by The Leadership Quarterly. Reprinted with
permission of the author.
Organization of the Study

Chapter 2 begins with an overview of the literature, focusing on research
that has been conducted in the area of religion and spirituality, workspace
spirituality, transformational and transactional leadership, and SLT. Chapter 3
outlines the methodology used to collect data, including a description of samples
and the instruments used in the measurements of spiritual leadership,
transformational leadership, and spirituality. Chapter 4 focuses on the analysis and
results of the data collected and the extent to which the research questions have
been answered. Finally, chapter 5 presents the discussion and interpretations for the
findings and explores implications for future studies specific to spiritual leadership.
14
Summary of Chapter 1
Spirituality as it relates to leadership is a relatively new area of interest for
research practitioners. For example, G. W. Fairholm (1998) suggested that a direct
link exists between leadership and spiritually, and Vaill (1989) postulated that true
leadership is really spiritual leadership. Other scholars have argued that the
spiritual dimensions of leadership are grounded in the heart and soul of the leader
(Conger, 1998; Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996; Marcic, 1997; Mitroff & Denton,
1999). While a handful of studies have attempted to establish a relationship
between spirituality and leadership, findings have suggested both positive and
negative correlations exist (Field, 2003; Hinds, 2005; Jones-Johnson, 2001; Strack,
2001; Trott, 1996; Zwart, 2000).
Frys (2003) SLT causal model provides insight into the construct of
spiritual leadership. However, levels of agreement between the SLT and
transformational leadership variables have not been assessed. In addition, the
correlation between the variables contained with the SLT and spirituality have not
been quantitatively determined.
15
Chapter 2 Literature Review

In an attempt to shed further light on spiritual leadership and its possible
impact on organizations and society, if it were widely practiced, this chapter
includes a review of the pertinent literature related to leadership and workplace
spirituality. The chapter is divided into six sections. The first section, an overview
of spirituality, presents spirituality concepts including a brief overview of spiritual
growth and spiritual well-being. A discussion of the differences between the terms
spirituality and religion is also presented. The second section regarding workplace
spirituality presents contemporary research associated with the essence of
workplace spirituality. A brief history of leadership research, the third section of
the chapter, provides a succinct view of the history and development of leadership
theories, specific to the formation of spiritual leadership theory (SLT). In the
following sections, attention is given to related leadership theories as they provide a
foundation or are related to the spiritual leadership construct including
transformational and transactional leadership and spiritual leadership. Finally, the
last section of the chapter regarding SLT addresses the research related to the
spiritual leadership construct and SLT specifically.
The underlying theoretical premise of this study is that a positive
relationship exists between five of the dimensions of spiritual leadership and
transformational leader characteristics as perceived by followers. In addition, the
study attempts to identify a relationship between SLT variables and a leaders
perceived spiritual health and concern for spirituality. Finally, the study attempts to
link spiritual leadership variables to perceived leader effectiveness. Hence, this
study seeks to further legitimize the spiritual leadership causal model, to make a
positive contribution towards an understanding of the relationship between spiritual
leadership and transformational leadership.
Leadership and Spirituality
While workplace spirituality and spiritual leadership in particular is one of
the fastest growing fields of research (Cavanaugh, 1999; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz,
2003), empirical exploration is just beginning to articulate the relationship between
16
the qualities of spiritual leadership and organizational success (Fry et al., 2005;
Giacalone et al., 2005; Malone & Fry, 2003). Recent studies have asserted that
organizations are believed to be more profitable and perform better when they
emphasize workplace spirituality through people-centered values and high
commitment relational models (Biberman, Whitty, & Robbins; 1999; Bierly et al.,
2000; Cacioppe, 2000; Dehler & Welsh, 1994; Duchon & Plowman, 2005; Elm,
2003; Garcia-Zamor, 2003; Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003; Korac-Kakabadse,
Kouzmin, & Kakabadse, 2002; Mitroff & Denton, 1999; Mohamed, Wisnieski,
Askar, & Syed, 2004; Pfeffer, 2003; Reder, 1982). As such, Jurkiewicz and
Giacalone (2004) asserted that the workplace spiritually construct is definable and
that workplace spirituality has a positive impact on employee productivity.
Lloyd (1990) suggested that organizations high in workplace spirituality
grow faster, increase efficiencies, and produce higher returns. A recent Harvard
Business School study examined 10 U.S. companies with spiritually rooted cultures
as well as 10 organizations that did not sustain workplace spirituality. During an
11-year period, the researchers found a substantial correlation between the cultures
that foster workplace spirituality and profitability (Garcia-Zamor, 2003). A
Vanderbilt University Business School study yielded similar findings, analyzing
the characteristics of companies included on Fortunes listing of the 100 best
companies to work for (Thompson, 2000).
Additional support for the spiritual leadership construct comes from
Milliman, Ferguson, Trickett, and Condemin (1999) who suggested that companies
that engage not just in the minds but also the hearts and emotions of their
employees could increase organizational income and profitability. In other words,
organizations that emotionally engage employees in the companys purpose to
make a difference in the world could obtain a higher level of employee motivation
and loyalty and ultimately foster higher organizational performance. However,
even with growing interest in the topic, Gul and Doh (2004) suggested that despite
an extensive set of critiques and criticisms, most modern organizations remain
devoid of a spiritual foundation and deny their employees the opportunity for
spiritual expression through their work.
17
Spirituality
The term spirituality is relatively new. Although it was coined in the 17th
century, the word has come into common usage only in the last 2 or 3 decades.
Interestingly, the 1971 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary does not list the
contemporary meaning of the term (Thomas, 2000).
Zinnbauer and Pargament (1998) suggested that over 300 definitions of
spirituality have been published. Few researchers agree on specific definitions;
instead, individual concepts have been developed (Konz & Ryan, 1999; Pargament,
1999). For example, Rayburn and Rayburn (1996) stated that spirituality is the vital
force of ones being, while Beazley (1997) referred to spirituality as faith with the
transcendent. G. W. Fairholm (1997) defined spirituality as the inner self of each
person where values and morality are located, and Paloutzian and Ellison (1982)
argued that purpose and meaning are the primary elements of spirituality. Mitroff
and Denton (1999) defined spirituality as the basic feeling of being connected
with ones complete self, others, and the entire universe. If a single word best
captures the meaning of spirituality and the vital role that is plays in peoples lives,
that word is interconnectedness (p. 83).
While the term spirituality has many definitions, Conger and Kanungo
(1994) suggested that it is often related to a particular feeling of sacredness or
transcendence often associated with a source of selfless love. Vaill (2000)
presented spirituality as a decision to open ones self to a transcendent source of
meaning where learning becomes a way of being. In addition, Turner (1999) stated:
It means engaging the world from a foundation of meaning and values. It
pertains to our hopes and dreams, our patterns of thought, our emotions,
felling and behaviors. As with love, spirituality is multidimensional, and
some of its meaning is inevitably lost when attempts are made to capture it
in a few words. (p. 41)
The increased interest in spirituality is closely connected with the rise of the
new religious movement in America, often defined as the Fourth Great Awakening.
However, it is ironic that the current reawaking interest in spirituality has come at a
time when participation in mainline religions is declining. Elias (1991) suggested
18
that the secularization of society has shifted religion to our personal or private lives
with religion playing a declining interest in the public sphere:
Thus by focusing on the spiritual, people turn to what is most essential in
religion, the experiential dimension. . . . Interest in the sacred and spiritual
is more closely related to our needs for community, identity, order,
meaning, direction, hope, as well as a sense of wholeness and a desire for
clear moral standards. (p. 457)
Some social scientists have suggested that the current spirituality movement
is a manifestation of the narcissistic culture that dominates U.S. society (Elias,
1991). As spirituality is often focused on the self, it runs the risk of falling into a
preoccupation with the selfthe essence of narcissism.
Ferguson (1980) took an almost opposite view of spirituality, suggesting
that self-absorption is only a by-product of encouraging cultural change. A
movement away from competitive status seeking towards self-sufficiency, selfexploration, personal growth, and a nonmaterialistic form of gratification is
evident. As such, spirituality represents a means to humanize the worlds of family
and business.
The predominant spirituality of American is religious individualism. Bellah,
Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, Swidler, and Tipton (1986) stated:
The notion that one discovers ones deepest beliefs in, and through tradition
and community is not very congenial to Americans. Most of us imagine an
autonomous self existing independently, entirely outside and tradition and
community, and then perhaps choosing one. (p. 461)
Religious independence has a long history in the United States. Thomas Jefferson
said, I am a sect myself, and Thomas Payne remarked, My mind is my Church
(Bellah et al., p. 355). However, although individuals may declare independence
from organized religion, the concept of the church reminds individuals that all are
dependent on each other and that absolute independence is a false ideal.
Spirituality is not only acknowledged, but it is also embraced as over 95%
of Americans claim to believe in God, and most asserted that spirituality is clearly
an outcome of ones relationship with a higher being (Benefiel, 2005). Researchers
who have spoken directly with organizational leaders have argued that spirituality
is defined as God or some other transcendent power as the source of ones values
19
and meaning, an awareness of ones self, or a means of integrating all aspects of

oneself into a whole (Delbecq, 2005; Dent et al., 2005). As such, leaders who
maintain an active spiritual life and sustain spiritual well-being often find meaning
and purpose in their lives and live out deeply held personal values. These values are
often reflected through a desire to make a difference and to help create a more
meaningful world (Block, 1993; Ray, 1992).
Ashmos and Duchon (2000) asserted that three components must be in
place for spiritual health to cultivate and strengthen within an organization: (a) a
sense of shared community, (b) a sense of perceived meaning in the work itself,
and (c) recognition of the existence and importance of an inner life among
management and coworkers. Leaders can gradually learn that the spiritual journey
is not about getting what he or she wants; instead, it is about transformation
(Hawkins, 1991; Torbert, 2004). This transformational process may be extended
through leaderfollower relationships, fostering interpersonal and corporate
spiritual leadership.
Spiritual Growth and Well-being
Spiritual growth is about individual transformation, not simply about
receiving what is requested through prayer (Benefiel, 2005). As one spiritually
matures, he or she learns to listen to God and let God shape his or her prayers. An
evolutionary process takes place where the seeker embraces God and then God is
let go. Time and time again, the cycle is repeated through prayer or meditation, and
ones commitment to God increases (Barks, 1997; Heschel, 1997; Kornfield, 2001;
May, 1991, 2004). Benefiel stated, spiritual development is fundamentally
discontinuous and continuing at the same time: it involves distinct stages and
continual rediscovery of the spiritual core in new places (p. 728).
The first stage is often classified as awakening where one becomes aware of
ones spirituality, adopts spiritual practices, and seeks connections with others on a
spiritual quest. The second stage is labeled transition. Here, one may experience
disaffection with spiritual practices, become frustrated and confused, and question
the merits of following a spiritual path. Moving into the third stage, recovery, one
discovers new ways of relating to God through affective self-transcendence. New
20
spiritual practices are employed, fostering renewed joy, and a connectedness with
others.
Most leaders may briefly experience the third stage of spirituality and then
slip back into a more ego-centered place. However, leaders who continue to explore
the spiritual path can learn to live more fully into the third stage of letting go.
Benefiel (2005) suggested that leaders who predominately live in the third stage of
spirituality are more available to the needs of the people they serve and more
available to their organizations. Because the leaders ego has been relativized to the
higher good, the leader may use his or her skills and energies to serve the good for
the organization as a whole, rather than primarily using energy to simply fill his or
her own ego needs. Hence, the leader may move from a position of self-fulfillment
and personal gratification to spiritual leadership where the good of the larger
organization is advanced.
Spirituality may be fostered through the interrelationship of an organization,
its employees, its products and processes, and the world at large (Dent et al., 2005).
As such, an organizations culture is impacted by the spiritual substance of its
leaders. Leaders set the tone for the organization and influence the work values of
the institution. Thus, the integration and application of spirituality and leadership as
defined through the spiritual leader causal model provides contemporary insights
into the leadership paradigm.
However, while there has been widespread agreement regarding the
desirability interpersonal spirituality, a debate is evident surrounding the possible
connection between spirituality and religion (Fry, 2003). Therefore, this topic is
explored to develop a greater understanding of workplace spirituality and
eventually the spiritual leadership construct.
Spirituality and Religion
Researchers have yet to reach consensus regarding a definition for the terms
spirituality and religion or in establishing a relationship between the two constructs
(Koenig, 1997). For many, the term spirituality may be interchanged with religion
(Korac-Kakabadse et al., 2002), as spirituality is often associated with a closeness
to God and feelings of interconnectedness with the world. For example, Ashmos
21
and Duchon (2005) suggested that spirituality can be fostered when followers see
themselves as spiritual beings whose souls need nourishment, a sense of meaning,
and when followers maintain a sense of connectedness to each other. In addition,
W. James (1902/1985), in his seminal work The Varieties of Religious, asserted that
religion is a deep individual experience from which the outcome is the loss of all
work, the sense that all is well with one, the peace, harmony, the willingness to be
(p. 248). Similarly, G. Miller (1999) stated that spirituality is the animating force
in life, represented by such images as breath, wind, vigor, and courage. . . .
Spirituality includes ones capacity for creativity, growth, and the development of a
values system (p. 30).
In contrast, others (Chaleff, 1998; Dumestre, 1997; Hawley, 1993; Konz &
Ryan, 1999; Marler & Hadaway, 2002; Pargarment, 1999; Roof, 1993; Zinnbauer,
Pargament, Cole, et al., 1997; Zinnbauer, Pargament, & Scott, 1999) have viewed
spirituality and religion as independent terms. Some (Dent et al., 2005; Hayes,
2001; Laabs, 1995) have argued that religion is associated with rituals, routines,
and ceremonies that provide a vehicle for achieving spirituality specific to a given
faith tradition. For example, Bierly et al. (2000) contended that one can be religious
by faithfully attending religious services but lack spirituality. Spirituality is often
representative of the broader concept and represents beliefs and values, while
religion is narrower and refers to behaviors (Chandler, Holden, & Kolander, 1992).
In addition, Shafranske and Malony (1985) suggested that organized religion is not
a primary source of spirituality.
Fry (2005b) stated:
Viewing workplace spirituality through the lens of religious traditions and
practices can be divisive in that, to the extent that religion views itself as the
only path to God and salvation, it excludes those who do not share in the
denominational tradition and often conflicts with the social, legal, and
ethical foundations of business and public administration. (p. 861)
The Dalai Lama XIV (1999) provided an interesting distinction between
spirituality and religion by noting that religion is concerned with faith, traditions,
and a system of beliefs focused in ritual prayer and related formalized practices and
ideas. In contrast, spirituality is concerned with qualities of the human spirit,
22
including compassion, patience, love, tolerance, forgiveness, contentment, personal

reasonability, and a sense of environmental harmony. Hence, the Dalai Lama XIV
claimed that spirituality is a necessity for religion, but religion is not necessary for
spirituality.
Rizzuto (2005) suggested that it is no coincidence that the separation of
spirituality from religion occurred with the arrival of the postmodernism paradigm,
as postmodernism values heterogeneity, fragmentation, and scrutiny of
comprehensive systems. L. C. Smith (2007) stated:
Modernized religion as a construct is represented as encompassing its
followers, a specific point to be located on an existential map being primary
to its human devotees. Postmodernized spirituality, in contrast, is
characterized as emanating from within believers, not a point on the
existential map but an inner direction to be charted. (p. 13)
Ironically, while the debate to define spirituality and religion continues,
Delbecq (2005) suggested that numerous business executives see spirituality and
religious beliefs tightly connected and that leaders have no need to distinguish
between religion and spirituality. Many managers have advocated that attempting
to separate spirituality from religion is a limiting activity. Hence, the confusion in
attempting to define spirituality separately from religion may reside more in the
academic community rather than among managers and leaders. As such, while
religion may foster spirituality, the elements do not need to be explicitly Christian.
Spirituality is broader than any single form of organized religion (Zellers &
Perrewe, 2003). Indeed, Horton (1950) suggested that many nonexclusive paths to
God are available through spirituality, including and excluding religion.
For example, Dent et al. (2005) asserted that as companies become more
prosperous, leaders and followers can focus on higher needs including their own
spirituality, which may or may not be associated with Christianity. Others (Kniss &
Campbell, 1997; Turner, 1999) have argued that religion is legitimized in the
economic development of organizations. Based upon this premise, leaders interpret
their deepest inner values and beliefs, correlating interpretations with other
information gathered, and assess the adequacy of both the theological and business
interpretations and correlations (Fields & Bekker, 2007), as illustrated in Figure 2.
23
Perceptions
Theological reflection
Judgments
Decisions
Interpretation of information
Figure 2: The interplay of theological reflection and cognitive elements in decision
making.
Bekker (2007) suggested that religious faith, as the core of cultural

mechanisms, often functions as a legitimizing influence, providing the
philosophical, theological, and cultural foundation for organizational and societal
change, in turn fostering economic development and ultimately entrepreneurship.
Dent et al. (2005) stated, spirituality is a framework of organizational
values evidenced in the culture that promotes employees experience of
transcendence through the work process, facilitating their sense of being connected
to others in a way that provides feelings of completeness and joy (p. 632). This
oft-cited definition asserts that spirituality can be active or passive and that the
supposedly contradictory elements of spirituality and religion must be blended
together. Belief and rituals as well as skills, resources, and capabilities evolve over
time and must interact with the external environment (Field, 2003). In a global
economy, leaders can benefit from an understanding of the basic embedded
religious values that drive followers and foster spirituality (Dent et al.). Infusing
religious values within organizations by placing God before ones business
provides a conceptual framework which helps stakeholders make sense of
unexpected events. For example, Christians believe that spirituality is the call for
work, while Buddhists view hard work as a means to the enrichment of life (Reave,
2005).
It is clear that while spirituality and religion must be approached with
sensitivity, the two constructs can and should be viewed holistically, avoiding
conceptual silos. As such, when referencing spirituality and religion, Westgate
24
(1996) stated, The overlap allows one to look at studies pertaining to both
concepts to comprehend their nuances (p. 27). A moderating, inclusive approach
fosters organizational enrichment and lessons isolation, as religious diversity
allows for acceptance of the individual and provides opportunities for both leaders
and followers to gain greater spiritual depth. Wilber (2000) agreed, suggesting that
both spirituality and religion can be reduced to constructs of translation and
transformation. Religion and/or spirituality provide the individual with a schema
that may be used to think, feel, and behave or a filter of beliefs to derive meaning.
Translation orients the individual and allows for the creation of meaning through
myths, ritual, and narrative, while transformation fosters transcendence to states of
consciousness, the highest form of pure actualization. According to Wilber,
translation provides legitimacy, and transformative spirituality and/or religion
provide true authenticity to ones belief.
Fields and Herold (1997) asserted that as leaderfollower relations mature,
elements of a spiritual nature may be shared, such as a vision for the future and
viewing work as a calling. A maturation process may occur, yielding a potential
transformational leadership relationship where high levels of trust and value
congruence are established. The values often associated with spirituality, such as
integrity, honesty, and humility, are linked to leader success and organizational
performance. Additional insight, therefore, may be gained in exploring spirituality
as a workplace variable, ultimately adding clarity to the SLT model.
Workplace Spirituality
Interest in workplace spirituality has increased steadily over the last 15
years (Jurkiewicz & Giacalone, 2004) as evident in multiple books (Barrett, 2003;
Becvar, 1997; Blanchard, 1999; Bolman & Deal, 1995; Conger, 1998; Dutton,
2003; G. W. Fairholm, 2001; M. R. Fairholm, 2002; Fry & Matherly, 2007;
Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003; Mitroff & Denton, 1999; Moxley, 2000; Vaill,
1998), articles (Ashmons & Duchon, 2000; Bass, 1988; Benefiel, 2005; Biberman
& Altman, 2004; Cacioppe, 2000; Duchon & Plowman, 2005; Garcia-Zamor, 2003;
Jurkiewicz, 2004; Jurkiewicz & Giacalone, 2004; Marques, Dhiman, & King, 2005;
25
Milliman, Czaplewski, & Ferguson, 2003; Milliman, Ferguson, et al., 1999;

Mohamed et al., 2004; Sangster, 2003), and special journal issues (i.e., Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Journal of Management Inquiry, Journal of Management
Education, and The Journal of Organizational Change Management; Giacalone et
al., 2005). More recently, the Academy of Management formed an interest group
dedicated to the intersection of management, spirituality, and religious issues called
Management, Spirituality, and Religion (Bento, 2000).
Ashmos and Duchon (2000) cited multiple reasons for the newfound
interest in workplace spiritually. First, the downsizing, reengineering, and
restructuring along with massive layoffs have taken their toll on managers and
employees, demoralizing workers and forcing them to rethink the meaning of their
work lives. Second, networks of organized religions, neighborhoods, civic groups,
and extended families have diminished, creating a spiritual vacuum (Conger, 1999).
Third, as the Baby Boom generation enters midlife, greater introspection regarding
the age-old questions surrounding the meaning and purpose of life and death have
become more paramount.
A leader may best facilitate workplace spirituality by expressing and
acknowledging his or her own spiritual nature and providing an environment in
which followers feel comfortable expressing their own needs for spirituality (Konz
& Ryan, 1999). Workplace spirituality, therefore, is fostered through an
environment that recognizes that employees have an inner life that nourishes and is
nourished by meaningful work which takes place in the context of community
(Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Duchon & Plowman, 2005; Kubicek, 2005). Personal
relationships (W. Miller, 1992), enthusiasm and commitment (Rosen, 1992), and
emotional expression (Bracey, Rosenblum, Sanford, & Trueblood, 1993) are all
considered important components of workplace spirituality. Spiritually oriented
organizations promote growth and respect (Rosen) as well as foster extrinsic
rewards such as ownership and security (Brown, 1992; Mollner, 1992).
Milliman, Ferguson, et al. (1999) suggested that workplace spirituality
yields positive employee attitudes associated with organizational commitment,
intrinsic work satisfaction, and job involvement. When individual growth is aligned
26
with the attainment of organizational goals, employee identification with the

organization is enhanced (Pratt, 1998). Writers (Duchon & Plowman, 2005; Gul &
Doh, 2004) have asserted that employees who feel connected and believe that their
work has meaning perform better, show up more often, and contribute more
devotedly, creating a more positive work environment.
Neck and Milliman (1994) concluded that workplace spirituality may
positively affect employee and organizational performance by leading individuals
to experience a deeper consciousness, enhancing their intuitive abilities and
effectiveness. Hence, through mutuality, receptivity, and respect, spiritually based
organizations encourage a more purposeful and passionate vision, resulting in
higher levels of effectiveness (Jurkiewicz & Giacalone, 2004). In addition, Lawler
(1986) claimed that humanistic values in an organization foster employee personal
growth which increases productivity.
A growing body of data has suggested that the costs associated with
maintaining a spiritually based work culture are substantially offset by measured
productivity in financial gains (Campbell & Sengenberger, 1994; Duchon &
Plowman, 2005; Felis, 1994; Gordon, 1996; Marshall, 1994; Wilkinson, 1994).
Companies as diverse as Taco Bell, BioGenenex, Aetna International, Pizza Hut,
Deloitte & Touches, and Southwest Airlines have attested to the merits of
workplace spirituality (Mitroff & Denton, 1999). Spiritual organizations are often
characterized as having a higher purpose and calling with cultures that incorporate
humanitarian concerns and outcomes (Giacalone et al., 2005). Through an
understanding of organizational vision, empowerment, and autonomy, participants
gain confidence through their work that they are making a positive difference in the
lives of others. Ultimately, workplace satisfaction translates into a calling which
results in higher levels of organizational commitment and productivity (Fry, 2003).
The integration of workplace spirituality and spiritual leadership in
particular fosters organizational change and restores social balance (Block, 1993;
Cacioppe, 2000; G. W. Fairholm, 1997; Lewin & Regine, 2001; Marcic, 1997;
Palmer, 1994; Vaill, 1998). Power delegation yields cross-level connections
between individual and team roles and the organizations vision and values, thereby
27
giving the organization a sense of direction (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ford & Fottler,
1995; Fry, 2003).
However, while workplace spirituality has gained substantial support, some
writers have argued that additional research is needed to substantiate the merits of
the construct. For example, Moore and Casper (2006) advocated that a lack of
congruence in the dimensions of workplace spirituality is prevalent. In addition,
Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) argued that employee attitudes are primarily affected
by the expressed opinions of others. Therefore, the characteristics, personalities,
backgrounds, and beliefs of individuals may have less influence on employee
perceptions than social structures including interpersonal networks, the physical
location/environment, and ones demographic relationship to others (Cialdini,
1984; Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). An employees sense of spirituality, therefore,
may have less impact on perceived satisfaction than how one is influenced by
others within the work environment. Social relationships (Blau & Schwartz, 1984);
gender, education, and age (J. Miller, 1980); job characteristics of coworkers
(Oldham & Miller, 1979); job titles and salaries (Pfeffer & Davis-Blake, 1990); and
social structures (Pfeffer, 1991) impact how individuals perceive their environment
as well as how successfully they perform within the environment.
Hence, while the workplace spirituality literature is intuitively appealing,
academicians have not been unified in supporting the assumptions upon which the
spirituality constructs are based. Additional quantitative, published research must
be pursued to empirically foster support incorporating spiritual practices into
leadership development. Thus, this study attempts to further define the workplace
spirituality construct, linking the attributes of workplace spirituality, specifically
spiritual leadership, to three dimensions of transformational leadership.
A Brief History of Leadership Research
To gain an understanding of the evolution of theory and specifically
appreciate the spiritual leadership paradigm, as an extension of transformation
leadership, a broad but limited overview of leadership is presented.
28
Although leadership and the characteristics of great leaders have been

theorized for hundreds of years, scientific research began only in the 20th century.
In 1913, Woods concluded that the individual man makes a nation and shapes the
culture to his abilities; consequently, the great-man theory was born. Concepts
associated with great-man evolved over time. In the 1940s, trait theorists believed
that leaders exhibited specific characteristics that were associated with genetic
predispositions. However, little agreement was garnered to identify the universal
traits of leaders (Bird, 1940; House & Aditya, 1997), and the list of traits was not
actionable, because it did not provide insight to what the effective leader did to
foster success.
Then, in the 1950s, environmental or situational theory gained support.
Researchers discerned that the situation or environmental context plays a
fundamental role in determining leader effectiveness (Judge, Bono, Ilies, &
Gerhardt, 2002). In the late 1960s, contingency theorists hypothesized that there
must be an appropriate fit between the leaders behavior and the conditions of the
situation. Draft (2005) asserted, The idea that leaders could analyze their situation
and tailor their behavior to it was compelling and is the foundation for much
leadership training today (p. 98). Eventually, trait and situational approaches were
combined to foster the theory of contingency leadership (Bass, 1990b).
A shift from behavioral contingency leadership theory to strategic
leadership theories began in the 1980s. An emphasis on vision, motivation, and
control through values began to question the effectiveness of the traditional
centralized and formalized bureaucratic organizational paradigm (House, 1996).
Until this time, leadership theories generally had not incorporated and addressed
the conceptual distinction between management and leadership (Conger &
Kanungo, 1987; Kotter, 1988; Maddock & Fulton, 1998). Management is focused
towards planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling, while leadership
is about motivation and change. Leaders create conditions that enable others to
make their own meaning. Leaders add clarity, direction, and help followers to learn
to have meaning in our work and lives (Sashkin & Sashkin, 2003).
29
The differences between management and leadership were more clearly

delineated as the transactional and transformational leadership constructs have been
developed.
Transformational and Transactional Leadership
Transformational leadership was first addressed by Downton (1973).
However, Burns (1978) significantly reconceptualized the concept. Since then,
Bass (1985, 1998b), Bass and Avolio (1990a, 1994), and Bennis and Nanus (1997)
have attempted to frame the leaderfollower relationship with a motivation theory
through transactional and transformation leadership.
Transactional leadership, which focuses on the exchange process between
leaders and followers (Northouse, 2001), underlies many historic leadership
models. As a construct, transactional leadership is better known as management as
defined by Drucker (1954), providing rewards for compliance between leader and
followers. Transactional leaders are found at all levels of an organization.
In contrast, transformational leadership employs an intrinsically based
motivation process where leaders are attentive to the needs and motivation of
followers. The transformational leader paints a vision for a desired future in a
manner sufficient that followers are so committed to organizational future that the
pain associated with change is worth the effort. Burns (1978) stated:
The transformational leader recognizes and exploits an existing need or
demand of a potential follower. But, beyond that, 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 into leaders and may convert leaders in to morale agents. (p.4)
Bass (1985) expanded on Burns theoretical paradigm, asserting that the
transformational influence of the leader develops followers emphasizing purpose
and meaning. As such, Bass and Avolio (1994) suggested that transformational
leadership is an inspirational, visionary form of leadership that is charismatic and
highly relational. It consists of four components, commonly known as the four Is:
idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration. Idealized influence creates a desire by followers to
30
emulate the behavior of the leader, resulting in heightened levels of leader respect
and trust (Bass & Avolio, 1995). Inspirational motivation is defined by the actions
of leaders who use emotional appeal to foster increased awareness and
understanding of mutually desired goals, mission, and purpose (Bass & Avolio,
1995). Intellectual stimulation is the ability to encourage followers to gain a wider
perspective on possibilities and direction (Bass & Avolio, 1995).
Finally, Bass and Avolio (1995) defined individualized consideration as
coaching followers to higher levels of motivation and effectiveness developed
through leaderfollower relations. This characteristic is clearly related to spiritual
leadership, as it refers to a leaders response to the individual needs of followers
through behaviors such as talking to them as friends, demonstrating patience with
mistakes, shared decision making, and sensitivity towards follower feelings (B.
Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Poper, 1998).
Over time, researchers have further defined the transformational and
transactional leader paradigm (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bass, Avolio, & Goodheim,
1987; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Boal & Bryson, 1987; Deluga, 1988; Howell &
Frost, 1989; Seltzer & Bass, 1990; B. Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993; Waldman,
Bass, & Einstein, 1987; Yammarino & Bass, 1990). While the authors have
provided diverse opinions, they share a common perspective that transformational
leaders positively change the attitudes and levels of satisfaction of followers
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990).
Transformational leaders maintain a powerful influence over followers
whereby high levels of trust, value congruence, satisfaction, and motivation are
established (Field, 2003). Followers admire transformational leaders, leading to
higher levels of value congruence (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Conger &
Kanungo, 1987; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996; J. Shamir, 1995).
In exploring traits of transformational leaders, Jacobsen (1994) made five
observations: (a) the term spirituality is meaningful to transformational leaders, (b)
spirituality is important to transformational leaders, (c) an inferable relationship
exists between spirituality and transformational leadership, (d) transformational
leaders view the realms of spirituality and the secular world as integral to each
31
other, and (e) all transformational leadership is spiritual leadership. As such, Fry et
al. (2005) suggested that spiritual leadership incorporates and extends
transformational theories.
Transformational leadership (Bass, 1990a) and spiritual leadership (Fry,
2003) both claim to elevate the interests of employees through value congruence,
stirring employees to look beyond their own self-interests for the greater good of
the larger organization. Bass (1990a) suggested that transformational leaders foster
success by meeting the emotional need of employees. Similarly, Fry et al. (2005)
asserted that through hope/faith, leaders keep followers looking forward to the
future, providing the desire and positive expectation that fuels effort through
intrinsic motivation.
As shown in Table 1, SLT variables (Fry, 2003) could potentially be met
through the four characteristics of transformational leadership (Bass, 1990a).
Vision is an essential attribute of both transactional and SLT, as visionary
leadership integrates behaviors, personal characteristics, and organizational cultures
into a systems approach to leadership (Sashkin, Rosenbach, Deal, & Peterson,
1992). This vision, when combined with a sense of mission of who we are and what
we do, establishes the organizations culture with a fundamental system of ethics
and core values. Fry (2005a) asserted, leadership is about vision and values; it is
the act of creating a context and culture that influences followers to ardently desire,
mobilize, and struggle for a shared vision that defines the essence of motivation
through leadership (p. 620). Likewise, McGee-Cooper and Looper (2001)
suggested that transformational leadership helps build a shared vision, effective
self-management, encourages creativity, questions assumptions, promotes shared
trust, and embraces humility. Reciprocity, therefore, exists between the
empowerment and power variables and vision. As the organizational vision
becomes increasingly clear, leaders and followers are empowered to make the
decisions necessary to grow the institution and gain power for self-direction.
32
Table 1: Comparison of Transformational Leadership Characteristics and Spiritual

Leadership Variables
Transformational leadership characteristics
SLT variables
Charisma: Provides vision and a sense of
Performance (vision): Established
mission, instilling pride, respect, and trust
through altruistic love whereby

leaders and followers have a genuine
care, concern, and appreciation for
both self and others
Intellectual stimulation: Promotes
Effort (hope/faith): Fosters
intelligence, rationality, and problem
conviction, trust, and action for
solving
performance of the work
Individualized consideration: Fosters
Membership: Employees are
personal attention, treat employees as
understood and feel appreciated
individuals
Inspiration: Communicates high
Calling: Making a difference where
expectations, expresses purpose in simple
life has meaning for leader and
ways
followers
An analogous relationship is evident in transformational leadership where

the inner soul may provide the basis for the transcendent vision, purpose, and
values of the leader sourcing his or her strength, contagious vision, and
transcendent purpose (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Burns, 1978). Similarly, in defining
spiritual leadership, Fry and Whittington (2005) stated, Altruistic love is given
unconditionally upon entry into the organization and is received in turn from
followers in pursuit of a common vision that drives out and removes fears
associated with worry, anger, jealousy, selfishness, failure and guilt (p. 187).
Transformational and spiritual leaders transcend their own interest and
needs for the sake of followers, motivating followers towards a higher level of
effectiveness. Transformational leadership is sourced in the leaders spirituality,
33
where followers form an emotional bond with the leader which involves an
unwavering trust in the leader. Although leadership can take various forms, such
as participate or charismatic or transformational leadership, it is only when
leadership takes on a more truly transformation form that the spiritual dimensions
comes to the front, stated Conger (1998, p. 184).
Weber (1968) suggested that charismatic or transformational leadership is a
spiritual dimension that contains characteristics of divine origin. The characteristics
of transformational leaders are a reflection of their spirituality. Spiritual leaders
maintain a sense of purpose as their driving force, linking spirituality and
transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Burns, 1978; Marinoble, 1990).
A leaders spirituality sets the tone for an organization and is transformative to the
followers who partner with the leader (Geaney, 2003).
Over 150 studies have suggested that there is a clear consistency between
spiritual values and practices and effective leadership (Reave, 2005). Nelson (2002)
stated, Spiritual leadership is the intersection of leadership and spiritual
characteristics, where individuals are spiritually in tune with their concept of God
and living under his/her direction, as well as gifted and skilled as persons of
influence amount others (p. 20). Mitroff and Denton (1999) asserted that evidence
suggests that a spiritually led workplace is not only more productive but may also
be a source of sustained performance.
Successful, enduring companies maintain leaders who are driven by a core
ideology more than just profit. Leaders who focus attention on the bottom line
while simultaneously creating work environments that enliven the workforce have
a vision that incorporates imagination, drive, and the competence of both the leader
and worker (Collins & Porras, 1994; Schwartz, 1991). A leader who is attuned to
basic spiritual values is more likely to serve others including colleagues, his or her
organization, and the larger community. The servant leader (Greenleaf, 1977;
Spears, 1995, 1996) framework emphasizes the importance of helping others
34
discover their inner spirit, earning and keeping trust, service over self-interests, and
effective listening (Hale & Fields, 2007).
G. W. Fairholm (1996, 1998), building upon Greenleafs (1977) ideas about
servant leadership, was one of the first scholars to link spirituality and leadership in
a workplace context. Since then, others have attempted to validate his construct to
move the field forward toward a theory of spiritual leadership (Cacioppe, 2000;
Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ford & Fottler, 1995; Fry, 2003, 2005a, 2005b, 2008; Fry et
al., 2005; Jacobsen, 1994; Jurkiewicz & Giacalone, 2004; Lewin & Regine, 2001;
Malone & Fry, 2003; Marcic, 1997; Palmer, 1994; Reave, 2005; Townsend, 1984;
Vaill, 1998).
According to Reave (2005), spiritual leaders embody values such as
integrity, honesty, and humility, creating an example of a person who can be
trusted, relied upon, and admired. Spiritual leadership is demonstrated through
behavior in the practice of ethical, compassionate, and respectful treatment of
others. Santere (1996) suggested that spirituality fosters leader effectiveness in two
ways. First, spirituality within the leader raises the question: Who am I and how
can I make a difference? This introspective analysis creates the vision and purpose
of the leader. Secondly, the true heart and soul of the leader is modeled through the
demonstration of service towards followers.
Leaders who live predominantly in a place of spirituality are more available
to the needs of those they serve and more available to their organizations. Because
their egos have been altered, acknowledging the importance of the greater good,
their skills and energies can be focused to serve the good of the organization as a
whole, rather than serving primarily their own needs (Benefiel, 2005). G. W.
Fairholm (1997, 1998, 2001) suggested that spiritual leaders develop inspiring
vision and mission statements that foster a culture where a spirit of cooperation,
trust, mutual caring, team commitment, and organizational effectiveness are
developed.
Korac-Kakabadse et al. (2002) defined the spiritual leader as one who
places primary importance on the values associated with spirituality as a means to
lead others. A spiritual leader builds shared values, sets vision, creates shared
35
meaning, fosters growth in others, is intuitive, recognizes the importance of service,

and maintains a continual focus to transformation. Individuals practicing spiritual
leadership and their followers have a high regard for ones self and ones past life.
In addition, they maintain good quality relationships with others. This paradigm
helps establish a life purpose and meaning, the ability to effectively manage ones
environment, the ability to follow inner convictions, and foster continued growth
towards self-realization (Fry, 2005b).
According to Blanchard (1999), spiritual leadership is a kinder, more
inclusive form of leadership: leadership is not something you do to people, its
something you do with people (p. 140). Leaders should lead from love not fear.
Hope and faith in a compelling vision are necessary to inspire and challenge
followers to do their best (Draft, 2005). Caciaoppe (2000) suggested that
spirituality, with an emphasis on internal transformation, is significant for the
discovery of purpose and meaning from their lives and work. When viewed through
this light, spirituality is a vehicle for individuals to reach their potential, directing
not only leadership but followership. Fry (2003) stated, Spiritual leaders seek
spiritual survival whether in humanistic systems (organizations) or in seeking a
theistic Gods will through a visioning process and through living and abiding in
these cardinal values in daily social interaction. (p. 708)
Bolman and Deal (1995) maintained:
Most management and leadership development programs ignore or demean
spirit. We need a new generation of leaders . . . who have the courage to
confront their own shadows and to embark upon a personal quest of sprit
and heart, and who have the commitment to share their learning with others.
(p. 167)
Spiritual leadership is advanced to expand a continuously improving,
learning organization, fostering the best in people. Ideally, the organization creates
a positive state for the benefit of the leaders, followers, and other stakeholders (G.
W. Fairholm, 1998). A spiritual leader is someone who walks in front of one when
one needs someone to follow, behind one when one needs encouragement, and
beside one when one needs a friend, stated Fry (2003, p. 720).
36
Bennis and Nanus (1985) completed a phenomenological study of 90

leaders, reporting that spiritual leaders are effective because of their use of
emotional and spiritual resources. Spirituality creates high levels of trust in leaders,
which in turn liberates creativity and innovation. Peters and Waterman (1984)
stated that spirituality advances higher purpose contribution, motivating the leader
to a higher level of productivity.
Spiritual leadership is based upon the premise that followers must perceive
congruence between the motives and methods of the leader and the needs of
followers. Leader impact may be measured by the degree to which followers have
incorporated the leaders qualities into their own lives (Avolio, 1999; Lord &
Brown, 2004). The follower must first perceive the leader as one with pure motives
who is worthy of imitation prior to imitation. When the leaders motives and
methods seem congruent, the leader becomes a legitimate example for followers to
emulate, stated Whittington, Pitts, Kageler, and Goodwin (2005, p. 768).
Researchers have suggested that spiritual leadership is the critical issue
surrounding change and the creation of a more fulfilling workplace (Fry, 2003,
Korac-Kakabadse et al., 2002, Mitroff & Denton, 1999). As such, spirituality is a
required element of effective leadership (Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996; Marcic,
1997; Marinoble, 1990; Mitroff & Denton, 1999; Morris & Mountfort, 1997). Bass
(1985) supported the assertion, stating that introducing and establishing a new and
enduring stable system of values, beliefs and association is the epitome of effective
transformation leadership (p. 109-110).
Reave (2005) asserted that spiritual leadership is dependent upon the
leaders ethics and integrity. Hence, personal transformation is required towards the
path of leadership. Bezley and Gemmill (2005) provided evidence of this
relationship in a study that surveyed managers, finding a positive, significant
correlation between levels of spirituality and the leaders service-oriented behavior.
The leaders practices should be examined to see if they are truly in line with the
values professed. This theory incorporates both the trait approach and the behavior
approach, stated Reave (p. 672). Spiritual leaders impact organizations through the
37
development of desirable qualities in followers as their own spirituality continues

to develop (Thankappan, 2005).
Attributes and practices widely associated with spiritual leadership have
been found to contain global appeal (Den Hartog, House, Hanges, RuizQuintanilla, & Dorfman, 1999). Hence, it is not surprising that leaders in spiritual
organizations have been shown to score higher on measures of leadership
effectiveness (Druskat, 1994).
Spiritual leadership has recently subsumed many of the positive
characteristics of alternative styles of leadership under one construct (G. W.
Fairholm, 1997; Sanders et al., 2003). SLT is not only inclusive of other
contemporary motivation-based theories of leadership, but it is also conceptually
distinct, less conceptually confounded, and more parsimonious (Fry, 2003, 2005b,
2008; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Lee, 2003). Spiritual leadership
theory explicitly incorporates specific and theoretically relevant leader and follower
higher order needs and cultural and organizational effectives dimensions into a
causal model frameworksomething no other leadership theory has done to date,
stated Fry (2003, p. 717).
Reave (2005) asserted, Spiritual motivation and faith can be seen as a
distinguishing variable, the cause of much transformational leadership. As a causal
factor, it is often described in the literature as the origin of the transformational
leaders motivation (p. 668). In defining the origin of transformational leadership,
Bass (1998a) suggested that the transformation leaders commitment is derived
from the leaders own conscience and values. Spirituality creates a connection
between leader and followers, providing an important link between
transformational leadership and individualized consideration (Bass, 1990b). Further
exploration of the relationship between spirituality and transformation leadership,
therefore, can provide a springboard for further developing SLT (Reave). Hence,
this study helps to more clearly define the values that are consistent between
transformational leadership and SLT.
38
SLT
Spiritual Leadership Theory (SLT) is a causal leadership theory for
organizational transformation designed to create an intrinsically motivated, learning
organization, stated Fry et al. (2005, p. 841). The emerging spiritual leadership
paradigm offers an evolution of authentic leadership theory and practice (Fry,
2005a). Spiritual leadership creates vision and value congruence and ultimately
increases organizational commitment and productivity (Fry, 2003). This process
entails two steps. First, a vision is established where organizational members
experience a sense of calling in that their life has meaning and organizational
participants believe that they are making a difference. The vision must vividly
portray a journey where when undertaken, followers will gain a sense of calling.
Fry and Whittington (2005) suggested, The vision forms the basis for the social
construction of the organizations culture as a learning organization and the ethical
systems and values underlying it (p. 185).
Secondly, a culture is established based upon altruistic love whereby leaders
and followers maintain genuine care, concern, and appreciation for both self and
others, have membership, and feel understood and appreciated. Fry and
Whittington (2005) stated:
Because spiritual leadership theory anchors the leaders individual values to
a set of universal values around which there is an emerging scientific
consensus, SLT, through the concept of ethical well-being, addresses the
congruence deficiently seen in the existing discussions of authentic
leadership. (p. 187)
In defining the causal model, Fry (2005b) stated:
Vision, hope/faith adds belief, conviction, trust, and action for performance
of the work to achieve the vision. Thus, spiritual leadership proposes that
hope/faith in the organizations vision keeps followers looking forward to
the future and provides the desire and positive expectation that fuels effort
through intrinsic motivation. . . . Altruistic love is also given from the
organization and is received in turn from followers in pursuit of a common
vision. . . . Thus, this intrinsic motivation cycle based on vision
(performance), altruistic love (reward), and hope/faith (effort) results in an
increase in ones sense of spiritual survival (e.g. calling and membership)
and ultimately positive organizational outcomes. (p. 341)
39
SLT, as presented in Figure 3, proposes that spiritual leaders shape

organizations, recognizing the importance of an inner life that enables both leaders
and followers to participate in meaningful work that takes place within the context
of community. Ultimately, spiritual leadership yields follower trust, intrinsic
motivation, and the commitment that is required to simultaneously optimize human
capital, corporate social responsibility, and organizational performance, as
presented in Figure 3.
HOPE/
FAITH
Spiritual
Well-Being
+
VISION
CALLING
Make a Difference
Life has Meaning/
Purpose
INNER
LIFE
Spiritual Practice
Organizational Commitment &

Productivity,
Financial Performance
Employee Life Satisfaction
Corporate Social Responsibility
ALTRUISTIC
LOVE
Individual &
Organizational
Outcomes
MEMBERSHIP
Be Understood
Be Appreciated
Figure 3: Frys causal model of spiritual leadership.

2
From Spiritual Leadership: State-of-the-Art and Future Directions for Theory, Research
and Practice, by in L. W. Fry, in Spirituality in Business: Theory, Practice, and Future

Direction (p. 139), by J. Biberman and L. Tishman (Eds.), 2008, New York: Palgrave.
Copyright 2008 by Palgrave. Reprinted with permission of the author.
The purpose of spiritual leadership is to draw into the fundamental needs of

both leaders and followers for spiritual survival through calling and membership
40
and to create vision and value congruence. Altruistic love is given unconditionally
from the organization, fostering a common vision that removes the fears associated
with worry, anger, jealously, selfishness, failure, and guilt. Individuals gain a sense
of membership, yielding an appreciation of being understood.
Through spiritual leadership, individuals, empowered teams, and
organizations ultimately foster higher levels of psychological well-being and
positive health as well as increased organizational commitment and productivity.
Spiritual leadership fosters long-term institutional success through employee
commitment and increased employee productivity, yielding high quality products
and services. Employees with a sense of calling and membership are likely to
become attached to organizations that have fostered cultures based upon the values
of altruistic love. Hence, staff will do what it takes in pursuit of a common vision to
continuously improve and become more productive (Fry, 2005b).
SLT has been developed within an intrinsic motivation model that includes
vision, altruistic love, and hope/faith (see Table 2).
Vision
Vision is of utmost importance as it must energize followers, give meaning
to work, and garner organizational commitment. Vision refers to a picture of the
future with some implicit or explicit commentary on why people should strive to
create that future, stated Kotter (1996, p. 68). Vision clarifies the general direction
of change, simplifies the details of decisions, and helps to coordinate the actions of
many stakeholders (Fry, 2003).
Altruistic Love
Altruistic love is key to spiritual leadership manifested through the
unconditional, unselfish, loyal, and benevolent care, concern, and appreciation for
both self and others. For SLT, altruistic love yields a sense of wholeness, harmony,
and well-being. Fry (2003) stated, Underlying this definition are the values
patience, kindness, lack of envy, forgiveness, humility, selflessness, self-control,
trust, loyalty, and truthfulness (p.712). Outcomes of altruistic love include joy,
peace, and serenity.
41
Hope/Faith
Hope fosters a desire with the expectation of fulfillment and faith adds
certainty to hope (Fry, 2003). Individuals with hope/faith maintain a vision of why
they are going, and they have sense of how to get there; they are willing to face
opposition to achieve their goals (MacArthur, 1998). Faith represents more than
wishing for a specific outcome. It is based on values, attitudes, and behaviors that
demonstrate absolute certainty that what is desired will become reality.
Table 2: Qualities of Spiritual Leadership
Vision
Broad appeal to key
Altruistic love
Hope/faith
Trust/loyalty
Endurance
Integrity
Perseverance
Reflects high ideals
Honesty
Do what it takes
Encourages hope/faith
Courage
Stretch goals
Establishes standards of
Humility
Expectation of
stakeholders
Defines the destination
and journey
excellence
reward/victory
Kindness
Excellence
Compassion
Patience/meekness/
endurance
Forgiveness/acceptance/
gratitude
Hope/Faith
Hope fosters a desire with the expectation of fulfillment, and faith adds
certainty to hope (Fry, 2003). Individuals with hope/faith maintain a vision of why
they are going, and they have sense of how to get there; they are willing to face
opposition to achieve their goals (MacArthur, 1998). Faith represents more than
42
wishing for a specific outcome. It is based on values, attitudes, and behaviors that
demonstrate absolute certainty that what is desired will become reality.
In summarizing the hypothesized relationship among the variables of the
spiritual leadership causal model, Fry (2003) stated, doing what it takes through
faith in a clear, compelling vision produces a sense of callingthat part of spiritual
survival that gives one a sense of making a difference and therefore that ones life
has meaning (p. 670). Hope/faith fosters belief, conviction, trust, and action to
impact vision. Spiritual leadership proposes that hope/faith as articulated in the
organizations vision motivates followers to look forward and provides the desire
and expectation that fuels effort through intrinsic motivation. Altruistic love,
therefore, is given from the organization and is received in turn from followers in
the search of a common vision that removes fear associated with worry, anger,
jealously, selfishness, failure, and guilt, giving one a sense of membership.
Spiritual survival provides an awareness of being understood and appreciated.
Hence, the intrinsic motivation cycle is based upon vision (performance), altruistic
love (reward), and hope/faith (effort), resulting in an increase in ones sense of
spiritual survival (e.g., calling and membership) and ultimately positive
organizational outcomes, including organizational commitment and productivity
and continuous improvement (Fry, 2003).
Organizational commitment represents a sense of calling through
membership where individuals become attached, loyal to, and want to stay in
organizations that have cultures based on the values of altruistic love.
Productivity and continuous improvement yield hope/faith in the
organizations vision. Those experiencing calling and membership will do what it
takes in pursuit of the vision to continuously improve and be more productive
(Fry, 2003).
Individuals practicing spiritual leadership and their followers have a high
regard for ones self and ones past life. In addition, they maintain good quality
relationships with others. This paradigm helps establish a life purpose and meaning,
the ability to effectively manage ones environment, the ability to follow inner
convictions, and continued growth towards self-realization (Fry, 2005a).
43
A New Paradigm for Leadership Studies

The Princeton Religious Research Index, which tracks the strength of
organized religion in the United States, reported a sharp increase in religious beliefs
and practices since the mid-1990s (Gunther, 2001). The workplace spirituality
construct acknowledges that we are all spiritual beings sharing a common human
experience (Thompson, 2000). Employees yearn to believe in something, have
meaningful work, and feel that they can contribute to the mission of the
organization, making the world a better place (Collins & Porras, 1994). Leadership
for the new millennium must be adapted to maximize both follower well-being and
performance excellence. Hence, vision and values should replace command and
control. Leaders who incorporate spirituality into leadership are needed to foster a
sense of meaning and significance among followers.
SLT offers promise as a new paradigm for leadership theory research, given
that it incorporates and extends transformational leadership theories as well as
expanding ethics and values-centric theories such as authentic and servant
leadership (Fry, 2005a). As such, Fry (2003) asserted that several variables are
consistent in comparing the spiritual leadership causal model to transformational
leadership (Bass, 1998b; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Burns, 1978). In defining the SLT
construct, Fry (2003) stated:
For transformation leadership, inspirational motivation addresses both effort
and performance in that it is descriptive of leaders who communicate high
expectations for followers to exert extra effort and be motivated to achieve
challenging goals. . . . Intellectual stimulation addresses effort,
performance, and rewards through leadership that stimulate follower
creativity and innovation (performance) as they support employees (reward)
and encourage followers to try new approaches and develop novel ways
(effort) of dealing with organizational issues. (p. 716)
Transformational leadership theory and SLT both explain how select
leaders are able to sustain extraordinary outcomes, emphasizing the importance of
inspiring subordinates through the articulation of a clear and compelling vision.
Thus, a greater sense of community and shared purpose is fostered through
transformational and spiritual leadership. For example, proponents of
transformational leadership have argued that it addresses the spiritual aspects of
44
work, as a transformational leader helps employees to feel a calling in their work

and maintain an emotional attachment to the organization. Simultaneously, spiritual
leadership writers have suggested that spiritual leadership contains many of the
attributes of transformational leadership. Hence, the conceptual distinction between
variables needs continued refinement.
The literature incorporating spirituality as an element of transformational
leadership is minimal and primarily experiential, referencing only anecdotal studies
(Bolman & Deal, 1995; Fry et al., 2005; Klein & Izzo, 1998; Zwart, 2000).
Additional empirical evidence, therefore, is needed to increase awareness of the
importance of workplace spirituality and, specifically, spiritual leadership. As such,
Fry (2003) stated, Research on several fronts is necessary to establish the validity
to spiritual leadership theory before it should be widely applied to a model of
organizational/professional development to foster systemic change and
transformation (p. 721).
A major contribution of this study is to determine the extent to which
spiritual leadership is distinct from transformational leadership. Specifically, this
study attempts to examine the SLT model anticipating positive relationships
between the qualities of spiritual leadership and transformational leadership. In
addition, as the SLT causal model fosters spiritual survival through hope/faith, this
study will investigate the relationship between the variables contained within the
model, as perceived by the leader, and the leaders self-reported spiritual wellbeing. The study was designed to examine the extent to which SLT and
transformation leadership make a unique contribution in explaining the variance in
judgment of leadership effectiveness by examining the relationship between theory
variables. Finally, it is possible that leaders who have greater levels of selfperceived spiritual well-being are more effective leaders regardless of the extent to
which the leader exhibits transformational or spiritual leadership. To examine this
possibility, the study also examines the moderating effects of spiritual well-being
on the relationship between transformational and spiritual leadership and leadership
effectiveness.
The study focuses on five research questions:
45
1. To what extent do transformational leadership characteristics as

perceived by followers, the leaders self-reported spiritual health, and a
leaders concern for spirituality explain spiritual leadership?
2. To what extent does spiritual leadership explain leadership effectiveness
over and above the explanation provided by a leaders transformational
leadership behaviors?
3. To what extent does spiritual leadership mediate the relationship of a
leaders transformational leadership behaviors, spiritual health, and/or a
leaders concern for spirituality with leadership effectiveness?
4. To what extent does a leaders self-reported spiritual health moderate
the relationships of transformational leadership and spiritual leadership
with leadership effectiveness?
5. To what extent does a leaders concern for spirituality moderate the
relationships of transformational leadership and spiritual leadership with
leadership effectiveness?
The study evaluates four alternative models exploring the relationships
among transformational leadership characteristics, spiritual leadership, a leaders
self-reported spiritual health, a leaders concern for spirituality, and perceived
leader effectiveness. The first model, shown in Figure 4, examines transformational
leadership, spiritual leadership, a leaders self-reported spiritual health, and a
leaders concern for spirituality as independent variables predicting leadership
effectiveness.
Transformational leadership
Spiritual leadership
Spiritual health
Concern for spirituality
Leadership effectiveness
Figure 4: Independent variables predicting leader effectiveness.
46
The model presented in Figure 5 examines spiritual leadership as a possible

mediator of the relationship of transformational leadership, spiritual health, and/or
leader concern for spirituality with leadership effectiveness.
Spiritual health
Spritual leadership

Figure 5: Mediating the relationship of leader effectiveness.
Figure 6 presents a model that investigates the possibility that a leaders

self-reported spiritual health alters the relationship between transformational
leadership and/or spiritual leadership and leadership effectiveness so that these
behaviors have less effect on leadership effectiveness if the leader has greater
spiritual well-being.
Leaders self-reported spiritual health

Figure 6: Spiritual health altering leader effectiveness.
Finally, the model presented in Figure 7 is duplicative of the prior model,

except a leaders concern for spirituality has replaced the leaders self-reported
spiritual health. Therefore, the model suggests that a leaders concern for
spirituality moderates the relationship between transformational leadership and/or
47
spiritual leadership and leadership effectiveness so that these behaviors have less
effect on leadership effectiveness if the leader has a greater concern for spirituality.
Leaders concern for spirituality

Figure 7: Concern for spirituality altering leader effectiveness.
Leadership theories have evolved over time, moving from a bias of control
and dominance, deal making, and persuasion to a more holistic approach focused
on leader integrity and authenticity, the empowerment of followers, system
thinking, and spirituality. Today, many researchers have advocated that spirituality
is an essential component of transformational leadership. This studies attempts to
further validate the SLT model and advance the understanding of how the SLT
variables relate to the transformational leadership construct. As such, this literature
review included the most relevant and recent scholarly literature related to topic of
study.
The chapter began with a rudimentary overview of spirituality. Data were
presented suggesting that a growing number of individuals consider themselves
spiritual but not necessarily religious. Next, research on workplace spirituality
provided valuable insight into its perceived ability to positively influence
organizational performance. An abbreviated history of leadership research was
outlined with specific attention given to transformational/transactional leadership
and spiritual leadership. Finally, attention was focused toward SLT. The review
found that spirituality positively affects workplace effectiveness and that
spirituality is a catalyst of transformational leadership.
48
Dehler and Welsh (1994) suggested that leaders who bring spirituality into
the workplace inspire and energize behavior in followers based on meaning and
purpose instead of rewards and security. This process compels employees to
transcend self-interest for the betterment of the larger organization and for the
individual well-being of others. However, little attention has been given towards
validating the SLT construct, defining the unique variables within the model as
unique from the broader transformational leadership paradigm. In the next chapter,
the research methodologies are defined including the research design, sample
populations, data collection tools, and analysis.
49
Chapter 3 Method
As noted in chapter 1, the purpose of this study is to provide greater insight
to the spiritual leadership theory (SLT) causal model (Fry, 2003). Specifically, the
study examined the nature of the relationship among the variables contained within
spiritual leadership, transformational/transactional leadership characteristics of the
leader (as perceived by followers), and leader effectiveness. The study examined
the extent to which leader and follower respondent scores on the SLT instrument
are related to transformational or transactional behaviors as assessed by followers
using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Bass and Avolio, 1995). In
addition, the extent to which leader and follower respondent scores on the SLT
instrument are related to the leaders self-reported spiritual health, as measured by
the Index of Core Spiritual Experiences (INSPIRT) scales (Kass et al., 1991), and
the leaders concern for spirituality, as assessed by the Inner Life scales (Ashmos &
Duchon, 2000), was explored.
Secondly, the study set out to establish relationships between SLT variables
and a leaders transformational leadership behaviors with follower-perceived leader
effectiveness.
Thirdly, it assessed the extent to which spiritual leadership mediates the
relationship of a leaders transformational leadership behaviors and the leaders
self-reported spiritual health leadership effectiveness.
Fourth, the study explored the moderating effect of a leaders self-reported
spiritual health and a leaders concern for spirituality among the relationships of
transformational leadership and spiritual leadership with leadership effectiveness.
Finally, the demographic data of primary survey respondents were analyzed
to determine how gender, age, employer, and type of employer (profit or nonprofit)
impact variable variance, as it is not unusual for the demographic characteristics of
the sample to provide contextual insight (Derkinderen & Crum, 1988; Halachmi,
Hardy, & Rhoades, 1993). This chapter defines the research methodologies used to
further define the relationship between SLT, transformational leadership, a leaders
self-reported spiritual health, leaders concern for spirituality, and leader
effectiveness. Data samples, measures, and research procedures are reviewed.
50
Data Sample
The sample was comprised of working adult graduate students from the
College of Professional Studies at Regis University, Denver, Colorado. Regis is a
Jesuit Catholic University, founded in the late 1800s, serving approximately 16,000
students a year in undergraduate and graduate programs. The median age of the
adult student population is 38. While the university is located in Denver, half of the
students reside outside of the state of Colorado, as the school maintains a large
online population. Students enrolled in the Master of Business Administration,
Master of Science in Organizational Leadership, and Master of Non Profit
Management programs were targeted for survey participation.
Email invitations to participate in the study were distributed in Fall 2008 to
1,000 graduate students. Students were asked to respond to the survey if they had
leadership or management experience. Participation in the study was voluntary. Of
the 1,000 graduate students, 759 visited the site to review the survey, and 384
completed the survey.
At the conclusion of the survey, each self-identified leader was asked to
provide the name and email addresses of at least three followers or subordinates
who were aware of the leadership characteristics of the leader participant. An email
was sent to the followers, requesting their participation in the study. Although
anonymity was assured, many of the follower respondents failed to complete the
online assessment of leaders. A minimum of two follower assessments were
required for each leader, or the leader survey data were not included in the study. In
total, the data from 143 leaders and 359 follower participants were included in this
study. Approximately one third of the study population, 41 leaders, received
follower responses from three or more respondents.
51
Table 3: Participation Rates from Self-Identified Leaders

Potential
Surveys completed
leader survey
by self-identified
participants
leaders
1,000
384
Initial response
rate
38.4%
Leaders receiving 2
or more follower
assessments
143
Demographics
Leader respondents were asked to provide gender, age, and employer data.
The sample of self-identified leaders contained 90 females (63%) and 53 males
(37%). This sample is consistent with the colleges population in which 60% of the
students are female. Participants fell into three age categories (see Table 4) with the
vast majority in the 26 to 45 year age group (65%). Again, participation is
representative of the colleges total student enrollment, as the mean age of students
attending the college is 38.
Table 4: Demographics by Leader Age Group

Age group
0
Percent (N = 143)
n
9
6%
26 to 45
93
65%
46 to 65
41
29%
Over 66
0%
Slightly more than half (54%) of leader participants indicated that they
work at for-profit organizations. The balance, 66 participants (46%), responded that
they work in the nonprofit sector. The percentage of survey participants employed
in the nonprofit sector is much greater than the general U.S. population, as the
52
National Center for Charitable Statistic reported that 36% of U.S. organizations are
classified as nonprofit (Wing, Pollak, & Blackwood, 2008).
Leader participants were employed by over 100 different organizations (see
Table 5). As Regis University provides free tuition for employees, Regis was over
represented in the sample as a nonprofit employer.
Demographic information was not collected from followers as anonymity
was essential in collecting follower data.
Table 5: Demographics by Leader Employer

Leader participant employer
Percent (N = 143)
Regis University
14
10%
Catholic Charities
5%
Unemployed
3%
Denver Childrens Hospital
3%
City of Lakewood
2%
110
77%
Other employers
Measures
Independent variables in the study were transactional/transformational
leadership as measured by the MLQ, spiritual health as measured by the INSPIRIT,
leader concern for spirituality as measured by the Inner Life scale, and SLT
variables as defined by the SLT instrument.
Bass and Avolios (1990b, 1995, 1997) MLQ
Bass and Avolios (1990b, 1995, 1997) MLQ model is representative of
three major constructs: transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership.
The transformational leadership construct is defined as reflective of influence
processes targeting the higher motivations of followers, leading them to act on
latent motivations toward exceptional performance and transcend self-interests. A
53
social exchange process, providing valued rewards in exchange for performance, is

applicable to transactional leadership. In contrast, laissez-faire leadership refers to
indifferent leadership or nonleadership.
Transactional leadership has two subconstructs: contingent reward and
management by exception. Contingent reward is representative of a process of
exchanging valued rewards for good performance. Management by exception
involves providing feedback to correct deviations from the norm as well as
proactively seeking to discern potential problems.
Over 10 years of published research is available specific to the MLQ model.
Several comprehensive analysis, reviews, and critiques have offered
recommendations to modify the components (Bass, 1985, 1990a; Bass & Avolio,
1990b, 1993, 1994; Bryman, 1992; Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Den Hartog et
al., 1999; House & Podsakoff, 1994; Hunt, 1991, 1999; Waldman et al., 1987;
Yammarino & Bass, 1990; Yukl, 2002). The constructs have been validated in
several studies (Howell & Avolio, 1993; Keller, 1992; Sosik, 1997; Yammarino,
Spangler, & Bass, 1993). In addition, multiple empirical studies have demonstrated
the positive impact of 360-degree feedback identified through the Bass and Avolio
(1990b, 1995, 1997) leadership assessment tool (Conners & Munro, 2001; Roush,
1992; Sashkin et al., 1992). Hence, the MLQ is one of the most widely used
instruments for measuring transactional and transformational leadership (Avolio et
al., 1999; Lowe, Kroech, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Tejeda, Scandura, & Pillai,
2001).
While the MLQ has gained great acceptance, it has also received criticism
for inconsistencies with samples in distinguishing between transformational and
transactional leaders (Tejeda et al., 2001). However, when a reduced form of the
MLQ has been utilized, the smaller number of items resulted in improved construct
and predictive validity (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003). Avolio et
al. (1999) came to similar conclusions in a study involving almost 4,000
respondents in 14 independent samples using varying versions of the MLQ
instrument. The authors suggested that the MLQ provides a high degree of
54
consistency between estimates of reliability, intercorrelations and factor loading,

and established norms.
The MLQ allows followers to describe a leaders characteristics using a
frequency scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently, if not always). Validity
and reliability for the MLQ 5X (version of the MLQ used in this study) are well
established with reliability indices within a range of .74 to .94 (Bass & Avolio,
1995). Permission was received to utilize the MLQ instrument without charge.
In this study sample, the reliability scores for transformational leadership,
transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership were .90, .67, and .76,
respectively.
Kass et al.s (1991) INSPIRIT
The INSPIRIT (Kass et al., 1991) was developed to assess personal
conviction of Gods existence and the perception of a highly internalized
relationship between God and the person (Hinebaugh-Igoe, 1999). The six-item
scale specifically measures the occurrence of experiences that convince a person
God exists and evoke feeling of closeness with God, including the perception that
God dwells within, according to Kass et al. (1991, p. 209). In this study sample,
the reliability score for INSPIRIT was .82.
Ashmos and Duchons (2000) Inner Life Scale
To assess an individuals sense of hopefulness, awareness of personal
values, and concern for spirituality, an instrument was developed by Ashmos and
Duchon (2000), aiding organizational scientists in understanding and observing the
spiritual workplace phenomenon. The total scale is quite extensive, including over
50 questions and 11 subscales. However, only the 5-item subscale for inner life was
utilized in this study. The inner life, for many, is about coming to understand
ones own divine power and how to use the divine power to live a more satisfying
and more full outer life, stated Ashmos and Duchon (p. 136). Hence, the scale aids
in assessing an individuals personal concern for spirituality. Items, although selfreported, do not solely measure attitudes about an inner life. Instead, they report
behaviors that might plausibly express an inner life. In this study sample, the
reliability score was .88.
55
Fry et al.s (2005) SLT Instrument

To date, Fry has developed the only theory of spiritual leadership that has
been extensively tested and validated in a variety of settings. Studies have been
conducted in over 100 organizations including schools, military units, city offices,
and corporations. The studies have consistently confirmed the spiritual leadership
causal model and the reliability and validity of the items measured (Fry, 2003,
2005a, 2008).
The three dimensions of spiritual leadership, two dimensions of spiritual
survival, and organizational commitment and productivity (included in the SLT
model) are assessed using the SLT instrument (Fry et al., 2005; Malone & Fry,
2003). The scales exhibited adequate coefficient alpha reliabilities between .83 and
.93 in previous studies (Fry et al.). However, as this study does not explore
organizational productivity, only those variables associated with spiritual
leadership, spiritual survival, and organizational commitment were included in the
analysis. Some questions within the survey were modified to meet the needs of this
study (see Appendix C to review how the questions were reworded).
SLT survey data were collected from both self-identified leaders and their
followers. The study sample reliability scores for the leaders were consistent with
Frys earlier work, while the scores associated with followers are slightly lower but
still acceptable (see Table 6). The dependent variable is measured by Ehrhart and
Kleins (2001) Leader Effectiveness Scale.
Table 6: SLT Reliability Scores for Leader and Follower Data

SLT survey variables
Leader-reported scores
Follower-reported scores
Vision
.90
.75
Hope/faith
.82
.84
Altruistic love
.86
.83
Calling/meaning
.87
.74
Membership
.85
.78
56
Ehrhart and Kleins (2001) Leader Effectiveness Measure

Developed in 2001 by Ehrhart and Klein and recently sited by Hale and
Fields (2007), the six-item leader effectiveness measure asks each respondent to
assess the referent leader and state the extent to which the respondent believes that
he or she worked at a high level of performance under the leader, enjoyed working
for the leader, got along well with the leader, found the leaders style compatible
with his or her own, admired the leader, and felt the leader was similar to his or her
ideal leader. A five-point scale is used to assess each measure ranging from 1 (no
or little extent) to 5 (to a great extent). The Hale and Fields (2007) study
demonstrated a coefficient alpha for the scale of .93. In this study sample, the
reliability was .85.
Procedures
All survey data were collected using the Zoomerang online survey tool. The
primary survey respondents (self-identified leaders) were asked to respond to a 42question survey (see Appendix A). The first 27 questions were specific to the SLT
instrument (Fry, 2003; Nyhan, 2000). Six questions were specific to the INSPIRIT
scale (Kass et al., 1991), and five additional questions related to the Inner Life scale
(Ashmos & Duchon, 2000). Next, leader participants were asked to answer four
demographic questions regarding gender, age, employer type (profit or nonprofit),
and employer name (to insure that respondents are representative of multiple
employers).
At the conclusion of the leader survey, respondents were asked to identify
the name and email addresses of a minimum of three followers who are aware of
the characteristics of the leader. Follower surveys were then distributed via the web
to designated follower respondents. If not returned within 1 week, a reminder email
was forwarded to the potential follower respondent. Leaders (primary respondents)
were contacted if the follower did not submit the survey within 10 days of survey
distribution. Followers were assured that all individual data were confidential, and
only summative information (data collected from multiple followers) would be
disseminated in the analysis.
57
Followers, as identified by the primary survey respondents, were asked to

identify their relationship with the leader (i.e., subordinate, peer, supervisor) to
assess control bias due to similarities with the leader. The data of followers that
indicated that they have a subordinate relationship with the leader were included in
this study. Respondent data representative of peers or supervisors were not used.
The follower survey includes 68 questions (see Appendix B). First,
followers were asked to respond to the 36-item MLQ scale (Bass & Avolio, 1995),
assessing the leadership characteristics of the primary respondent. Secondly,
followers were asked to respond to the SLT instrument questions. And finally,
respondents received the six questions that assess leader effectiveness (Ehrhart &
Klein, 2001).
Table 7 provides an overview of the data collected from leaders and
followers.
In chapter 1, the rationale for conducting the research was presented,
research questions were reviewed, and the significance of the study was presented.
Chapter 2 provided an extensive review of the academic literature which framed a
discussion of the research topics. Chapter 3 outlined the research methods,
including a review of the research sample, research instruments, and data collection
procedures.
The first three chapters represent the basis for the potential contribution to
the existing literature in that this study attempts to further validate the spiritual
leadership casual model (Fry, 2003), providing an opportunity to make a significant
contribution towards an understanding of the relationship between spirituality and
leadership.
58
Table 7: Data Collected

Source
Variable
Leaders
SLT survey instrument
Leader vision
Leader hope/faith
Leader love
Leader calling/meaning
Leader membership
INSPIRIT scale
Leader spiritual health
Inner Life scale
Leader concern for spirituality
Age
Leader age
Gender
Leader gender
Employer type
Profit or nonprofit
Followers
SLT survey instrument
Leader vision
Leader hope/faith
Leader love
Leader membership
MLQ
Transactional leadership
Laissez-faire leadership
Leader Effectiveness Scale
Leader effectiveness
59
Chapter 4 Results
This chapter presents the results of the data analysis for this research
project. Descriptive statistics are outlined at the beginning of the chapter, followed
by multivariate analysis, and the data results specific to the outlined research
questions are presented throughout the chapter. SPSS for Windows was used for all
statistical analysis.
Interrater Agreement
As multiple followers assessed the leadership characteristics of each
individual leader, agreement among follower respondents was evaluated. The
within-group interrater agreement (L. R. James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1993) was
acceptable for all variables measured (see Table 8). Thus, the follower responses
were averaged for each leader, and the average scores were used in analysis. Since
SLT data were collected from leaders and followers, all SLT data collected from
followers were designated as follower reported or fr.
Table 8: Interrater Agreement of Follower Variables

Variable (fr)
Average rwg
Mdn rwg
.88
.95
.81
.90
.81
.95
SLT vision
.81
.96
SLT hope/faith
.86
.96
SLT altruistic love
.86
.96
SLT calling/meaning
.81
.88
SLT membership
.85
.96
Leader effectiveness
.85
.97
60
Correlation Analysis
The means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables are
shown in Table 9. The correlation analysis suggested that the leader-reported SLT
variables were highly intercorrelated; the follower-reported SLT variables were
highly intercorrelated; but, the follower-reported SLT variables did not correlate
well with the leader-reported SLT variables. For example, SLT data collected from
leaders were highly intercorrelated from a low of r = .66 to a high of r = .83 (p <
.01). Similarly, data collected from followers assessing the behaviors of leaders
demonstrated parallel patterns with follower calling/meaning having a positive
correlation with love (fr; r = .58, p < .01) and membership (fr) maintaining a
positive correlation with calling/meaning (fr; r = .65, p < .01). All other SLT
variable data collected from followers appraising the behaviors of leaders
correlated at levels greater than r = .72 (p < .01).
SLT membership behavior as reported by leaders was the only variable that
was correlated to SLT follower data. Thus, the vision, love, and membership
behaviors of the leaders, as perceived by followers, were correlated to SLT
membership as reported by leaders (vision r = .18, love r = .17, membership r =
.19, p < .05). No other correlations were present at statistically significant levels
between self-assessed SLT leader data and follower SLT variables assessing the
behaviors of leaders.
The self-reported spiritual leadership behaviors of leaders, vision, hope,
love, and calling were positively correlated to leader-perceived spiritual health, as
measured by INSPIRIT (vision r = .30, hope r = .39, love r = .26, calling r = .28, p
< .01). However, the SLT leader variable membership was not significantly
correlated with INSPIRIT. Leader self-reported spiritual health was negatively
correlated with SLT leader hope and calling behaviors (hope [fr] r = -.19, calling
[fr] r = -.21, p < .05).
A similar pattern is evident when examining the Inner Life scale variables
or concern for spirituality data. SLT leader variables vision, hope, love, and calling
(self-reported leader behaviors) were all correlated to concern for spirituality
(vision r = .28, hope r = .34, love r = .24, calling r = .29, p < .01), but leader-
61
reported membership was not significantly correlated with concern for spirituality
at statistically significant levels. Leader concern for spirituality was correlated with
self-reported spiritual health (spiritual health r = .59, p < .01).
In contrast, three of the five SLT leader behaviors as assessed by followers
were negatively correlated with leader concern for spirituality. Leader hope as
reported by followers was negatively correlated (hope [fr] r = -.24, p < .01). Leader
calling and membership, as assessed by followers, were also negatively correlated
to leader concern for spirituality (calling [fr] r = .18, membership [fr] r = .17, p <
.05).
The age of the leader was positively correlated to many other variables
reported by leaders. For example, age was correlated to SLT self-reported leader
behaviors hope, calling, and membership (hope r = .23, calling r = .20, membership
r = .22, p < .01). SLT leader love was also correlated to age (r = .20, p < .05).
Finally, age was highly positively correlated to leader-perceived spiritual health (r
= .34, p < .01).
In this study, gender and employer type (profit or nonprofit) did not
demonstrate correlations to any other variables at statistically significant levels
with only one exception. SLT leader membership as assessed by followers was
negatively correlated to leader employer type (membership [fr] r = -.17, p < .05).
Transformational leadership characteristics of leaders as assessed by
followers was highly positively correlated with all SLT leader behaviors as
considered by followers (vision [fr] r = .77, hope [fr] r = .71, love [fr] r = .67,
calling [fr] r = .58, membership [fr] r = .69, p < .01). In addition, the
transformational leadership behaviors of leaders as reported by followers was
correlated with one SLT variable reported by leaders (leader membership r = .19, p
< .05).
The transaction leadership characteristics of leaders as perceived by
followers were also positively correlated to all SLT leader behaviors as reported by
followers. Transactional leadership and leader vision, hope, membership, and
calling, as assessed by followers, were highly correlated (vision [fr] r = .39, hope
62
[fr] r = .36, membership [fr] r = .34, calling [fr] r = .25, p < .01). Also,
transactional leadership was positively correlated to love (love [fr] r = .20, p < .05).
Not surprisingly, leader laissez-faire leadership characteristic as perceived
by followers was negatively correlated with leader behavior as reported by
followers. Vision, hope, calling and membership were highly negatively correlated
(vision [fr] r = -.29, hope [fr] r = -.30, calling [fr] r = -.22, membership [fr] r = .22, p < .01), and follower love (love [fr] r = -.20, p < .05) was negatively
correlated to leader laissez-faire leader characteristics.
As is true in multiple published studies, the transformation leadership
characteristics of the leaders as reported by followers was highly positively
correlated to transactional leadership and negatively correlated to laissez-faire
leadership characters (transactional [fr] r = .31, laissez-faire [fr] r = -.36, p < .01).
Finally, leader effectiveness as perceived by followers was highly correlated
to all SLT leader behaviors as reported by followers (vision [fr] r = .76, hope [fr] r
= .73, love [fr] r = .77, meaning [fr] r = .64, membership [fr] r = .74, p < .01).
There were no statistically significant correlations between leader effectiveness and
SLT variables as reported by leaders. Leader effectiveness was highly correlated
with transformational leadership (transformational leadership [fr] r = .72, p < .01),
and it was also correlated with transactional leadership (transactional [fr] r = .17, p
< .05). Leader effectiveness was negatively correlated with laissez-faire leadership
(laissez-faire [fr] r = -.42, p < .01).
Multiple Regression Analysis: Response to Research Question 1
Several regression models were developed to answer Research Question 1:
To what extent do transformational leadership characteristics as perceived by
followers, the self-perceived spiritual health of the leader, and a leaders concern
for spirituality explain spiritual leadership? As SLT data were collected from
leaders and followers, two sets of hierarchical multiple analysis were conducted for
each of the five variables.
Table 9: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Study Variables

Leader data (N = 143)
M
SD
LH
LV
LH
LL
LC
LM
IS
IL
Sex
Age
Em
FV
FH
FL
FC
FM
TF
TA
LF
LE
4.36
4.28
4.47
4.59
4.40
2.78
3.82
1.37
2.22
1.46
4.38
4.45
4.48
4.41
4.47
4.25
3.57
1.7
4.58
Follower data (N = 384)
.48
.60
.47
.47
.47
.64
.97
.49
.54
.50
.46
.40
.38
.43
.38
.35
.40
.41
.43
LL
LC
.70** .69** .68**

.69** .66**
.73**
LM
IS
IL
Sex
Age
Em
FV
FH
FL
FC
FM
TF
TA
LF
LE
.74**
.70**
.83**
.75**
.30**
.39**
.26**
.28**
.29
.28**
.34**
.24**
.29**
.26
.59**
-.01
-.01
-.02
-.08
-.07
-.07
-.06
.15
.23**
.20*
.22**
.22**
.34**
.12
-.15
.02
-.06
-.09
.04
-.04
-.05
.06
-.07
.18
.12
.08
.07
.04
.18*
-.08
-.15
.15
-.07
-.07
.05
.04
.04
.01
.14
-.19*
-.24**
.06
-.08
-.08
.88**
.06
.07
.02
.02
.17*
-.10
-.15
.07
-.05
-.12
.72**
.74**
-.02
-.45
-.05
-.04
.07
-.21*
-.18*
-.03
-.08
.03
.76**
.78**
.58**
.05
.04
.06
.04
.19*
-.15
-.17*
.06
-.08
-.17*
.73**
.76**
.87**
.65**
.16
.10
.10
.12
.19*
-.06
-.08
.03
.07
-.14
.77**
.71**
.67**
.58**
.69**
-.02
-.03
-.30
-.50
.03
.03
-.09
.03
.10
-.13
.39**
.36**
.20*
.34**
.25**
.31**
.04
.07
.07
-.02
.02
.02
.02
.11
.05
-.08
-.29**
-.30**
-.20*
-.22**
-.22**
-.36**
.09
01
.06
.01
.00
.07
-.06
-.08
.10
-.08
-.11
.76**
.73**
.77**
.64**
.74**
.72**
.17*
-.42**
Note. LV = Leader SLT vision, LH = Leader SLT hope, LL = Leader SLT love, LC = Leader SLT calling, LM = Leader SLT membership, IS =
INSPIRT, IL = Inner life, Sex = Leader gender (1 = female, 2 = male), Age = Leader age (1 25, 2 = 26-45, 3 = 46-65, 4 66), Em = Leader
employer (1 = for profit, 2 = nonprofit), FV = SLT vision (fr), FH = SLT hope (fr), FL = SLT love (fr), FM = SLT membership (fr), TF =
Transformational leadership (fr), TA = Transactional leadership (fr), LF = Laissez-faire leadership (fr), LE = leader effectiveness (fr).
**p <.01. *p < .05.
64
First, the SLT data collected from leaders were analyzed. Control variables
(leader age, leader gender, leader employer type, transactional leadership
characteristics of the leader, and laissez-faire leadership characteristics of the leader
as perceived by followers) were not statistically significant in explaining variance
in SLT leader vision. However, transformational leader characteristics of the leader
as perceived by followers, leader self-reported spiritual health, and leader concern
for spirituality explained 14% of the model variance for SLT vision (see Table 10,
p < .01).
Table 10: Regression Analysis Model Summary for SLT Leader Vision, Dependent
Variable SLT Vision as Reported by Leaders
Variable
R2
R2
Sig.
Model 1
.16
.03
.03
.62
.41
.17
.14
.00
Leader age
Leader gender
Leader employer type
Model 2
The regression coefficients predicting SLT leader vision shown in Table 11

indicated that only the transformational leadership characteristics of leaders as
perceived by followers were statically significant predictors of SLT vision as
reported by leaders.
65
The findings for SLT leader hope are presented in Table 12. The control
variables (leader age, gender, employer type, transactional leadership, and laissezfaire leadership) were not statistically significant in explaining variance of the
variable. Transformational leadership characteristics (fr), leader spiritual health,
and leader concern for spirituality explained 17% of the model (p < .00). However,
when reviewing the regression coefficients predicting SLT hope as reported by
leaders (see Table 13), leader age joined transformational leadership, leader
spiritual health, and leader concern for spirituality as statistically significant
predictors of SLT leader hope.
Table 11: Regression Coefficients Predicting SLT Leader Vision, Dependent

Variable SLT Leader Vision as Reported by Leaders
Variable
R2
SE B
Model 1
.03
Gender
.01
.09
.01
Age
.14
.08
.15
.02
.08
.02
-.04
.10
-.03
.04
.10
.04
Model 2
.17
Gender
.01
.08
.01
Age
.08
.08
.09
.05
.08
.06
-.13
.11
-.11
.16
.10
.14
.38
.13
.29**
.15
.08
.20
.08
.05
.16
**p < .01.
66
Table 12: Regression Analysis Model Summary for SLT Leader Hope, Dependent
Variable SLT Hope as Reported by Leaders
Variable
R2
R2
Sig.
.25
.06
.06
.11
.48
.23
.17
.00
Model 1
Leader age
Leader gender
Model 2
67
Table 13: Regression Coefficients Predicting SLT Leader Hope, Dependent

Variable SLT Leader Hope as Reported by Leaders
Variable
R2
SE B
Model 1
.06
Gender
.02
.10
.01
Age
.26
.09
.23**
-.08
.10
-.06
-.10
.13
-.07
.08
.12
.06
Model 2
.23
Gender
.02
.10
.02
Age
.16
.09
.14
-.04
.09
-.03
-.18
.13
-.12
.21
.12
.14
.38
.15
.23**
.23
.09
.25*
.12
.06
.19*
*p < .05. **p < .01.
The control variables (leader age, gender, employer type, transactional

leadership, and laissez-faire leadership) were not statistically significant in
explaining variance of the variable for SLT love as reported by leaders (see Table
14). Transformational leadership characteristics as reported by followers, leader
spiritual health, and leader concern for spirituality explained 9% of the variance (p
< .05). When reviewing the regression coefficients predicting SLT leader love (see
Table 15), leader age joins transformational leadership as statistically significant
predictors of SLT leader love.
68
Table 14: Regression Analysis Model Summary for SLT Leader Love, Dependent
Variable SLT Love as Reported by Leaders
Variable
R2
R2
Sig.
.23
.05
.05
.18
.38
.14
.09
.04
Model 1
Leader age
Leader gender
Model 2
69
Table 15: Regression Coefficients Predicting SLT Leader Love, Dependent

Variable SLT Love as Reported by Leaders
Variable
R2
SE B
Model 1
Gender
.05
-.01
.08
-.07
.17
.07
.20*
Leader empl. type
-.09
.08
-.09
-.08
.10
-.07
.07
.10
.06
Age
Model 2
Gender
.14
-.07
.08
-.01
.13
.07
.14
Leader empl. type
-.06
.08
-.07
-.14
.10
-.12
.16
.10
.14
.28
.12
.21*
.09
.08
.13
.07
.05
.15
Age
*p < .05.
SLT leader calling/meaning data (see Table 16) suggested that control
variables (leader age, gender, employer type, transactional leadership, and laissezfaire leadership) were not statistically significant in explaining variance in SLT
calling. Transformational leadership characteristics as reported by followers, leader
spiritual health, and leader concern for spirituality explained 11% of the model
variance for SLT calling (p < .00). The regression coefficients predicting SLT
leader calling (see Table 17) indicated that leader age and the transformational
leadership characteristics of leaders as reported by followers were statically
significant predictors of SLT calling/meaning.
70
Table 16: Regression Analysis Model Summary for SLT Leader Calling/Meaning,
Dependent Variable SLT Calling as Reported by Leaders
Variable
R2
R2
Sig.
.24
.06
.06
.16
.40
.16
.11
.00
Model 1
Leader age
Leader gender
Model 2
71
Table 17: Regression Coefficients Predicting SLT Leader Calling/Meaning,

Dependent Variable SLT Calling as Reported by Leaders
Variable
R2
SE B
Model 1
Gender
.06
-.05
.08
-.05
Age
.19
.07
.22**
.02
.08
.02
-.08
.10
-.06
-.20
.09
-.02
Model 2
Gender
.16
-.05
.08
-.05
Age
.14
.07
.17*
.05
.08
.05
-.14
.10
-.12
.07
.10
.06
.28
.12
.22*
.09
.08
.13
.09
.05
.19
*p < .05. **p < .01.
The final SLT variable as reported by leaders, membership, demonstrated

characteristics similar to other SLT leader variables. Control variables (leader age,
gender, employer type, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership) were
not statistically significant in explaining variance in SLT membership (see Table
18). Transformational leader characteristics as reported by followers, leader
spiritual health, and leader concern for spirituality explained 13% of the model
variance for SLT membership calling (p < .01). The regression coefficients
predicting SLT leader membership (see Table 19) indicated that leader age and the
transformational leadership characteristics of leaders were statically significant
predictors of SLT membership.
72
Table 18: Regression Analysis Model Summary for SLT Leader Membership,
Dependent Variable SLT Membership as Reported by Leaders
Variable
R2
R2
Sig.
.23
.05
.05
.19
.43
.18
.13
.00
Model 1
Leader age
Leader gender
Model 2
73
Table 19: Regression Coefficients Predicting SLT Leader Membership, Dependent

Variable SLT Membership as Reported by Leaders
Variable
R2
SE B
Model 1
Gender
.05
-.05
.08
-.05
.18
.07
.21**
-.04
.08
-.05
-.00
.10
.00
.01
.10
.01
Age
Model 2
Gender
.18
-.05
.08
-.05
.14
.07
.16
-.01
.08
-.01
-.09
.10
-.08
.14
.10
.12
.38
.12
.29**
.11
.08
.15
.08
.05
.17
Age
**p < .01.
An analysis of SLT follower data begins with SLT leader vision as reported
by followers (see Table 20). The control variables (leader age, leader gender, leader
employer type, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors as
reported by followers) explained 30% of variance in SLT vision. Transformational
leader characteristics as reported by followers, leader spiritual health, and leader
concern for spirituality added an additional 35% to the model variance for SLT
vision membership (p < .01).
The regression coefficients predicting SLT vision as reported by followers
(see Table 21) indicated that leader gender, transactional leadership characteristics
of leader, laissez-faire leadership characteristics of leaders, and transformational
74
leadership characteristics of leaders as reported by followers were statistically

significant predictors of SLT vision. All relationships were positive with the
exception of laissez-faire leadership.
The regression analysis model summary for SLT hope (fr) indicated that the
control variables (leader age, gender, employer type, transactional leadership, and
laissez-faire leadership behaviors, as reported by followers) add 26%, and
transformational leadership characteristics of the leader, leader spiritual health, and
leader concern for spirituality add an additional 31% of the model variance for SLT
leader hope, as assessed by followers (see Table 22, p < .01).
Table 20: Regression Analysis Model Summary for SLT Vision, Dependent
Variable SLT Leader Vision as Reported by Followers
Variable
R2
R2
Sig.
.54
.30
.30
.00
.80
.64
.35
.00
Model 1
Leader age
Leader gender
Model 2
75
Table 21: Regression Coefficients Predicting SLT Vision, Dependent Variable

SLT Leader Vision as Reported by Followers
Variable
R2
SE B
Model 1
Gender
.30
.16
.07
.17*
Age
-.06
.06
-.07
-.02
.07
-.02
.49
.09
.42**
-.39
.08
-.35**
Model 2
Gender
.64
.13
.05
.13**
-.17
.05
-.02
.06
.05
.07
.21
.07
.18**
-.08
.06
-.07
.89
.08
.68**
.02
.05
.03
-.05
.03
-.10
Age
*p < .05. **p < .01.
The regression coefficients predicting SLT leader hope (fr) suggest that the
transactional leadership characteristics of the leader, laissez-faire leadership
characteristics of the leader, and transformational leadership characteristics of the
leader as perceived by followers were statically significant predictors of SLT
follower hope (see Table 23); with the exception of laissez-faire leadership
characteristics, all relationships were positive.
76
Table 22: Regression Analysis Model Summary for SLT Hope (fr), Dependent
Variable SLT Leader Hope as Reported by Followers
Variable
R2
R2
Sig.
.51
.26
.26
.00
.75
.56
.31
.00
Model 1
Leader age
Leader gender
Model 2
77
Table 23: Regression Coefficients Predicting SLT Hope, Dependent Variable

SLT Leader Hope as Reported by Followers
Variable
R2
SE B
Model 1
Gender
.26
.06
.06
.07
Age
-.07
.06
-.09
-.04
.06
-.05
.39
.08
.39**
-.32
.07
-.34**
Model 2
Gender
.56
.04
.05
.04
-.01
.04
-.01
.02
.05
.03
.18
.06
.18**
-09
.06
-.09
.68
.08
.61**
-.04
.05
-.06
-.06
.03
-.14
Age
**p < .01.
Table 24 suggests that leader age, leader gender, leader employer type
(profit or nonprofit), the transactional leadership characteristics of leaders, and the
laissez-faire leadership characteristics of leaders (control variables) add 11%, with
the transformational leadership characteristics of the leader, leader spiritual health,
and leader concern for spirituality adding an additional 36% of the model variance
for SLT leader love as reported by followers (p < .01). The regression coefficients
predicting SLT love (fr), outlined in Table 25, suggest that transactional leadership
characteristics of the leader, laissez-faire leadership characteristics of the leader,
and transformational leadership characteristics of the leader are statistically
78
significant predictors of SLT follower hope. Again, only laissez-faire leadership

characteristics exhibited a negative relationship.
The regression analysis model summary for SLT calling/meaning (fr),
presented in Table 26, indicates that the control variables (leader age, gender,
employer type, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership characteristics
of the leader) add 20%, with transformational leadership characteristics of the
leader, leader spiritual health, and leader concern for spirituality adding 22% to the
model variance for SLT calling/meaning (p < .01). Regression coefficients
predicting SLT calling/meaning (fr), outlined in Table 27, suggest that the
transactional leadership characterizes of the leader and transformational leadership
characteristics of the leader are positive predictors while laissez-faire leadership
characteristics of the leader are negative statistically significant predictors of SLT
leader calling/meaning as reported by followers.
Table 24: Regression Analysis Model Summary for SLT Love, Dependent Variable
SLT Leader Love as Reported by Followers
Variable
R2
R2
Sig.
.33
.11
.11
.01
.68
.46
.36
.00
Model 1
Leader age
Leader gender
Model 2
79
Table 25: Regression Coefficients Predicting SLT Love, Dependent Variable

SLT Leader Love as Reported by Followers
Variable
R2
SE B
Model 1
Gender
.11
.06
.07
.08
Age
-.03
.06
-.04
-.08
.06
-.11
.20
.08
.21**
-.22
.08
-.24**
Model 2
.46
Gender
.03
.05
.04
Age
.02
.05
.02
-.02
.05
-.02
-.03
.07
-.03
.04
.07
.04
.74
.08
.69**
-.01
.05
-.01
-.04
.03
-.09
**p < .01.
80
Table 26: Regression Analysis Model Summary for SLT Calling/Meaning (fr),
Dependent Variable SLT Leader Calling as Reported by Followers
Variable
R2
R2
Sig.
.44
.20
.20
.00
.65
.42
.22
.00
Model 1
Leader age
Leader gender
Model 2
81
Table 27: Regression Coefficients Predicting SLT Calling/Meaning (fr), Dependent

Variable SLT Leader Calling as Reported by Followers
Variable
R2
SE B
Model 1
.20
Gender
-.02
.07
-.02
Age
-.08
.06
-.11
.05
.07
.06
.42
.08
.39**
-.25
.08
-.25**
Model 2
.22
Gender
-.04
.06
-.05
Age
-.01
.05
-.01
.10
.06
.11
.23
.08
.22**
-.04
.08
-.04
.61
.09
.50**
-.10
.06
-.16
-.02
.04
-.04
**p < .01.
The tenth and final SLT variable, leader membership as reported by

followers, is presented in Table 28. Control variables (leader age, leader gender,
leader employer type, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership
characteristics) add 16% to the model variance for SLT membership (fr), with
transformational leadership characteristics of the leader, leader spiritual health, and
leader concern for spirituality adding an additional 34% (p < .01).
Regression coefficients predicting SLT leader membership as reported by
followers (see Table 29) suggest that the transactional leadership characteristics of
the leader, laissez-faire leadership characteristics of the leader, and
transformational leadership characteristics of the leader are statistically significant
82
predictors of SLT membership (fr). All relationships are positive, with the
exception of laissez-faire leadership, which is negative.
Table 28: Regression Analysis Model Summary for SLT Membership (fr),
Dependent Variable SLT Leader Membership as Reported by Followers
Variable
R2
R2
Sig.
.40
.16
.16
.00
.70
.50
.34
.00
Model 1
Leader age
Leader gender
Model 2
83
Table 29: Regression Coefficients Predicting SLT Membership (fr), Dependent

Variable SLT Leader Membership as Reported by Followers
Variable
R2
SE B
Model 1
Gender
.16
.05
.06
.06
Age
-.06
.06
-.08
-.11
.06
-.15
.25
.08
.26**
-.24
.07
-.26**
Model 2
Gender
.50
.02
.05
.03
Age
-.01
.05
-.01
-.05
.05
-.07
.03
.07
.04
-.01
.07
-.01
.71
.08
.66**
-.04
.05
-.06
-.03
.03
-.07
**p < .01.
To aid in responding to the first research question, summative information

was pulled from prior tables and presented in Table 30.
84
Table 30: Summary for Research Question 1 Variables Predicting SLT

SLT
variable
Vision
Leader reported predictors
Follower reported predictors at
at statistically sig. levels
statistically sig. levels
Transformational
Leader gender
leadership characteristics
Transactional leadership characteristics

Laissez-faire leadership characteristics*
characteristics
Hope
Age of leader
Transformational
characteristics
Leader concern for

spirituality
Love
Age of leader
Transformational
characteristics
Calling
Age of leader
Transformational
characteristics
Membership
Age of leader
Transformational
characteristics
Note. * indicates negative relationship.
85
Research Question 1 asked: To what extent do transformational leader

characteristics as perceived by followers, leader self-perceived spiritual health, and
a leaders concern for spirituality explain spiritual leadership? The answer is
complex, as each of the five SLT variables must be explored from both leader and
follower perspectives.
Transformational leadership characteristics of the leader as perceived by
followers help explain all SLT variables as reported by both leaders and followers.
In addition, a leaders age helps explain all SLT variables as reported by leaders
with the exception of leader vision. Leader spiritual health and leader concern for
spirituality also help explain leader hope.
In addition to transformational leader characteristics, the transformational
leadership characteristics of the leader and laissez-faire leadership characteristics of
the leader help explain all five SLT variables as reported by followers. Also, the
gender of the leader helps explain SLT vision as reported by followers. Laissezfaire leadership characteristics have a negative relationship with all other variables,
maintaining positive relationships with the SLT variables.
Therefore, Research Question 1 is positively affirmed; the transformational
leadership characteristics of the leader as perceived by followers help explain all
five SLT variables. In addition, leaders perceive that the age of the leader
significantly impacts most SLT variables, and leader spiritual health along with
leader concern for spirituality impact SLT hope.
Interestingly, the perceptions of followers are inconsistent with leader
perceptions. Followers asserted that in addition to transformational leadership
characteristics of leaders, the transactional and laissez-faire leadership
characteristics of leaders significantly impact all SLT variables, and the gender of
the leader impacts SLT leader vision.
The second research question asked: To what extent does spiritual
leadership explain leadership effectiveness over and above the explanation
86
provided by a leaders transformational leadership behaviors? Two regression

models were developed to explore the question.
As Table 31 shows, the control variables (leader age, leader gender, and
leader employer type) and SLT variables as reported by leaders were not
statistically significant is explaining the variance in leader effectiveness. However,
the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership characteristics of
leaders as reported by followers explain 53% of the variance in leader effectiveness
(p < .01).
Variables, and SLT Variables Reported by Leaders as Predictor of Leader
Effectiveness
Variable
R2
R2
Sig.
.16
.03
.03
.32
.75
.56
.53
.00
.76
.58
.02
.30
Model 1
Leader age
Leader gender
Model 2
Model 3
Leader vision
Leader hope
Leader love
Leader membership
87
Variables Reported by Leaders Predicting Leader Effectiveness
Variable
R2
SE B
Model 1
.03
Gender
.74
.08
.08
Age
-.05
.07
-.06
-.09
.07
-.11
Model 2
.56
Gender
.09
.05
.10
Age
-.01
.04
-.01
-.03
.05
-.03
.79
.08
.65**
-.02
.07
.02
-.20
.07
-.19**
Model 3
.58
Gender
.09
.05
.10
Age
-.01
.05
-.01
-.02
.05
-.02
.81
.08
.66**
-03
.07
-.03
.20
.07
-.19**
Leader vision
-.14
.08
-.16
Leader hope
.12
.07
.16
Leader love
-.02
.10
-.02
-.07
.09
-.08
.04
.11
.04
Leader membership
**p < .01.
Regression coefficients predicting leader effectiveness (see Table 32)

suggest that transformational leadership characteristics were positively significant
88
and laissez-faire leadership characteristics as reported by followers were negatively

statistically significant. SLT variables as reported by leaders were not significant in
predicting leader effectiveness as reported by followers.
When SLT variables as reported by followers replaced SLT variables as
reported by leaders, the model changed considerably (see Table 33). Again, the
control variables (leader age, leader gender, and leader employer type) were not
statistically significant in explaining the variance in leader effectiveness. However,
leader transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership characteristics as
reported by followers added 53%, and the follower-reported SLT variables added
an additional 19% of the variance in explaining leader effectiveness (p < .01).
Variables, and SLT Variables Reported by Followers as Predictor of Leader
Effectiveness
Variable
R2
R2
Sig.
.16
.03
.03
.32
.75
.56
.53
.00
.86
.75
.19
.00
Model 1
Leader age
Leader gender
Model 2
Model 3
Leader vision
Leader hope
Leader love
Leader membership
89
Variables Reported by Followers Predicting Leader Effectiveness
Variable
R2
SE B
Model 1
Age
Gender
.03
-.05
.06
.06
.07
.08
-.08
-.09
.07
-.11
Model 2
Age
.56
-.07
.05
-.08
.09
.05
.10
-.03
.05
-.03
.79
.08
.65**
-.02
.07
-.02
-.20
.07
-.19**
Gender
Model 3
.75
Age
.03
.04
.04
Gender
.05
.04
.06
-.04
.04
-.05
.19
.09
.15**
-08
.06
-.08
-.20
.05
.19**
Leader vision
.21
.11
.22*
Leader hope
-.04
.12
-.04
Leader love
.43
.11
.38**
.14
.08
.14
Leader membership
.06
.11
.05
*p < .05. **p < .01.

indicated that transformational and laissez-faire leadership characteristics, SLT
90
leader vision, and leader love as reported by followers are statistically significant.
Laissez-faire leadership was the only negatively related variable.
Hence, Research Question 2 is positively affirmed; spiritual leadership as
assessed by followers helps to explain follower-perceived leader effectiveness over
and above the transformational leadership behaviors of leaders as perceived by
followers.
Research Question 3 asked: To what extent does spiritual leadership
mediate the relationship of a leaders transformational leadership behaviors, the
leaders self-reported spiritual health, and/or the leaders concern for spirituality
with leader effectiveness?
According to Baron and Kenny (1986), a three-step process is required to
test for mediation. First, the assumed mediating variable (spiritual leadership) is
regressed on the independent variables (transformational leadership behaviors of
the leader as assessed by followers, leader spiritual health, and leader concern for
spirituality). Second, the dependent variable (leader effectiveness as perceived by
followers) is regressed on the independent variables (as previously list). Third, the
dependent variable (leader effectiveness) is regressed on both the independent
variables (as previously list) and then on the mediating variable (spiritual
leadership). Mediation is evident when the effect of the independent variables on
the dependent variable is less in the third equitation than is evident in the second.
As SLT data were collected from both followers and leaders, four
regression models were developed to respond to the research question. The first
model, presented in Tables 35 and 36, looks at the five SLT variables reported by
leaders collectively, explaining the variance in leadership effectiveness. The model
was not statistically significant and, therefore, was not considered further.
91
Leaders as Predictor of Leader Effectiveness
Variable
R2
R2
Sig.
.15
.02
.02
.67
Model 1
Leader vision
Leader hope
Leader love
Leader membership
Table 36: Regression Coefficients SLT Variables Reported by Leaders Predicting

Effectiveness
Variable
R2
SE B
Model 1
.02
Leader vision
-.08
.12
-.10
Leader hope
.08
.10
.12
Leader love
-.14
.15
-.15
-.08
.13
-.08
.23
.16
.25
Leader membership
The second model (see Table 37) is similar to the prior illustration;
however, SLT variables provided by followers have replaced SLT variables
provided by leaders. SLT variables as reported by followers explained 69% of the
variance in leadership effectiveness (p < .01). SLT leader vision and love as
reported by followers were statistically significant with regression coefficients
predicting leader effectiveness (see Table 38).
92
Followers as Predictor of Leadership Effectiveness
Variable
R2
R2
Sig.
.83
.69
.69
.00
Model 1
Leader vision
Leader hope
Leader love
Leader membership
Table 38: Regression Coefficients SLT Variables as Reported by Followers

Predicting Effectiveness
Variable
R2
SE B
Model 1
.69
Leader vision
.33
.10
.35**
Leader hope
-.08
.12
Leader love
.44
.11
.39**
.08
.08
.08
Leader membership
.12
.12
.10
-.07
**p < .01.
The third model (see Table 39) demonstrates that leader gender, age, and
employer type (profit or nonprofit); transactional, laissez-faire, and
transformational leadership characteristics of the leader as reported by followers;
leader spiritual health; and leader concern for spirituality explained 56% of the
variance in leader effectiveness (p < .01).
suggest that only laissez-faire leadership characteristics and transformational
93
leadership characteristics were statistically significant. Laissez-faire represents a

negative relationship, and transformational leadership as reported by followers was
positive.
The fourth and final model associated with Research Question 3 (see Table
41) suggests that leader gender, age, and employer type (profit or nonprofit);
transactional, laissez-faire, and transformational leadership characteristics of the
leader as perceived by followers; leader spiritual health; and leader concern for
spirituality explained 56%, and SLT variables as reported by followers explained
an additional 19% of the variance in leader effectiveness (p < .01).

Transformational Leadership, Leader Spiritual Health, and Leader Concern for
Spirituality as Predictor of Leadership Effectiveness
Variable
R2
R2
Sig.
.75
.56
.56
.00
Model 1
Leader gender
Leader age
94

Leader Spiritual Health, and Leader Concern for Spirituality Leader Predicting
Effectiveness
Variable
R2
SE B
Model 1
Leader gender
.56
.09
.05
.10
Leader age
-.01
.05
-.01
-.03
.05
-.03
-.02
.07
-.02
-.20
.07
-.19**
.80
.08
.64**
-.01
.03
-.03
.01
.05
.01
**p < .01.
95

Transformational Leadership, Leader Spiritual Health, Leader Concern for
Spirituality, and SLT Variables Reported by Followers as Predictor of Leader
Effectiveness
Variable
R2
R2
Sig.
.74
.56
.56
.00
.87
.75
.19
.00
Model 1
Leader gender
Leader age
Model 2
Leader vision
Leader hope
Leader love
Leader membership

suggest that transactional leadership characteristics, laissez-faire leadership
characteristics, transformational leadership characteristics, and SLT love as
reported by followers were statistically significant. All variables demonstrated a
positive relationship with the exception of laissez-faire leadership which was
negative.
96

Leader Spiritual Health, Leader Concern for Spirituality, and SLT Variables
Reported by Followers Predicting Leader Effectiveness
Variable
R2
SE B
Model 1
Leader gender
.56
.09
.05
.10
Leader age
-.01
.05
-.03
-.03
.05
-.02
-.02
.07
-.02
-.20
.08
-.19**
.79
.05
.65**
.01
.05
.01
.79
.03
-.03
Model 2
Leader gender
.75
.06
.04
.06
Leader age
-.01
.04
-.01
-.04
.04
-.05
-.09
.06
-.08
-.20
.05
-.19**
.18
.09
.15
.03
.04
.04
.02
.03
.04
Follower vision
.18
.11
.20
Follower hope
-.08
.12
-.01
Follower love
.43
.11
.37**
Follower calling/meaning
.16
.08
.15*
Follower membership
.06
.11
.06
*p < .05. **p < .01.
97
Examining Table 42, the coefficient for transformational leadership is

significantly reduced when SLT variables as reported by followers were added to
the model. This is an indication that SLT leader behaviors as reported by followers
mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and leadership
effectiveness.
Therefore, the answer to Research Question 3 was positively affirmed;
spiritual leadership does mediate the relationship of transformational leadership
behaviors with leadership effectiveness as reported by followers.
Research Question 4 asked: To what extent does a leaders self-reported
spiritual health moderate the relationships of transformational leadership and
spiritual leadership with leadership effectiveness? Three regression models have
been developed to answer the question including the development of three new
variables to aid in responding to the question of moderation. First, in order to
model the interaction of spiritual health with transformational leadership, a new
variable was created which was the product of transformational leadership
multiplied by leader spiritual health (TLSH). The second new variable was SLT
vision (fr) times leader spiritual health (SLTFVSH), and the third new variable was
SLT love (fr) times leader spiritual health (SLTFLSH). Only SLT follower vision
and follower love were applied in the models because Research Question 2
affirmed that SLT vision and love as reported by followers explained leadership
effectiveness over and above the relationship provided by transformational
leadership. The remaining SLT variables from followers and leaders were not
statistically significant in impacting leadership effectiveness.
The first model associated with Research Question 4 (see Table 43)
suggests that leader gender, age, and employer type (profit or nonprofit);
transactional leadership characteristics of the leader; and laissez-faire leadership
characteristics of the leader as reported by followers (control variables) explained
25% of the model with transformational leadership characteristics of the leader.
Leader spiritual health explained an additional 31% of the variance in leader
98
effectiveness. Adding the new variable TLSH was not statistically significant.
Regression coefficients predicting leader effectiveness (see Table 44) suggested
that the transactional and transformational leadership characteristics of the leader
positively contribute and laissez-faire leadership characteristics negatively
contribute at statistically significant levels.
The second and third models associated with Research Question 4 provide
similar findings. Both models (see Tables 45 and 47) show the control variables
adding 25%, and the SLT variables (love and vision) as reported by followers
adding an additional 39% and 43% respectively to the model of the variance in
leadership effectiveness. The new variables representing moderation (SLTFVSH
and SLTFLSH) were not statistically significant. The regression coefficient
predicting leader effectiveness (see Tables 46 and 48) suggested that transactional
and SLT vision and love variables as reported by followers were positively
significant and laissez-faire leadership characteristics as reported by followers were
negatively statistically significant. The variables representing moderation were not
significant in this study.
99

Transformational Leadership, Leader Spiritual Health, and TLSH Moderating as
Predictor of Leader Effectiveness
Variable
R2
R2
Sig.
.50
.25
.25
.00
.75
.56
.31
.00
.75
.56
.00
.69
Model 1
Leader gender
Leader age
Model 2
Model 3
TLSH
100
Table 44: Regression Coefficients for Control Variables, Transformational

Leadership, Leader Spiritual Health, and TLSH Predicting Leader Effectiveness
Variable
R2
SE B
Model 1
Leader gender
.25
.12
.07
.13
Leader age
-.04
.06
-.05
-.10
.07
-.11
.22
.08
.20**
-.47
.08
-.45**
Model 2
Leader gender
.56
.09
.05
.10
Leader age
-.01
.05
-.07
-.03
.05
-.03
-.02
.07
-.02
-.20
.07
-.19**
.79
.08
.65**
-.02
.04
-.00
Model 3
Leader gender
.56
.09
.05
.10
Leader age
-.01
.05
-.06
-.03
.05
-.03
-.02
.07
-.02
-.20
.07
-.19**
.91
.31
.74**
.19
.48
.28
-.05
.11
-.30
TLSH
**p < .01.
101
as Reported by Followers, and SLTFVSH Moderating as Predictor of Leader
Effectiveness
Variable
R2
R2
Sig.
.50
.25
.25
.00
.80
.64
.39
.00
.80
.64
.00
.95
Model 1
Leader gender
Leader age
Model 2
SLT follower vision
Model 3
SLTFVSH
102
Table 46: Regression Coefficients Control Variables, SLT Vision as Reported by

Followers, and SLTFVSH Predicting Leader Effectiveness
Variable
R2
SE B
Model 1
Leader gender
.25
.12
.07
.13
Leader age
-.04
.06
-.05
-.10
.07
-.11
.22
.08
.20**
-.47
.08
-.45**
Model 2
Leader gender
.64
.01
.05
.00
Leader age
-.00
.04
-.00
-.08
.05
-.09
-.12
.06
-.11
-.21
.06
-.20**
.69
.06
.74**
SLT follower vision

Model 3
Leader gender
.64
.01
.05
.10
Leader age
-.00
.05
-.00
-.08
.05
-.09
-.12
.06
-.11
-.21
.06
-.20**
SLT follower vision
.69
.06
.74**
SLTFVSH
.00
.08
.00
**p < .01.
103
as Reported by Followers and SLTFLSH Moderating as Predictor of Leader
Effectiveness
Variable
R2
R2
Sig.
.50
.22
.25
.00
.82
.66
.43
.00
.82
.66
.00
.60
Model 1
Leader gender
Leader age
Model 2
SLT follower love
Model 3
SLTFLSH
104
Table 48: Regression Coefficients Control Variables, SLT Love as Reported by

Followers and SLTFLSH Predicting Leader Effectiveness
Variable
R2
SE B
Model 1
Leader gender
.22
.12
.07
.13
Leader age
-.04
.06
-.05
-.10
.07
-.11
.22
.08
.20**
-.47
.08
-.45**
Model 2
Leader gender
.66
.07
.05
.08
Leader age
-.02
.04
-.03
-.03
.04
-.04
.06
.06
-.06
-.30
.05
-.29**
.79
.06
.69**
SLT follower love

Model 3
Leader gender
.68
.07
.05
.08
Leader age
-.03
.04
-.03
-.03
.04
-.04
.06
.06
-.06
-.30
.05
-.29**
SLT follower love
.78
.06
.68**
SLTFLSH
.00
.00
.03
**p < .01.
Hence, the answer to Research Question 4 was negatively affirmed. The

analysis from this study suggests that a leaders self-reported spiritual health does
not moderate the relationships of transformational leadership and/or spiritual
leadership with leadership effectiveness.
105

Research Question 5 is very similar to the prior question. However, leader
concern for spirituality replaces leader self-perceived spiritual health. Therefore,
the question is: To what extent does a leaders concern for spirituality moderate the
relationships of transformational leadership and spiritual leadership with leadership
effectiveness? Comparable models have been developed to answer Research
Question 5 with new variables again created to represent the moderating effect.
Transformational leadership was multiplied by leader concern for
spirituality (TLCS) to aid in answering the question regarding moderation of leader
concern for spirituality and transformational leadership. SLT vision as reported by
followers was multiplied by leader concern for spirituality (SLTFVSC) and SLT
love as reported by followers was multiplied by leader concern for spirituality
(SLTFLSC) to test for the moderating effects of SLT follower vision and love.
The outcome of the models is consistent with the findings for Research
Question 4. The first model (see Table 49) suggests that leader gender, age, and
employer type (profit or nonprofit); transactional leadership characteristics of the
leader; and laissez-faire leadership characteristics of the leader as reported by
followers (control variables) explained 25% of the model. Transformational
leadership characteristics of the leader and leader concern for spirituality explained
an additional 31% of the variance in leader effectiveness. The new variable TLCS
was not statistically significant (p < .01). Regression coefficients predicting leader
effectiveness (see Table 50) suggest that the transactional leadership characteristics
of the leader positively contribute and laissez-faire leadership characteristics
negatively contribute at statistically significant levels.
106

Transformational Leadership, Leader Concern for Spirituality, and TLCS
Moderating as Predictor of Leader Effectiveness
Variable
R2
R2
Sig.
.50
.25
.25
.00
.75
.56
.31
.00
.75
.56
.00
.41
Model 1
Leader gender
Leader age
Model 2
Model 3
TLCS
107

Leader Concern for Spirituality, and TLCS Predicting Leader Effectiveness
Variable
R2
SE B
Model 1
.25
Leader gender
.12
.07
.13
Leader age
-.04
.06
-.05
-.10
.07
-.11
.22
.08
.20**
-.47
.08
-.45**
Model 2
Leader gender
.56
.09
.05
-.01
Leader age
-.01
.05
-.03
-.03
.05
-.02
-.02
.07
-.19
-.20
.07
-.19**
.79
.08
.65**
-.01
.03
-.02
Model 3
Leader gender
.56
.09
.05
.10
Leader age
-.01
.05
-.01
-.03
.05
-.04
-.03
.07
-.02
-.21
.07
-.20**
.54
.32
.44
-.29
.36
-.67
.07
.08
.66
TLCS
**p < .01.
The second and third models associated with Research Question 5 outline
similar findings as presented for Research Question 4. Both models (see Tables 51
108
and 53) show the control variables adding 25% and the SLT variables (vision and
love as reported by followers) adding an additional 39% and 43% respectively to
the model of the variance in leadership effectiveness. The newly created variables
(SLTFVCS and SLTFLCS) representing moderation were not statistically
significant. The regression coefficient predicting leader effectiveness (see Tables
52 and 54) suggests that transactional and SLT vision and love as reported by
followers were positively significant, and laissez-faire leadership characteristics as
reported by followers was negatively statistically significant. The variables
representing moderation were not significant in this study.
(fr), and SLTFVCS Moderating as Predictor of Leader Effectiveness
Variable
R2
R2
Sig.
.50
.25
.25
.00
.80
.64
.39
.00
.80
.64
.00
.53
Model 1
Leader gender
Leader age
Model 2
SLT follower vision
Model 3
SLTFVCS
109
Table 52: Regression Coefficients Control Variables, SLT Vision (fr), and
SLTFVCS Predicting Leader Effectiveness
Variable
R2
SE B
Model 1
.25
Leader gender
.12
.07
.13
Leader age
-.04
.06
-.05
-.10
.07
-.11
.22
.08
.20**
-.47
.08
-.45**
Model 2
.64
Leader gender
.01
.05
.00
Leader age
-.00
.04
-.00
-.08
.05
-.09
-.12
.06
-.11
-.21
.06
-.11**
.69
.06
-.20**
SLT follower vision

Model 3
.64
Leader gender
.01
.05
.00
Leader age
-.00
.04
-.01
-.08
.05
-.10
-.12
.06
-.11
-.21
.06
-.20**
SLT follower vision
.69
.06
.73**
SLTFVCS
.00
.01
.03
**p < .01.
110
(fr), and SLTFLCS Moderating as Predictor of Leader Effectiveness
R
R2
R2
Sig.
.50
.22
.25
.00
SLT follower love
.82
.67
.43
.00
SLTFLCS
.82
.68
.00
.35
Variable
Model 1
Leader gender
Leader age
Model 2
Step 3
111
Table 54: Regression Coefficients Control Variables, SLT Love (fr), and SLTFLCS
Predicting Leader Effectiveness
Variable
R2
SE B
Model 1
Leader gender
.25
.12
.07
.13
Leader age
-.04
.06
-.05
-.10
.07
-.11
.22
.08
.20**
-.47
.08
-.45**
Model 2
Leader gender
.68
.07
.05
.08
Leader age
-.02
.04
-.03
-.03
.04
-.04
.06
.06
-.06
.30
.05
-.29**
SLT follower love
79
.06
.69**
Model 3
Leader gender
.68
.07
.05
.08
Leader age
-.03
.04
-.03
-.03
.04
-.04
.06
.06
-.06
-.30
.05
-.29**
SLT follower love
.78
.06
.68**
SLTFLCS
.01
.00
.05
**p < .01.
As such, Research Question 5 was also negatively affirmed. A leaders

concern for spirituality does not moderate the relationships of transformational
leadership and/or spiritual leadership with leadership effectiveness at statistically
significant levels.
112
Chapter 5 Discussion
This chapter provides a summary of study findings and the theoretical
implications of those findings. The chapter also considers practical implications of
findings for organizational leaders. Finally, this chapter notes the strengths and
weaknesses of the study and offers suggestions for future research.
As noted in chapter 1, this study has attempted to make a significant
contribution towards an understanding of the relationship between spirituality and
leadership. Although scholars have clearly identified spirituality as a central thesis
in organizational and leadership theory, the constructs have not been uniformly
defined. For example, whereas initial support has been documented for the spiritual
leadership theory (SLT) causal model (Fry, 2003, 2005b, 2008), the construct
validity of SLT has been subject to very limited examination. While Fry et al.
(2005) suggested that SLT incorporates and extends the characteristics associated
with transformational leadership, the validity of the claim has been narrowly
explored. The relationships between SLT and transformational leadership variables
have not been investigated quantitatively. Therefore, this study sought to examine
the extent to which the five variables contained within SLT are related to
transformational leadership behaviors of leaders as perceived by followers.
While SLT references faith and altruistic love, little attention has been
given to defining a spiritual leaders relationship with God. Therefore, levels of
agreement were explored between the SLT variables and a leaders self-reported
relationship to God including belief in Gods existence and a sense of unity or
closeness to God.
SLT claims to incorporate characteristics often associated with spirituality
and spiritual development (i.e., faith, calling, and altruistic love). The dimensions
of the SLT model, therefore, should be strongly related to a leaders concern for
spirituality. Hence, this study examined the relationship between self-reported
levels of SLT variables and a leaders concern for spirituality including hopefulness
and leader awareness of personal values.
Finally, followers were asked to assess the effectiveness of the leader to
establish a relationship between spiritual leadership and leadership effectiveness.
113
Hence, the study has examined the moderating effects of spiritual well-being on the
relationship between transformational and spiritual leadership and leadership
effectiveness.
Overview of Findings
Table 55 provides an overview of the source of data and the relationships
between the variables as reported by leaders. Agreement between the scales is
generally high as all SLT variables were related to the other SLT variables as
reported by leaders. With the exception of leader vision, all SLT variables as
reported by leaders had a multivariate relationship with leader age. In addition, all
SLT variables as reported by leaders had a multivariate relationship with leader
spiritual health and leader concern for spirituality with the exception of
membership where the relationship was not evident at statistically significant
levels.
114
Table 55: Relationship of the Variables as Reported by Leaders

Source
Variable
SLT Survey Instrument
Relationship
Leader vision
All SLT leader variables had a
Leader hope/faith
multivariate relationship with
Leader love
leader age with the exception
of leader vision where the age
Leader membership
relationship was not evident.

All SLT variables were
correlated with other SLT
leader variables at statistically
significant levels.
INSPIRIT Scale
Leader spiritual health was

correlated with all SLT
variables with the exception
of membership.
Inner Life Scale
Leader concern for
spirituality
was correlated with all SLT

variables with the exception
of membership.
An overview of follower-reported data and the relationships between the

variables reported by followers is presented in Table 56. As was evident with the
leader data, agreement between the scales was high. All SLT variables as reported
by followers had a multivariate relationship with transformational, transactional,
and laissez-faire leadership characteristics of the leaders. In additional, all SLT
variables as reported by followers had a positive relationship with perceived
leadership effectiveness. The transformational leadership characteristics of leaders
as assessed by followers were positively related to transactional leadership and
leadership effectiveness. Not surprisingly, transformational leadership was
115
negatively related to laissez-faire leadership characteristics as reported by

followers.
Table 57 provides an overview of the cross-source relationships between
variables reported by leaders and followers. Transformational leadership
characteristics as reported by followers maintained a multivariate relationship with
all SLT variables as assessed by leaders. In addition, SLT leader vision as reported
by followers had a multivariate relationship with leader gender.
A couple of anomalies are evident when the bivariate correlations of the
variables are reviewed. Membership is the only SLT variable reported by leaders
which had a positive relationship with follower-reported SLT variable data.
SLT leader hope, calling, and membership as reported by followers had
negative correlations with leader-reported spiritual health and leader concern for
spirituality. Also, SLT leader membership as reported by followers was negatively
correlated with leader employer type.
116
Table 56: Relationship of Variables as Reported by Followers

Source
Variable
Relationship
SLT Survey
Leader vision
All SLT variables maintained a
Instrument
Leader hope/faith
positive multivariate relationship
Leader love
with the transformational and
transactional leadership
Leader membership
characteristics of the leader.

All SLT variables maintained a
negative relationship with laissezfaire leadership.
All SLT variables were
intercorrelated with all other SLT
variables.
All SLT variables were correlated
with leader effectiveness at
statistically significant levels.
Multifactor
Transformational
The transformational leadership
Leadership
leadership
variable was positively correlated
Questionnaire
with transactional leadership and
negatively correlated with laissezfaire leadership.
Leader
Perceived leader
Perceived leader effectiveness was
Effectiveness
effectiveness
positively correlated with
Scale
transformational leadership and

transactional leadership.
Perceived leadership effectiveness
was negatively correlated with
laissez-faire leadership.
117
Table 57: Cross-Source Relationships of Variables as Reported by Leaders and

Followers
Source
Variable
Relationship
SLT Survey
Leader vision
All SLT variables as reported by
Instrument data
Leader hope/faith
leaders had a multivariate
collected from
Leader love
relationship with transformational
leaders
leadership characteristics of the
Leader membership
leader as assessed by followers.

SLT membership as reported by
leaders was correlated with SLT
leader vision, love, and
membership as reported by
followers. No other SLT variables
as reported by leaders were
correlated at statistically significant
levels with SLT variables as
reported by followers.
SLT Survey
Leader vision
SLT leader vision as reported by
Instrument data
Leader hope/faith
followers had a positive
collected from
Leader love
multivariate relationship with
followers
leader gender.
Leader membership
SLT leader hope, calling, and

membership as reported by
followers had negative correlations
with leader-reported spiritual health
and leader concern for spirituality.
SLT leader membership as reported
by followers was negatively
correlated with leader employer
type.
118
Findings in Response to Research Questions

In response to the research questions, this research study offers the
following findings. First, the transformational leadership characteristics of leaders
as perceived by followers help explain all five SLT variables as reported by
followers. Second, spiritual leadership as reported by followers helps explain
follower-reported leader effectiveness over and above the transformational
leadership behaviors of leaders as reported by followers. Third, spiritual leadership
mediates the relationship of transformational leadership behaviors with leadership
effectiveness as reported by followers. Hence, transformational leadership
behaviors of leaders as reported by followers have less effect on perceived
leadership effectiveness when the leader maintains SLT behaviors as reported by
followers (see Figure 8).
Fourth, the analysis from this study suggests that a leaders self-reported
spiritual health or a leaders concern for spirituality does not moderate the
relationships of transformational leadership and/or spiritual leadership with
leadership effectiveness at statistically significant levels.
Leadership
effectiveness
Figure 8: Spiritual leadership mediating the relationship of transformational

leadership on leadership effectiveness.
Theoretical Implications of Study Findings

Finding That Transformational Leadership Helps Explain SLT
This study found that the transformational leadership characteristics of
leaders help explain all five spiritual leadership variables as reported by both
leaders and followers. As such, this research project supports Frys (2005b)
assertion that spiritual leadership incorporates transformational leadership.
119
Transformational and spiritual leadership theories both explain how leaders are able
to accomplish extraordinary things, emphasizing the importance of inspiring
subordinates through the articulation a clear and compelling vision. A greater sense
of community and shared purpose is fostered through transformational and spiritual
leadership.
In addition, data analysis from this research project suggests that spiritual
leadership as assessed by followers helps explain follower-perceived leader
effectiveness over and above the transformational leadership behaviors of leaders.
This finding supports the writings of Milliman, Ferguson, et al. (1999) who argued
that companies that engage not just the minds but also the hearts and emotions of
their employees could increase organizational income and profitability. In other
words, organizations that emotionally engage employees in the companys purpose
to make a difference in the world could obtain a higher level of employee
motivation and loyalty and ultimately foster higher organizational performance.
Fields and Herold (1997) asserted that as leaderfollower relations mature,
elements of a spiritual nature may be shared such as a vision for the future and
viewing work as a calling. A maturation process may occur, yielding a potential
transformational leadership relationship where high levels of trust and value
congruence are established. The values often associated with spirituality such as
integrity, honesty, and humility are linked to leader success and organizational
performance. In addition, Santere (1996) asserted that spirituality fosters leader
effectiveness in two ways. First, spirituality within the leader raises the question:
Who am I, and how can I make a difference? This introspective analysis creates the
vision and purpose of the leader.
Secondly, the true heart and soul of the leader is modeled through the
demonstration of service towards followers. Through the spiritual leadership
paradigm, increased perceived leader effectiveness may be garnered. In defining
spiritual leadership, Fry and Whittington (2005) stated, Altruistic love is given
unconditionally upon entry into the organization and is received in turn from
followers in pursuit of a common vision that drives our and removes fears
associated with worry, anger, jealousy, selfishness, failure and guilt (p. 187). An
120
analogous relationship is evident in transformational leadership where the inner

soul may provide the basis for the transcendent vision, purpose, and values of the
leader sourcing his or her strength, contagious vision, and transcendent purpose
(Bass & Avolio, 1994; Burns, 1978).
Proponents of transformational leadership have argued that it addresses the
spiritual aspects of work as a transformational leader helps employees feel a calling
in their work and maintain an emotional attachment to the organization.
Simultaneously, spiritual leadership writers have suggested that spiritual leadership
contains many of the attributes of transformational leadership. The findings from
this project support both arguments.
Finding of Noncorrelation Between Leaders and Follower SLT Variables
Interestingly, while leader-reported SLT variables were highly
intercorrelated and follower-reported SLT variables were highly intercorrelated,
follower-reported SLT variables did not correlate well with the leader-reported SLT
variables. Only one leader-reported SLT variable was correlated with followerreported data. Leader membership was correlated with leader behaviors vision,
love, and membership as reported by followers at statistically significant levels.
The intercorrelation of variables supports Frys (2003, 2005a, 2008) work,
as he suggested that the SLT intrinsic motivation cycle is based upon leader vision
(performance), altruistic love (reward), and hope/faith (effort), resulting in an
increase in follower spiritual survival and yielding positive organizational attributes
including calling and membership. As such, SLT proposes that leader vision, love,
and hope foster a sense of membership within an organization for both leaders and
followers, ultimately increasing productivity. While organizational productivity
was not measured, this study supports Frys (2003, 2005a, 2008) theory in that
leader love and vision as assessed by followers appear to have fostered a sense of
organizational membership as reported by both leaders and followers. In addition,
all SLT leader behaviors as reported by followers were correlated with perceived
leader effectiveness as reported by followers.
While no statistically significant correlation was evident between leader
effectiveness as perceived by followers and the five SLT variables as reported by
121
leaders, Atwater and Yammarino (1992) argued that it is not unusual for the
perceptions of leaders and followers to be uncorrelated. Low correlations between
subordinates and superiors indicate that differing cognitive categories are present
which would naturally affect leadership ratings. In addition, Moshavl, Brown, and
Dodd (2003) suggested that when followers perceive leaders to be transformational,
leaderfollower correlations are often low, as transformational leaders often underreport their positive behaviors. The general pattern of results shows that self-aware
managers (e.g. those in-agreement) and underestimators tend to be associated with
more positive affective and performance outcomes (Moshavl et al., p. 408-409).
Applying this logic, it is possible that the leaderfollower SLT data are relatively
noncorrelated because leaders may have under reported their behaviors, while
followers perceived leaders as effective.
Clearly, in this study, leaders and followers perceive the behaviors of the
leaders differently. The presence of spiritual leadership variables seem to depend
on who one asks. Little (1978) suggested that what an individual thinks or believes
is not necessarily an indication of the action that is taken. Hence, it is possible that
leaders may have over-reported their behaviors due to self-serving bias.
Finding That Spiritual Leadership Mediates the Relationship of Transformational
Leader Characteristics and Perceived Leader Effectiveness as Reported by
Followers
The findings from this research project suggest that spiritual leadership
mediates the relationship of transformational leadership behaviors with leadership
effectiveness as assessed by followers. This is a significant discovery that supports
the work of Fry (2003, 2005a, 2008) and others.
In exploring traits of transformational leaders, Jacobsen (1994) made five
observations: (a) the term spirituality is meaningful to transformational leaders, (b)
spirituality is important to transformational leaders, (c) an inferable relationship
exists between spirituality and transformational leadership, (d) transformational
leaders view the realms of spirituality and the secular world as integral to each
other, and (e) all transformational leadership is spiritual leadership. In addition,
Benefiel (2005) suggested that leaders who predominately foster a culture of
122
spirituality are more available to the needs of the people they serve and more
available to their organizations. As such, spiritual leadership appears to extend the
transformational leadership paradigm, mediating the relationship between
transformational leadership and follower-perceived leadership effectiveness.
However, it is important to note that only two of the five SLT variables,
leader love and leader calling/meaning as reported by followers contribute to the
model of leader effectiveness. The discriminate validity of the SLT model,
therefore, could be potentially simplified.
Finding That Leader Spiritual Health and Leader Concern for Spirituality Help
Explain Leader Hope/Faith
This study suggests that leader concern for spirituality and leader spiritual
health contribute to the model variance for hope/faith as reported by leaders.
According to Fry (2003), hope fosters a desire with the expectation of fulfillment,
and faith adds certainty to hope. Individuals with hope/faith maintain a vision of
why they are going, and they have sense of how to get there; they are willing to
face opposition to achieve their goals (MacArthur, 1998). Faith represents more
than wishing for a specific outcome. It is based on values, attitudes, and behaviors
that demonstrate absolute certainty that what is desired will become reality.
The hope and faith of strategic leaders and team members interact and
generate effort, endurance, perseverance, a do-what-it-takes attitude, and a
willingness to establish stretch goals and to strive for excellence. This model
suggests that the presence of hope and faith in leaders, in followers, and between
leaders and followers increases organizational commitment to continuous
improvement. Fry (2003) suggested that in the SLT model, hope is both an
antecedent to behavior and a socially constructed outcome.
Frys position was supported by Helland and Winston (2005) as they
asserted that hope is more than just an emotion. Hope is a dynamic, powerful, and
pervasive cognitive process that is observable across numberous contexts (p. 44).
In addition, Ludema, Wilmot, and Srivastva (1997) suggested that hope is born
through relationships, and it is inspired by the conviction that the future is open and
may be influenced. Hope is sustained through dialogue about human ideals as it is
123
generative of postive actions. Through hope, followers invest the requisite

measures of effort and enregy that are needed to complete tasks.
Finding of Leader Age Helping Explain SLT Leader Behaviors Hope, Love,
Calling, and Membership
Leader age helped explain the model variance for SLT leader variables
hope, love, calling, and membership. Hence, this study suggests that as the leader
ages, he or she is more likely to participate in self-perceived SLT hope, love,
membership, and calling behaviors. These findings help affirm the work of
Oshagbemi (2004) who suggested that with age, a leader is more likely to embrace
participative and consultative characteristics, traits related to SLT.
Also, a leaders age and leaders self-reported spiritual health appear to be
related as SLT leader age was also highly positively correlated to leader-perceived
spiritual health. In the context of this study, spiritual health is associated with a
leaders personal conviction of Gods existence and the perception of a highly
internalized relationship between God and the leader (Kass et al., 1991). Therefore,
the findings imply that as the leader becomes older, the leader is more likely to
possess a conviction of Gods existence and maintain a highly internalized
relationship with God.
Finding of Negative Correlations Between Leader Spiritual Health and Leader
Concern for Spirituality With SLT Leader Variables as Reported by Followers
Ironically, this study found a negative correlation between leader selfreported spiritual health and SLT leader hope as assessed by followers. Also, three
of the five SLT leader behaviors as assessed by followers were negatively
correlated with leader concern for spirituality. Leader hope, calling, and
membership as assessed by followers were all negatively correlated to leader
concern for spirituality. The findings suggest that leniency bias in self-ratings may
be evident as individuals are naturally motivated to present themselves in a
favorable light (Fox & Dinur, 1988). Thornton (1980) agreed, arguing that selfraters are more lenient than external assessors and tend to present themselves
favorably.
124
Alternatively, a holier-than-thou attitude may be communicated by

leaders as the data suggest that leaders who maintain a personal conviction of
Gods existence and who advocate a concern for spirituality exhibit behaviors that
are negatively perceived by followers.
It is also possible that the scales used to assess leader spiritual health and
concern for spirituality may inadequately measure leader spirituality. It is clear that
additional research is needed to explore the negative relationship between the
scales.
Practical Implications of Study Findings
The lack of agreement between the perceptions of leaders and followers
suggests that leaders may be out of touch with their subordinates. As such, the self
other variance in perceived behaviors is worth further investigation. A post-hoc
analysis of the data suggests that higher levels of leader spirituality yield increased
variance between leader-reported SLT data and follower data. When the variance
between leader and follower SLT data is correlated with leader spiritual health and
leader concern for spirituality, the correlations are all positively statistically
significant. This interesting finding implies that as leader spirituality increases,
leaders become increasingly disconnected from followers. Put another way, the
perceptions of leaders and followers become increasingly dissimilar as levels of
self-reported leader spirituality increase. Those who see themselves as highly
spiritual are more likely to have a tendency to lose track of their relationship with
followers. L. Smith (1978) supported this theory, suggesting that church members
who are the least conventional are more inclined to love thy neighbor and do
good for others than are the most conventional.
A second practical implication is associated with the relationship between
SLT variables and perceived leader effectiveness. None of the SLT variables as
reported by leaders are related to leadership effectiveness, and only two of the SLT
variables as assessed by followers made a statistically significant contribution to
the model variance. The research findings suggest that only leader love and leader
vision as perceived by followers are related to leader effectiveness. It may be that
125
love and vision are at the core of spiritual leadership. Therefore, the SLT construct
may be improved if the theory were modified, emphasizing vision and love.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Study
A key strength of this study is that it adds to the field of leadership research,
particularly SLT. Specifically, the study affirms Frys (2003) claim that SLT
extends and incorporates transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1990a). A
transcendent purpose along with meaning and values are central elements of both
transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Burns, 1978) and SLT. Levels
of agreement have been identified between the variables contained in Frys (2003)
SLT and the characteristics of transformational leadership (Avolio & Bass, 1993)
as perceived by followers.
A second strength of the study is the collection of data from both leaders
and followers. Few leadership studies have analyzed information from both
populations. Early research focused on traits of the leaders. More recently, the
literature has focused on followers. This research project is relatively unique in that
the perceived behaviors of leaders and follows have been considered.
Several weaknesses are apparent in this study. First is the use of selfreported measures for leader data collection. Survey participants often answer
survey questions by how they would like to be seen rather than who they really are
(Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). It is conceivable that leader participants may have
indicated a more favorable response on measures utilized for the independent
variables so that their responses would appear to be socially desirable. This
limitation could be a threat to the external validity of the study (Trochim, 1999).
Second, the research sample was selected from graduate students attending
one faith-based university, limiting the applicability of the results to the greater
population. While the sample is diverse demographically, survey participants are
more highly educated than the general population. In addition, a larger majority of
survey participants indicated that they are Christian than likely would be found in a
random population. Finally, a larger percentage of survey participants indicated that
they are employed in the nonprofit sector than would be found in the general
126
population. The analysis and conclusions drawn from this study, therefore, are not
generalizable to other individuals and organizations.
Third, the sample sizes could have been larger. The study should be
replicated with a larger number of leader participants to increase study validity. In
addition, it would have been ideal to collect data from a larger number of follower
participants. Less than half of the leader respondents received feedback from
greater than two follower participants.
Fourth, leaders may have selected followers who would likely provide
positive feedback regarding leader behaviors. The relatively large mean values for
follower-reported SLT variables could be attributed to preferential selection bias.
Fifth, the scales used to measure leader spiritual health and leader concern
for spirituality have rarely been reported in research literature. Therefore, the test
retest correlations should continue to be examined. Over time, the content and
construct validity of the measures should be assessed.
Sixth, the research design is a limitation as it uses a cross-sectional design
rather than a longitudinal one. Hence, the studys design does not assess potential
changes in perceived leadership effectiveness over time, nor does it infer causation.
Directions for Future Research
SLT as a Mediating Variable
While SLT leader behaviors as reported by followers have been found to
mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and perceived
leadership effectiveness, additional research is needed to explore the mediating
effect of individual variables. When assessed individually, this study suggests that
the relationship between individual SLT variables and other variables differ. All
five SLT variables do not maintain the same relationships with other study
variables. Therefore, it would be incorrect to assume that all five SLT variables
mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and leader
effectiveness.
Frys (2008) recent work suggested that SLT variables vision, love, and
hope may be combined into a single construct. If this were done, the new combined
127
variable would likely be a mediator of the relationship of transformational

leadership with leadership effectiveness. In referencing a revised causal model of
spiritual leadership, Fry (2003) stated:
The source of spiritual leadership is an inner life or spiritual practice that, as
a fundamental source of inspiration and insight, positively influences
development of (1) hope/faith in a transcendent vision of service to key
stokeholds and (2) the values of altruistic love. (p. 698)
Fry (2005a) also suggested that other individual outcomes such as joy and peace
should be validated as the SLT construct evolves.
Leader Age and SLT Leader Behaviors
The relationship between leader age and leader-reported SLT variables
should be explored further. It is interesting that leader age is highly correlated with
leader reported data but is not statistically significant with follower-reported leader
behaviors.
Negative Relationship Between Leader Spiritual Health and Leader Concern for
Spirituality and SLT Leader Behaviors as Reported by Followers
Future research should explore the reported negative relationship between
leader belief in God and follower perceptions of leader SLT behaviors. While this
research project found positive relationships between leader self-reported spiritual
health, leader concern for spirituality, and leader-reported SLT behaviors, almost
all follower-reported SLT leader behaviors were negatively related to leader
spiritual health and leader concern for spirituality. The negative relationships
between the variables are counterintuitive.
Generalization and Longitudinal Efforts in Future Studies
Since all of the leader participants in this study were graduate students,
future research should incorporate samples from a larger cross sample of the
population. This would increase the generalizability of results. Future research
should also explore the incursion of spiritual leadership variables into various
organizational settings to assess changes in perceived leadership effectiveness over
time. This would provide researchers with the opportunity to assess how specific
SLT variables affect follower perceptions of leader effectiveness.
128
References
Aburdene, P. (2005). Megatrends 2010: The rise of conscious capitalism.
Charlottesville, VA: Hampton Roads.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and
leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory
using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly,
14(3), 261-285.
Ashmos, B. J., & Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work: A conceptualization and
measure. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(2), 134-145.
Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1992). Does self-other agreement on
leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance
predictions? Personnel Psychology, 45(1), 141.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. (1993). Manual: The Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 72, 441-462.
Baldrige National Quality Program. (2005). Criteria for performance excellence.
Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Department of Commerce.
Barks, C. (Ed.). (1997). The essential Rumi. San Francisco: Harper.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction
in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 11731182.
Barrett, R. (2003). Culture and consciousness: Measuring spirituality in the
workplace by mapping values. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz
(Eds.), The handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational
performance (pp. 345-366). New York: Sharpe.
129
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York:

Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1988). The inspirational process of leadership. Journal of
Management Development, 7, 21-31.
Bass, B. M. (1990a). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to
share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-22.
Bass, B. M. (1990b). Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership. New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. (1998a). The ethics of transformation leadership. In J. Ciulla (Ed.),
Ethics: The heart of leadership (pp. 169-192). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Bass, B. M. (1998b). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and
educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990a). The implications of transformational and
transactional leadership for individual, team, and organizational
development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 4,
231-272.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990b). Transformational leadership: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologist Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to
critiques. In M. M. Chemmers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and
research: Perspective and directions (pp. 49-88). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness
through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire,
sample set, technical report, leader form, rater form and scoring key for
MLQ Form 5X-Short. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual
for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
130
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Goodheim, L. (1987). Biography and the assessment
of transformational leadership at the world-class level. Journal of
Management, 13(1), 13-20.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic
transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181.
Beazley, H. (1997). Meaning and measurement of spirituality in organizational
settings: Development of a spirituality assessment scale. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Becvar, D. S. (1997). Soul healing. New York: Basic Books.
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S.
M. (1986). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American
life. New York: Harper & Row.
Benefiel, M. (2005). The second half of the journey: Spiritual leadership for
organizational transformation. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 723-747.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Organizational learning: The management of the
collective self. New Management, 3(1), 6-14.
Bento, R. F. (2000). The little inn at the crossroads: A spiritual approach to the
design of a leadership course. Journal of Management Education, 24(5),
650-661.
Berry, T. (1988). The dream of the earth. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Bezley, D. A., & Gemmill, G. (2005). Spirituality and servant leader behavior: A
correlation study. Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied
Management and Decision Sciences, Athens, GA. Retrieved August 3,
2005, from http://www.amdsconference.org/AMDS2005_Proceedings
Biberman, J., & Altman, Y. (2004). Welcome to the new Journal of Management,
Spirituality and Religion. Journal of Management, Spirituality, and
Religion, 1, 1-6.
Biberman, J., Whitty, M., & Robbins, L. (1999). Lessons of Oz: Balance and
wholeness in organizations. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 12(23), 243-252.
131
Bierly, P., Kessler, E., & Christensen, E. (2000). Organizational learning,

knowledge and wisdom. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
13(6), 595-618.
Bird, C. (1940). Social psychology. New York: Appleton-Century.
Blanchard, K. (1999). The heart of a leader: Insights on the art of influence. Tulsa,
OK: Honor Books.
Blau, P. M., & Schwartz, J. E. (1984). Crosscutting social circles: Testing a
macrostructural theory of intergroup relations. New York: Academic Press.
Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.
Boal, K. B., & Bryson, J. M. (1987). Representation, testing and policy
implications of planning processes. Strategic Management Journal, 8(3),
211-232.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1995). Leading with soul. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Bracey, H., Rosenblum, J., Sanford, J., & Trueblood, R. (1993). Managing from the
heart. New York: Dell.
Brown, J. (1992). Corporation as community: A new image for a new era. In J.
Renesch (Ed.), New traditions in business (pp. 123-139). San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 80, 468-478.
Cacioppe, R. (2000). Creating spirit at work: Re-visioning organization
development and leadership Part 1. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 21(1), 48-54.
Campbell, D., & Sengenberger, W. (1994). Labour standards, economic efficiency
and development: Lessons from experience with industrial restructurings. In
W. Sengenberger & D. Campbell (Eds.), International labor standards and
132
economic interdependence (pp. 421-439). Geneva, Switzerland:

International Labour Organization.
Carter, S. (1993). The culture of disbelief. New York: Basic Books.
Cash, K. C., Gray, G. R., & Rood, S. A. (2000). A framework for accommodating
religion and spirituality in the workplace. Academy of Management
Executive, 14, 124-134.
Cavanaugh, G. F. (1999). Spirituality for managers: Context and critique. Journal
of Organizational Change Management, 12, 186-199.
Chaleff, I. (1998). Spiritual leadership. Executive Excellence, 15(5), 9.
Chandler, C. K, Holden, J. M., & Kolander, C. A. (1992). Counseling for spiritual
wellness: Theory and practice. Journal of Counseling & Development, 71,
168-175.
Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: How and why people agree to things. New York:
William Morrow.
Cohen, G. (1996, Spring). Toward a spirituality based on justice and ecology.
Social Policy, 6-18.
Collins, J., & Porras, J. (1994). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary
companies. New York: Harper.
Conger, J. A. (1998). Spirit at work: Discovering the spirituality in leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations:
An insiders perspective on these developing streams of research. The
Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 145-179.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). The empowerment process: Integrating
theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471-482.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1994). Charismatic leadership in organizations:
Perceived behavioral attributes and their measurement. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 15(5), 439-453.
Conners, P. G., & Munro, W. T. (2001). 360-degree physician evaluations.
Healthcare Executive, 27(5), 58-59.
Dalai Lama XIV. (1999). Ethics for the new millennium. New York: Putnam.
133
de Chardin, P. T. (1959). Phenomenon of man. New York: Harper.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human
needs and self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227268.
Dehler, G. E., & Welsch, M. A. (1994). Spirituality and organizational
transformation: Implications for the new management paradigm. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 9(6), 17-28.
Delbecq, A. E. (2005). Spiritually-informed management theory: Overlaying the
experience of teaching managers. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(3),
242-247.
Deluga, R. J. (1988). Relationship of transformational and transactional leadership
with employee influencing strategies. Group & Organization Studies, 13(4),
456-468.
Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., & Dorfman,
P. W. (1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit
leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational
leadership universally endorsed? The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 219-256.
Dent, E. B., Higgins, M. E., & Wharff, D. M. (2005). Spirituality and leadership:
An empirical review of definitions, distinctions, and embedded
assumptions. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 625-653.
Derkinderen, F. G., & Crum, R. L. (1988). The development and empirical
validation of strategic decision models. International Studies of
Management and Organization, 18(2), 29-59.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. (1955). A study of normative and informational social
influences on individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 51, 629-636.
Downton, J. V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in the
revolutionary process. New York: Macmillan.
Draft, R. L. (2005). The leadership experience (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt
College.
Drucker, P. (1954). The practice of management. New York: Harper Collins.
134
Druskat, V. U. (1994). Gender and leadership style: Transformational and

transactional leadership in the Roman Catholic Church. The Leadership
Quarterly, 5, 99-119.
Duchon, D., & Plowman, D. A. (2005). Nurturing the spirit at work: Impact on
work unit performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(5), 807-833.
Dumestre, M. J. (1997). A church at risk: The challenge of spiritually hungry
adults. New York: Crossroad.
Dutton, J. E. (2003). Energize your workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K. J. (2001). Predicting followers preferences for
charismatic leadership: The influence of follower values and personality.
The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 153-179.
Elias, J. (1991). The return of spirituality: Contrasting interpretations. Religious
Education, 86(3), 455-464.
Elm, D. R. (2003). Honesty, spirituality, and performance at work. In R. A.
Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality
and organizational performance. New York: M. E. Sharp.
Fairholm, G. (1996). Spiritual leadership: Fulfilling whole-self needs at work.
Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 17(5), 11-17.
Fairholm, G. W. (1997). Capturing the heart of leadership: Spirituality and
community in the new American workplace. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Fairholm, G. W. (1998). Perspectives on leadership: From the science of
management to its spiritual heart. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Fairholm, G. W. (2001). Mastering inner leadership. Westport, CT: Quorum.
Fairholm, M. R. (2002). Conceiving leadership: Exploring five perspectives of
leadership by investigating the conceptions and experiences of selected
metropolitan Washington area municipal managers. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Felis, H. (1994). International labour legislation in the Light of Economic
Theory. In W. Sengenberger & D. Campbell (Eds.), International labor
standards and economic interdependence (pp. 29-55). Geneva, Switzerland:
International Labour Organization.
135
Ferguson, M. (1980). The Aquarian Conspiracy. New York: St. Martins Press.
Field, D. (2003). The relationship between transformational leadership and
spirituality in business leaders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Regent
University, Virginia Beach, VA.
Fields, D., & Bekker, C. J. (2008). Theological reflection, cognitive frameworks
and commerce: Exploring the intersection between Christianity and
Business. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University.
Fields, D. L., & Herold, D. M. (1997). Using the leadership practices inventory to
measure transformational and transaction leadership. Educational and
Psychology Measurement, 57(4), 569-579.
Ford, R. C., & Fottler, M. D. (1995). Empowerment: A matter of degree. Academy
of Management Executive, 9, 21-31.
Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and
the quest for meaning. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Fowler, J. W. (1996). Faithful change: The personal and public challenges of
postmodern life. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.
Fox, S., & Dinur, Y. (1988). Validity of self-assessment: A field evaluation.
Personnel Psychology, 41, 581-592.
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 14(6), 693-727.
Fry, L. W. (2005a). Introduction to The Leadership Quarterly special issue:
Toward a paradigm of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,
16(5), 619-622.
Fry, L. W. (2005b). Toward a theory of ethical and spiritual well-being and
corporate social responsibility through spiritual leadership. In R. A.
Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz, (Eds.). Positive psychology in business ethics
and corporate reasonability (pp. 47-84). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Fry, L. W. (2008). Spiritual leadership: State-of-the-art and future directions for
theory, research and practice. In J. Biberman & L. Tishman (Eds.),
Spirituality in business: Theory, practice, and future directions (pp. 130150). New York: Palgrave.
136
Fry, L. W., & Matherly, L. (2007). Workplace spirituality, spiritual leadership, and
performance excellence, In S. Roglberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology (pp. 23-38). San Francisco: Sage.
Fry, L. W., Vitucci, S., & Cedillo, M. (2005). Spiritual leadership and army
transformation; Theory measurement and establishing a baseline. The
Leadership Quarterly, 16, 835-863.
Fry, L. W., & Whittington, J. L. (2005). In search of authenticity: Spiritual
leadership theory as a source for future theory, research, and practice on
authentic leadership. Monographs in Leadership and Management, 3, 183200.
Garcia-Zamor, J. C. (2003). Workplace spirituality and organizational performance.
Public Administration Review, 63(3), 355-363.
Geaney, M. M. (2003). Spirituality and business transformation: Exploring
spirituality with executive leaders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
Union Institute. Cincinnati, OH.
Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003). Toward a science of workplace
spirituality. In R. A. Giacolane & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of
workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 3-28). New
York: M. E. Sharpe.
Giacalone, R. A., Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Fry, L. W. (2005). From advocacy to
science: The next steps in workplace spirituality research. In R. Paloutzian,
(Ed.), Handbook of psychology, religion and spirituality (pp. 515-528).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gibbons, P. (2000). Spirituality at work: Definitions, measure, assumptions, and
validity claims. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Toronto,
Canada.
Gordon, D. M. (1996). Fat and mean: The corporate squeeze of working
Americans and the myth of managerial downsizing. New York: Free Press.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant-leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate
power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
137
Gul, G. A., & Doh, J. (2004). The transmutation of the organization: Toward a
more spiritual workplace. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2), 128.
Gunther, M. (2001). God and business. Retrieved February 11, 2003, from
http://www.fortune.com;fortune/careers/article/0,15114,371129,00html
Hagberg, J. O. (1994). Real power: Stages of personal power in organizations.
Salem, WI: Sheffield.
Halachmi, A., Hardy, W. P., & Rhoades, B. L. (1993). Demographic data and
strategic analysis. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(2), 159-178.
Hale, J., & Fields, D. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A study
of followers in Ghana and the USA. The Leadership Quarterly, 3(4), 397417.
Hawkins, P. (1991). The spiritual dimension of the learning organization.
Management Education and Development, 22, 172-187.
Hawley, J. (1993). The spirit in work: The power of Dharmic Management. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Hayes, M. (2001). The emergence of a fourth force in psychology: A convergence
between psychology and spirituality? In S. Porter, M. Hayes, & D. Tombs
(Eds.). Faith in the millennium (pp.106-122). Sheffield, England: Sheffield
Academic Press.
Helland, M. R., & Winston, B. E. (2005). Towards a deeper understanding of hope
and leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(2), 4255.
Heschel, A. J. (1997). God in search of man: A philosophy of Judaism. New York:
Noonday Press.
Hinebaugh-Igoe, L. (1999). Index of core spiritual experiences. In P. C. Hill & R.
W. Hood (Eds.), Measures of religiosity (pp. 360-363). Birmingham, AL:
Religious Education Press.
Hinds, R. S. (2005). Consideration of the relationship between spiritual well-being
and transformation leadership. Journal of Applied Management and
Entrepreneurship, 10(2), 124-136.
Horton, W. R. (1950). God. New York: Association Press.
138
House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and

reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323-352.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership.
Journal of Management, 23, 409-473.
House, R. J., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1994). Leadership effectiveness and future
research directions. In G. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The
state of the science (pp. 45-82). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional
leadership, locus of control and support for innovation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78(6), 891-902.
Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(2), 243-270.
Hunt, J. G. (1991). Leadership: A new synthesis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/charismatic leaderships transformation of the
field: An historical essay. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 129-144.
Jacobsen, S. E. (1994). Spirituality and transformational leadership in secular
settings: A Delphi study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seattle
University, WA.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G, & Wolk, G. (1993). An assessment of within-group
interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 306-309.
James, W. (1902). The variety of religious experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Jones-Johnson, N. F. (2001). The relationship between spirituality and leadership
practices of female administrators in higher education. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Baylor University, Waco, TX.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and
leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(4), 765-780.
Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A values framework for measuring
the impact of workplace spirituality on organizational performance. Journal
of Business Ethics, 49(2), 129-131.
139
Kanungo, R. N., & Medonca, M. (1996). Ethical dimensions of leadership.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard Measures that
drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70, 71-79.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic
management system. Harvard Business Review, 74, 75-76.
Kass, J. D., Friedman, R., Laserman, J., Zuttermeister, P. C., & Benson, H. (1991).
Health outcomes and a new index of spiritual experience. Journal of
Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 203-211.
Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research
and development project groups. Journal of Management, 18(3), 489-501.
Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th
ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core
charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81(1), 36-52.
Kniss, F., & Campbell, D. T. (1997). The effect of religious orientation on
international relief and development organizations. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 36(1), 93-104.
Koenig, H. G. (1997). Is religion good for your health? The effects of religion on
physical and mental health. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Pastoral Press.
Konz, G., & Ryan, F. (1999). Maintaining an organizational spirituality: No easy
task. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(3), 200-210.
Korac-Kakabadse, N., Kouzmin, A., & Kakabadse, A. (2002). Spirituality and
leadership praxis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(3), 165-182.
Kornfield, J. (2001). After the ecstasy, the laundry. New York: Bantam.
Kotter, J. P. (1988). The leadership factor. New York: Free Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get
extraordinary things done in organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kubicek, M. (2005, July). Meaningful management. Training Magazine, 10-12.
140
Laabs, J. J. (1995). Balancing spirituality and work. Personnel Journal, 74(9), 6062.
Lawler, E. E. (1986). High-involvement management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lewin, R., & Regine, B. (2001). Weaving complexity and business: Engaging the
soul at work. New York: Texere.
Lloyd, T. (1990). The nice company. London: Bloomsbury.
Lord, R., & Brown, D. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lowe, K., Kroeck, K., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of
the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425.
Ludema, J. D., Wilmot, T. B., & Srivastva, S. (1997). Organizational hope:
Reaffirming the constructive task of social and organizational inquiry.
Human Relations, 50(8), 1015-1053.
MacArthur, J. F. (1998). In the footsteps of faith. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
Maddock, R. C., & Fulton, R. L. (1998). Motivation, emotions, and leadership: The
silent side of management. Westport, CT: Quorum books.
Malone, P., & Fry, L. W. (2003). Transforming schools through spiritual
leadership: A field experiment. Paper presented at the national Academy of
Management Meeting, Seattle, WA.
Marcic, D. (1997). Managing with the wisdom of love. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Marinoble, R. M. (1990). Faith and leadership: The spiritual journeys of
transformational leaders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
San Diego, CA.
Marler, P. L., & Hadaway, C. K. (2002). Being religious or being spiritual in
America: A zero-sum proposition. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 41(2), 12-14.
Marques, J. F., (2005). Yearning for a more spiritual workplace. Journal of
American Academy of Business, 7(1), 149-153.
141
Marques, J. F., Dhiman, S., & King, R. (2005). Spirituality in the workplace:
Developing an integral model and a comprehensive definition. Journal of
American Academy of Business, 7(1), 81-91.
Marshall, R. (1994). The importance of international labour standards in a more
competitive global economy. In W. Sengenberger & D. Campbell (Eds.),
International labor standards and economic interdependence (pp. 65-78).
Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organization.
May, G. (1991). Addiction and grace. San Francisco: Harper.
May, G. (2004). Dark night of the soul. San Francisco: Harper.
McGee-Cooper, A., & Looper, G. (2001). Innovations in management series.
Indianapolis, IN: Pegasus Communications.
Miller, G. (1999). The development of the spiritual force in counseling and
counselor education. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77, 498-501.
Miller, J. (1980). Individual and occupational determinateness of job satisfaction.
Sociology of Work and Occupations, 7, 337-366.
Miller, W. (1992). How do we put our spiritual values to work? In J. Renesch (Ed.),
New traditions in business (pp. 69-80). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Milliman, J., Czaplewski, A., & Ferguson, J. (2003). Workplace spirituality and
employee work attitudes: An exploratory empirical assessment. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 16(4), 426-447.
Milliman, J., Ferguson, J., Trickett, D., & Condemin, D. (1999). Spirit and
community at Southwest Airlines: An investigation of a spiritual valuesbased model. Journal of Organizational Change, 12(3), 221-233.
Mitroff, I. I., & Denton, E. A. (1999). A spiritual audit of corporate America: A
hard look a spirituality, religion, and values in the workplace. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mohamed, A. A., Wisnieski, J., Askar, M., & Syed, I. (2004). Towards a theory of
spirituality in the workplace. Competitiveness Review, 14(1/2), 102.
Mollner, T. (1992). The 21st century corporation: The tribe of the relationship age.
In J. Renesch (Ed.), New traditions in business (pp. 95-108). San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.
142
Moore, T. W., & Casper, W. J. (2006). An examination of proxy measures of

workplace spirituality: A profile model of multidimensional constructs.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10, 109-118.
Morris, J., & Mountfort, P. (1997). The leader and the team. Managing Service
Quality, 7(6), 314-320.
Moshavl, D., Brown, F. W., & Dodd, N. G. (2003). Leader self-awareness and its
relationship to subordinate attitudes and performance. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 24(7/8), 407-418.
Moxley, R. S. (2000). Leadership and spirit. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Neal, J. A. (2001). Leadership and spirituality in the workplace. In R. N. Lussier &
C. F. Achua (Eds.), Leadership theory, application, skill development (pp.
464-473). New York: South Western.
Neck, C., & Milliman, J. F. (1994). Thought self-leadership: Finding spiritual
fulfillment in organizational life. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 9(6),
9-18.
Nelson, A. E. (2002). Spirituality and leadership: Harnessing the wisdom,
guidance, and power of the soul. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.
Northouse, P. G. (2001). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Nyhan, R.C. (2000). Changing the paradigm: Trust and its role in public sector
organizations. American Review of Public Administration, 30(1), 87-109.
Oldham, G. R., & Miller, H. E. (1979). The effects of significant others job
complexity on employee reaction to work. Human Relations, 32, 247-260.
Oshagbemi, T. (2004). Age influences on the leadership styles and behavior of
managers. Employee Relations, 26(1/2), 14-29.
Palmer, P. J. (1994). Leading from within: Out of the shadow into the light. In J. A.
Conger & Associates (Eds.), Spirit at work: Discovering the spirituality in
leadership (pp. 19-40). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Palmer, P. J. (1999). Evoking the spirit in public education. Educational
Leadership, 56(4), 6-11.
143
Paloutzian, R. F., & Ellison, C. W (1982). Loneliness, spiritual well-being and

quality of life: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy. New
York: Wiley Interscience.
Pargament, K. I., (1999). The psychology of religion and spirituality? Yes and no.
International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 5(1), 3-16.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1984). What makes a great company excellent?
Modern Office Technology, 29(1), 14-17.
Pfeffer, J. (1991). Organization theory and structural perspectives on management.
Journal of Management, 17(4), 789-804.
Pfeffer, J. (2003). Business and the spirit: Management practices that sustain
values. In R. A. Giacolane & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of
workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 29-45). New
York: M. E. Shar.
Pfeffer, J., & Davis-Blake, A. (1990). Determinants of salary dispersion in
organizations. Industrial Relations, 29, 38-57.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990).
Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers trust in
leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The
Leadership Quarterly, 1(8), 107-142.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lee, J. Y. (2003). The
mismeasure of man(agment) and its implications for leadership research.
The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 615.
Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational
identification. In D. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in
organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 171-207).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ray, M. (1992). The emerging new paradigm in business. In J. Renesch (Ed.), New
traditions in business (pp. 25-38). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Rayburn, J. M., & Rayburn, L. G. (1996). Relationship between Machiavellianism
and type A personality and ethical-orientation. Journal of Business Ethics,
15(11), 1209-1220.
144
Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness.

The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 655-687.
Reder, M. W. (1982). Chicago economics: Permanence and change. Journal of
Economic Literature, 20, 1-38.
Richards, P. S., & Bergin, A. E. (1999). A spiritual strategy for counseling and
psychotherapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Rizzuto, A. (2005). Psychoanalytic considerations about spiritually oriented
psychotherapy. In L. Sperry & E. P. Shafranske (Eds.), Spiritually oriented
psychotherapy (pp. 31-50). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Robbins, S. (2003). Organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Roof, W. C. (1993). A generation of seekers: The spiritual journey of the baby
boom generation. San Francisco: Harper Collins.
Rosen, R. H. (1992). The emerging new paradigm in business. In J. Renesch (Ed.),
New traditions in business (pp.109-120). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Roush, P. E. (1992). The Myers-Briggs type indicator, subordinate feedback and
perceptions of leadership effectiveness. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. E.
Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp. 529-544). Greensboro, NC:
Center for Creative Leadership.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to
job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224252.
Sanders, E. S., Hopkins, W. E., & Geroy, G. D. (2003). From transactional to
transcendental: Toward and integrated theory of leadership. Journal of
leadership & Organizational Change, 5(4), 21-32.
Santere, B. G. (1996). Numinous leadership: Stories of educational leaders
integrating spirituality and practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN.
Sangster, C. (2003). Spirituality in the workplace: Find the holistic happy medium.
Training Journal, 16-18.
145
Sashkin, M., Rosenback, W. E., Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1992). Assessing
transformational leadership and its impact. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, &
D. E. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp. 131-148). Greensboro,
NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Sashkin, M., & Sashkin, M. (2003). Leadership that matters: The critical factors
for making a difference in peoples lives and organizations success. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Schwartz, P. (1991). The art of the long view: Planning for the future in an
uncertain world. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformation leadership: Beyond initiation and
consideration. Journal of Management, 16(4), 693-470.
Shafranske, E. P., & Malony, N. H. (1985). Religion, spiritual, and psychotherapy:
A study of a California psychologist. Paper presented at the meeting of the
California State Psychological Association, San Francisco.
Shamir, J. (1995). Information cues and indicator of the climate of opinion: The
spiral of silence theory in the Intifada. Communication Research, 22(1), 24.
Shamir, B., House, R. J. & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of
charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science,
4(4), 577-584.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Poper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic
leader behavior in military units: Subordinates attitudes, unit
characteristics, and superiors appraisals of leader performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 41(4), 387-409.
Smith, L. (1978). Belief and behavior. Religious Education, 73(4), 398-409.
Smith, L. C. (2007, January). Conceptualizing spirituality and religion: Where
weve come from, where we are, and where we are going. Journal of
Pastoral Counseling, 4-21.
Sosik, J. J. (1997). Effects of transformational leadership and anonymity on the
idea generation in computer-mediated work groups. Group & Organization
management, 22(4), 260-287.
146
Spears, L. C. (Ed.). (1995). Reflections on leadership: How Robert Greenleafs

theory of servant leadership influenced todays top management thinkers.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Spears, L. C. (1996). Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant-leadership.
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 17(7), 33-35.
Starratt, R. J., & Guare, R. E. (1995). The spirituality of leadership. Planning and
Changing, 26, 190-203.
Strack, J. G. (2001). The relationship of healthcare managers spirituality to their
self-perceived effective leadership practices (Doctoral dissertation, Medical
University of South Carolina, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International,
62 (04), 1793. (Publication No. AAT 3011898)
Swift, J. (2003). Spiritual prescriptions for organizations: New strategies for
change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Fielding Institute, Santa
Barbara, CA.
Tart, C. T. (2001). (Ed). Altered states of consciousness: A book of readings. New
York: Harper Collins.
Tejeda, M. J., Scandura, T. A., & Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited:
Psychometric properties and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly,
12(1), 31-52.
Thankappan, S. (2005). The role of spiritual leadership in meeting the
organizational challenges of the 21st century. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Walden University, Baltimore.
Thomas, O. (2000). Some problems in contemporary Christian spirituality.
Anglican Theological Review, 82(2), 267-278.
Thompson, W. D. (2000). Can you train people to be spiritual? Training and
Development, 54(12), 18-19.
Thornton, G. (1980). Psychometric properties of self-appraisal of job performance.
Personnel Psychology, 33, 262-271.
Torbert, W. (2004). Action inquiry: The secret of timely and transforming
leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
147
Townsend, J. S. (1984). The development of the spiritual leadership qualities

inventory. Journal of Psychology and Religion, 12, 305-313.
Trochim, W. M. (1999). Research methods: The concise knowledge base. Mason,
OH: Atomic Dog.
Trott, D. C. (1996). Spiritual well-being of workers: An exploratory study of
spirituality in the workplace (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at
Austin, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57 (09), 4152.
(Publication No. AAT 9705971)
Turner, J. (1999). Spirituality in the workplace. CA Magazine, 132(10), 41-42.
Vaill, P. (1989). Managing as a performing art. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Vaill, P. (1998). Spirited leading and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Vaill, P. (2000). Introduction to spirituality for business leadership. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 9, 115-116.
Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Einstein, W. E. (1987). Leadership and outcomes
of the performance appraisal process. Journal of Occupational Psychology,
60, 177-186.
Weber, M. (1968). On charisma and institution building. Chicago: University of
Chicago.
Westgate, C. E. (1996). Spiritual wellness and depression. Journal of Counseling
and Development, 75(1), 26-35.
Whittington, J. L., Pitts, T. M., Kageler, W. V., & Goodwin, V. L. (2005). Legacy
leadership: The leadership wisdom of the Apostle Paul. The Leadership
Quarterly, 16(5), 749-770.
Wilber, K. (2000). A theory of everything: An integral vision for business, politics,
science, and spirituality. Boston: Shambhala.
Wilkinson, F. (1994). Equality, efficiency and economic progress: The case for
universally applied equitable standards for wages and conditions of work. In
W. Sengenberger & D. Campbell (Eds.), International labor standards and
economic interdependence (pp. 61-86). Geneva, Switzerland: International
Labour Organization.
148
Wing, K. T., Pollak, T. H., & Blackwood, A. (2008). The nonprofit almanac 2008.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Woods, F. A. (1913). The influence of monarchs. New York: Macmillan
Wulff, D. M. (1996). Psychology of religion: Classic and contemporary. New
York: Wiley.
Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformation leadership at multiple
levels of analysis. Human Relations, 43, 975-995.
Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. M. (1993). Transformational
leadership and performance; A longitudinal investigation. The Leadership
Quarterly, 4(1), 81-102.
Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Zellers, K. L., & Perrewe, P. L. (2003). In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz
(Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance
(pp. 300-313). New York: M. E. Sharp.
Zinnbauer, B., & Pargament, K. I. (1998). Spiritual conversion: A study of
religious change among college students. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 37(1), 161-180.
Zinnbauer, B., Pargament, K. I., Cole, B., Rye, M. S., Bufter, E. M., & Belavich, T.
G. (1997). Religion and spirituality: Unfuzzing the fuzzy. Journal of the
Scientific Study of Religion, 36(4), 549-564.
Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., & Scott, A. B. (1999). The emerging meanings
of religiousness and spirituality: Problems and prospects. Journal of
Personality, 67(6), 889-919.
Zwart, G. A. (2000). The relationship between spirituality and transformational
leadership in public, private and nonprofit sector organizations (Doctoral
dissertation, University of LaVerne, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 61 (6), 2464. (Publication No. AAT 9977752)
149
Appendix A
Leader Survey
Please respond to the following statements using a scale from 1 to 5, where 1
represents strongly disagree and 5 represents strongly agree. The term
organization should be applied to a unit that you lead or have led.
1. I am committed to fostering a vision for my organization.
2. I am willing to do whatever it takes to ensure that the organization
accomplishes its mission.
3. I care about the people I lead.
4. The work I do is very important to me.
5. I feel that I understand the concerns of those I lead.
6. I advocate that an organizations vision is important in that it brings out the
best in all of us.
7. I persevere and exert extra effort within organizations(s) I lead to help the
organization succeed because I have faith in what the organization stands
for.
8. I am kind and considerate toward my followers (subordinates), and when
they are suffering, want to do something about it.
9. My leadership activities are personally meaningful to me.
10. I appreciate the work of my subordinates.
11. My personal vision inspirers best performance.
12. I always do my best in my work because I have faith in the organizations I
have served as a leader.
13. I walk the walk as well as talk the talk.
14. The work I do as a leader is meaningful to me.
15. My leadership makes followers (subordinates) feel highly regarded.
16. I have faith in my vision for my employees.
17. I set challenging goals for my work because I have faith in my organization
and want us to succeed.
18. I am trustworthy and loyal to all employees.
19. I have the courage to stand up for my people.
20. The work I do makes a difference in peoples lives.
21. I feel that I value others through my leadership.
22. I really feel as if my organizations problems are my own.
23. It is essential to develop a vision for my team that is clear and compelling to
others.
24. I demonstrate my faith in my organization and its mission by doing
everything I can to help us succeed.
25. I do not punish honest mistakes.
26. I feel that I demonstrate respect for others through my work.
27. I am honest and without false pride.
150
For each of the following statements select the choice that best indicates the extent
of your agreement or disagreement as it describes your personal experience:
28. How strongly religious (or spiritually oriented) do you consider yourself to be?
1 = Strong
2 = Somewhat strong
3 = Not very strong
4 = Not at all
5 = Cant answer
29. About how often do you spend time on religious or spiritual practices?
1 = Several times per day- several times per week
2 = Once per week- several times per month
3 = Once per month- several times per year
4 = Once a year or less
30. How often have you felt as though you were very close to a powerful spiritual
force that seemed to lift you outside yourself?
1 = Never
2 = Once or twice
3 = Several times
4 = Often
5 = Cant answer
People have many different definitions of the Higher Power that we often call
God. Please use your definition of God when answering the following questions:
31. How close do you feel to God?
1 = Extremely close
2 = Somewhat close
3 = Not very close
4 = I dont believe in God
5 = Cant answer
32. Have you had an experience that convinced you that God exists?
1 = Yes
2 = No
3 = Cant answer
33. Indicate whether you agree or disagree with this statement: God dwells with
you.
1= Definitely disagree
2 = Tend to disagree
3 = Tend to agree
4 = Definitely agree
151
34. Please respond to the following statements using a scale from 1 to 5, where 1
represent strongly disagree and 5 represents strongly agree:
1.
I feel hopeful abut life
2.
My spiritual life influences the choices I make
3.
I consider myself a spiritual person
4.
Prayer is an important part of my life
5.
I care about the spiritual health of my co-workers
Gender:
1.
2.
F
M
Age:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Under 25
26 to 45
46 to 65
over 66
Employer Classification (please select one):

1.
I am employed by a for-profit organization
2.
I am employed in the non-profit sector
Name of employer (data to be used only to insure that survey respondents are
employed by a variety of employers no information will be shared with
employers):
Please provide the first name and e-mail addresses of three to five individuals
whom you have led or managed. You may not have served as their formal
supervisor, but the individuals listed likely acknowledge you as a leader or
manager:
First name
First name
First name
E-mail address
E-mail address
E-mail address
Your Name
(Your name will be used to contact individuals listed above, as participants will be
asked to anonymously define your leader/managerial characteristics).
Key: Source of Questions:

Questions 1-27: SLT Instrument (Fry, 2003)
Questions 28-33: INSPIRIT scale (Kass et al., 1991)
Question 34: Inner Life scale (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000)
152
Appendix B
Follower Survey
This questionnaire is used to describe the leadership style of the individual noted in
the introductory e-mail of this survey.
Name of Leader:
The leaders name will be used only to link your data to information collected from
the leader to assess similarities between the scales. Only summative information
will be published; no personal information will be shared. Confidentiality will be
closely maintained.
Which statement best describes your relationship with the individual being rated?
1. I am at a higher organizational level than the person I am rating
2. The person I am rating is at my organization level.
3. I am at a lower organizational level than the person I am rating.
4. Other than the above
Several descriptive statements are listed below. Judge how frequently each
statement fits the person you are describing. Use the following scale:
1 = not at all
2 = once in a while
3 = sometimes
4 = fairly often
5 = frequently, if not always
The Leader I am rating
1. Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts
2. Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate
3. Fails to interfere until problems become serious
4. Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviation from
standards
5. Avoids getting involved when important issues arise
6. Talks about his/her most important values and beliefs
7. Is absent when needed
8. Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems
9. Talks optimistically about the future
10. Instills pride in me for being associated with him/her
11. Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance
targets
12. Waits for things to go wrong before taking action
13. Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished
14. Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose
15. Spends time teaching and coaching
153
16. Makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are
achieved
17. Shows that he/she is a firm believer in If it aint broke, dont fix it.
18. Goes beyond self-interests of the good of the group
19. Treats me as an individual rather than just as a member of a group
20. Demonstrates that problems must become chronic before taking action
21. Acts in ways that builds my respect
22. Concentrates his/her full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints,
and failures
23. Considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions
24. Keeps track of all mistakes
25. Displays a sense of power and confidence
26. Articulates a compelling vision of the future
27. Directs my attention toward failures to meet standards
28. Avoids making decisions
29. Considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from
others
30. Gets me to look at problems from many different angles
31. Helps me to develop my strengths
32. Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments
33. Delays responding to urgent questions
34. Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of missions
35. Expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations
36. Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved
Reflecting upon your experiences working with the manager/leader identified at the
start of this survey, please respond to the following statements using a scale from 1
to 5, where 1 represents strongly disagree and 5 represents strongly agree. The
organization referenced should reflect the team or unit in which you and the
leader participated.
Please answer all listed questions.
37. I understand and am committed to the vision of this manager/leader.
38. I have faith in this manager/leader, and I am willing to do whatever it
takes to insure that he/she accomplishes his/her mission.
39. This manager/leader cares about the people he/she leads.
40. The work I do with this manager/leader is very important to me.
41. I feet that this manager/leader understands the concerns of followers
(subordinates).
42. This manager/leader fosters a vision for the team that brings out the best in
all of us.
43. This manager/leader applies extra effort to help our organization succeed
because he/she has faith in what the organization stands for.
44. This manager/leader is kind and considerate toward subordinates, and when
they are suffering, wants to do something about it.
154
45. My job activities associated with this manager/leader are personally

meaningful to me.
46. My work is appreciated by the manager/leader.
47. This manager/leaders vision inspires best performance.
48. I always do my best working for this leader because I have faith in the
leader.
49. This manager/leader walks the walk as well as talks the talk.
50. The work I do with the manager/leader is meaningful to me.
51. I feel highly regarded by this manager/leader.
52. I have faith in this manager/leaders vision for employees.
53. The manager/leader sets challenging goals for my work because he/she has
faith in the organization and wants us to succeed.
54. This manager/leader is trustworthy and loyal to all employees.
55. This manager/leader has the courage to stand up for his/her people.
56. The work I do with this manager/leader makes a difference in peoples
lives.
57. This manager/leader values others in their job.
58. This manager/leader views organizational problems as his/her own.
59. This manager/leader communicates a vision that is clear and compelling to
me.
60. I demonstrate my faith in this manager/leaders organization and its mission
by doing everything I can to help us succeed.
61. This manager/leader does not punish honest mistakes.
62. This manager/leader demonstrates respect for other through his/her work.
63. This manager/leader is honest and without false pride.
Finally, please respond to the following six statements, using a scale of 1 to 5,
where 1 represents little or no extent and 5 represents to a great extent:
64. I work at a high level of performance under this leader
65. I enjoy working with this leader
66. I get along well with the leader
67. I find the leaders style compatible with my own style
68. I admire the leader
69. I fee the leader is similar to my ideal leader
Key: Source of Questions:

Questions 1-36: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio (1990b,
1995, 1997)
Questions 37-63: SLT Instrument (Fry, 2003)
Question 64-69: Leadership Effectiveness Scale (Ehrhart & Klein, 2001).
155
Appendix C
Rewording of SLT Survey
Questions included within the spiritual leadership theory survey tool have been
modified to meet the needs of this study. Subscale reliability will be completed to
assure that the changes have not affected the reliability of the scale.
Unedited SLT survey
questions
Reworded questions
used in leader survey
Reworded questions
used in follower survey
I understand and am
committed to my
organizations vision.
I have faith in my
organization and I am
willing to do whatever
it takes to insure that it
accomplishes its
mission.
I am committed to
fostering a vision for my
organization.
I am willing to do
whatever it takes to
ensure that the
organization
accomplishes its
mission.
My organization really
cares about its people.
I care about the people I

lead.
The work I do is very

important to me.
The work I do is very

important to me.
I feel my organization
understands my
concerns.
I feel that I understand

the concerns of those I
lead.
My workgroup has a
vision statement that
brings out the best in
me.
I persevere and exert

extra effort to help my
organization succeed
because I have faith in
what it stands for.
I advocate that an
organizations vision is
important in that it
brings out the best in all
of us.
I persevere and exert
extra effort within
organizations(s) I lead to
help the organization
succeed because I have
faith in what the
organization stands for.
I understand and am
committed to the vision
of this manager/leader.
I have faith in this
manager/leader and I
am willing to do
whatever it takes to
insure that he/she
accomplishes his/her
mission.
This manager/leader
cares about the people
he/she leads.
The work I do with this
manager/leader is very
important to me.
I feel that this
manager/leader
understands the
concerns of followers
(subordinates).
This manager/leader
fosters a vision for the
team that brings out the
best in all of us.
1
2
This manager/leader
applies extra effort to
help our organization
succeed because he/she
has faith in what the
organization stands for.
156
Unedited SLT survey

questions
Reworded questions
Reworded questions
My organization is kind
and considerate toward
its workers, and when
they are suffering, wants
to do something about
it.
This manager/leader is
kind and considerate
toward subordinates,
and when they are
suffering, wants to do
something about it.
My job activities are

personally meaningful
to me.
I am kind and
considerate toward my
followers
(subordinates), and
when they are suffering,
want to do something
about it.
My leadership activities
are personally
meaningful to me.
10
appreciates me, and my
work.
My organizations
vision inspires my best
performance.
I always do my best in
my work because I have
faith in my organization
and its leaders.
11
12
13
14
The leaders in my
organization walk the
walk as well as talk
the talk.
The work I do is
meaningful to me.
15
I fell highly regarded by

my leadership.
16
I have faith in my
organizations vision for
its employees.
I set challenging goals
for my work because I
have faith in my
organization and want
us to succeed.
17
I appreciate the work of

my subordinates.
The job activities

associated with this
manager/leader are
personally meaningful
to me.
My work is appreciated
by the manager/leader.
My personal vision
inspirers best
performance.
I always do my best in
my work because I have
faith in the organizations
I have served as a
leader.
I walk the walk as
well as talk the talk.
This manager/leaders
vision inspires best
performance.
I always do my best
working for this leader
because I have faith in
the leader.
The work I do as a
leader is meaningful to
me.
My leadership makes
followers (subordinates)
feel highly regarded.
I have faith in my vision
for my employees.
The work I do with the

manager/leader is
meaningful to me.
I feel highly regarded
by this manager/leader.
I set challenging goals

for my work because I
have faith in my
organization and want
us to succeed.
This manager/leader
walks the walk as
well as talks the talk.
I have faith in this

manager/leaders
vision for employees.
The manager/leader
sets challenging goals
for my work because
he/she has faith in the
organization and wants
us to succeed.
18
19
20
157
Unedited SLT survey

questions
Reworded questions
Reworded questions
My organization is
trustworthy and loyal to
its employees.
The leaders in my
organization have the
courage to send up for
their people.
The work I do make a
difference in peoples
lives.
I am trustworthy and
loyal to all employees.
trustworthy and loyal
to employees.
This manager/leader
has the courage to
stand up for his/her
people.
The work I do with this
manager/leader makes
a difference in peoples
lives.
This manager/leader
values others in their
job.
This manager/leader
views organizational
problems as his/her
own.
This manager/leader
communicates a vision
that is clear and
compelling to me.
I demonstrate my faith
in my manager/leaders
organization and its
mission by doing
everything I can to help
us succeed.
This manager/leader
does not punish honest
mistakes.
This manager/leader
demonstrates respect
for other through
his/her work.
honest and without
false pride.
I have the courage to

stand up for my people.
The work I do makes a
difference in peoples
lives.
21
I feel that I am valued as I feel that I value others

a person in my job.
through my leadership.
22
I really feel as if my
organizations problems
are my own.
I really feel as if my
organizations problems
are my own.
23
My organizations
vision is clear and
compelling to me.
24
in my organization and
its mission by doing
us succeed.
It is essential to develop
a vision for my team
that is clear and
compelling to others.
in my organization and
its mission by doing
us succeed.
25
My organization does
not punish honest
mistakes.
demonstrates respect for
me, and my work.
I do not punish honest

mistakes.
The leaders in my
organization are honest
and without false pride.
I am honest and without

false pride.
26
27
I feel that I demonstrate

respect for others
through my work.
158
Appendix D
Regis University Institutional Review Board Approval
159
Appendix E
Human Subject Research Review Application Form
Proposal Number: 07212008

Date: July 21, 2008
Principal Investigator:
Richard Boorom
Telephone: 303-458-4374
Email:
rboorom@regis.edu
Complete Title of Research Project: Spiritual Leadership: A Study of the Relationship

between Spiritual and Transformational Leadership
Faculty Chair: Dail Fields
1.
This study is being conducted as part of (check one using an X):

X
Doctoral Dissertation
Faculty research
Graduate Student Research

Grant or Contract
Other (specify):
2.
Where and when will this study be conducted?
Name of locale(s):
Data collected from Regis University students, Denver Colorado
Internet (name of survey software/website): Survey Monkey
Date you wish to start research (MM/DD/YY): 08 /01/2008
3.
Approximately how many participants will there be? 1000
4.
160
Administration
How long will it take for you to run each research participant through your project?
(i.e., 1 survey takes 15-20 minutes to complete or 1 interview takes 11.5 hours to
complete)
Web-based survey to be completed in 15 minutes or less
Are there any forms of incentives used to encourage participation (i.e., monetary
bonus, benchmarking results for participating organization); specify: No
How will participants be recruited (give a brief summary of the process)?

E-mail invitation to be sent to Regis University students enrolled in MBA and Master
Non-Profit programs.
Are research participants equitably chosen (have an equal chance) for
participation/selection?
X
Yes
No (explain below)
5. Describe the rationale for this research project and the reason for using the particular
participant population in question:
The purpose of this study is to examine the extent to which the variables contained
within spiritual leadership theory are related to transformational leadership behaviors of
leaders as perceived by followers. The study will also examine the relationship between
self reported levels of spiritual leadership variables and a leaders perceived spiritual wellbeing. In addition, followers will be asked to assess the effectiveness of the leader to
establish a relationship between spiritual leadership and leadership effectiveness. The study
will examine the moderating effects of spiritual-well being on the relationship between
transformational and spiritual leadership and leadership effectiveness. Hence, this study
attempts to further validate the spiritual leadership theory model providing an opportunity
to make a significant contribution towards an understanding of the relationship between
spirituality and leadership.
The convenience sample will be comprised of working-adult graduate students
from the College of Professional Studies at Regis University, Denver Colorado. Regis is a
Jesuit Catholic University, founded in the late 1800s serving approximately 16,000
students a year in undergraduate and graduate programs. Students enrolled in the Master
of Business Administration, Master Science in Organizational Leadership, and Master Non
Profit Management programs will be targeted for survey participation, as these programs
are most likely to attract survey participants with an interest in leadership theory.
6. Describe the methodology that will be followed (a brief but comprehensive statement
of the methodology relating to human research participants):
161
A web-based survey will be distributed to students enrolled in Regis

Universitys MBA and Master Non-Profit programs, inviting them to participate in the
study. University faculty will be asked to encourage students to participate in the
study. Participation will be optional, not a requirement of the students academic
program.
7. Describe the procedures that will be used to obtain informed consent and protect the
anonymity of the research participants.
Participation in the study will be completely optional, not a requirement of
students. Hence, those who choose to participate will consent to the study. Only the
researcher will be aware of the identity of research participants. Identity information
will not be included in the study findings or shared in other settings.
8. Briefly assess any potential risks of harm that research participants may incur?
Research participants shall incur little to no risk through participation, as all
personal identity data will be kept confidential.
9. Briefly assess the potential benefits that may occur to individual participants or
society.
If interested, leader participants may have the option of receiving anonymous
feedback regarding the characteristics of their leadership styles.
10. Briefly explain the nature of training you received in data collection, research design or
in conducting this research.
The researcher has completed research specific coursework at the undergraduate and
graduate level including courses contained within the CLS Ph.D. program. In addition, he
possess several years of market research experience in private industry.
This proposal has been approved for data collection (Ph.D. Director and Date):
Name:
Date: 7/25/08

8

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spiritual Leadership: A Study of the Relationship Between Spiritual

Leadership Theory and Transformational Leadership

Submitted to Regent University

UMI Number: 3377759

Altruistic Love ...........................................................................................40

Finding That Spiritual Leadership Mediates the Relationship of

Chapter 1 Introduction to the Study

Some have hypothesized that spirituality is at the core of leadership

integrate character, behavior, effect on followers, and achievement of group goals,

strategic, empowered teams, and individual levels, fostering a higher level or

leadership mediate the relationship of a leaders transformational leadership

Upon completion of the leader instrument, each survey respondent was

leaders transform themselves, others, and their organizations (G. W. Fairholm,

leadership: leadership is not something you do to people, its something you do

Figure 1: Model of organizational, empowered team, and personal transformation

From Toward a Theory of Spiritual Leadership, by L. W. Fry, 2003, The Leadership

Organization of the Study

Chapter 2 Literature Review

and meaning, an awareness of ones self, or a means of integrating all aspects of

including compassion, patience, love, tolerance, forgiveness, contentment, personal

Bekker (2007) suggested that religious faith, as the core of cultural

Milliman, Czaplewski, & Ferguson, 2003; Milliman, Ferguson, et al., 1999;

with the attainment of organizational goals, employee identification with the

Although leadership and the characteristics of great leaders have been

The differences between management and leadership were more clearly

Table 1: Comparison of Transformational Leadership Characteristics and Spiritual

Charisma: Provides vision and a sense of

Performance (vision): Established

mission, instilling pride, respect, and trust

through altruistic love whereby

Intellectual stimulation: Promotes

Effort (hope/faith): Fosters

intelligence, rationality, and problem

conviction, trust, and action for

performance of the work

Individualized consideration: Fosters

Membership: Employees are

personal attention, treat employees as

understood and feel appreciated

Calling: Making a difference where

expectations, expresses purpose in simple

life has meaning for leader and

An analogous relationship is evident in transformational leadership where

meaning, fosters growth in others, is intuitive, recognizes the importance of service,

Bennis and Nanus (1985) completed a phenomenological study of 90

development of desirable qualities in followers as their own spirituality continues

SLT, as presented in Figure 3, proposes that spiritual leaders shape

Organizational Commitment &

Figure 3: Frys causal model of spiritual leadership.

and Practice, by in L. W. Fry, in Spirituality in Business: Theory, Practice, and Future

The purpose of spiritual leadership is to draw into the fundamental needs of

Reflects high ideals

A New Paradigm for Leadership Studies

work, as a transformational leader helps employees to feel a calling in their work

1. To what extent do transformational leadership characteristics as

Figure 4: Independent variables predicting leader effectiveness.

The model presented in Figure 5 examines spiritual leadership as a possible

Concern for spirituality

Figure 6 presents a model that investigates the possibility that a leaders

Leaders self-reported spiritual health

Finally, the model presented in Figure 7 is duplicative of the prior model,

Leaders concern for spirituality

Table 3: Participation Rates from Self-Identified Leaders

Table 4: Demographics by Leader Age Group

.70 .69 .68**