Running head: SERVANT LEADERSHIP1

SERVANT LEADERSHIP20

Servant Leadership Development Program: Leadership through Service

Meghan Arias

George Mason University

George Mason University (GMU) recently created an ambitious mission and goal statement. The university aspires to be a university for the world, creating globally contentious graduates, increasing the number of graduates and the services it provides to students (George Mason University, 2012). Unfortunately, this ambition comes at a time of decreased funding from state government, so do more with less is a common mantra heard throughout the campus. In a presentation for GMU units under the Provosts Office, Provost Wu outlined a goal of improving efficiencies by flattening the university hierarchy and encouraging employees of the university to increase the innovative practices in order to achieve this more with less ideal (Wu, 2015). While the university has long prided itself on its innovation, it has largely maintained a traditional hierarchical structure, so some support will be needed to achieve this paradigm shift. The following paper proses a leadership program for administrators and faculty within the university based on the servant-leadership theory to help both leaders and followers acclimate to this proposed new environment. It will first describe the target population, along potential inputs and environmental factors as well as proposed learning outcomes. Next, an examination of the literature around servant leadership will show support that this framework is appropriate for the learning objectives. An outline of the proposed curriculum, with module learning outcomes and sample activities will then be provided, as well as the intended assessment methods. The proposal will close with a reflection of the project and of the authors personal leadership views.

Participants and Environment

Target participants for the program will be current faculty and staff at George Mason University. Research suggests that followers of servant leadership engage in social learning from servant leaders, in turn becoming more service oriented themselves, potentially impacting the culture of the overall organization (Hunter et al., 2013). Therefore, the primary audience will be individuals in existing leadership roles. Two of dimensions of servant leadership, helping subordinates grow and succeed, and, putting subordinates first, seem to focus on individuals with positional leadership, though the authors definition of these dimensions are broad enough to include others outside of an existing power structure (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008). These and the other dimensions will be discussed in more detail later in the proposal. However, the other dimensions can apply equally to any position. Therefore, to improve the servant culture and to contribute to flattening the hierarchy, the program will not be restricted to those with positional authority.

Two of Masons three current leadership or managerial training programs require interested participants to submit applications to be considered, the Experienced Supervisors Leadership Seminars (http://hr.gmu.edu/learning/esls.php) and the Leadership Legacy program (http://leadershiplegacy.gmu.edu/). The servant leadership program will not require an application to allow open access for anyone interested in the topic. Should the popularity of the program exceed the capacity, a phased cohort program could be implemented with interested individuals submitting brief biographical information, such as length of time at Mason, current responsibilities and service interests. This would allow for the organizers to identify individuals with diverse experiences to begin and progress through the program together and maintain some control over course demand.

George Mason University is a diverse school and allowing an open enrollment will create a challenge in identifying consistent participant inputs. According to the Office of Institutional Research and Reporting, 42.2% of faculty in the Fall 2014 semester were female, with 57.8% male. Faculty were mostly white (60%), with about 15% reporting a minority ethnicity and just under 20% unknown (IRR, 2014). Demographics such as these are impossible to control for, but play an important role in participants inputs going into any development program.

Beck (2014) found several predictors of servant leadership. First, individuals in a leadership position for a long period of time showed servant leader behavior more frequently than those with less leadership experience. Servant leaders were also more likely to volunteer at least an hour a week. Individuals who value relationship building, as well as those with an altruistic mindset, acting in the best interest of others (Beck, 2014, p. 307), also exhibited higher levels of servant leadership behavior. These predictors were identified through a qualitative inquiry, so there is no instrument to easily measure these levels pre-intervention.

Servant leadership should thrive in any educational non-profit environment, as the tenants of the leadership theory align with the universitys service missions for education and research. George Mason University particularly would be a conducive environment for these ideas. The universitys vision statement aligns with many key points found in servant leadership theory, such as creating value for the community, conceptual skills and behaving ethically (GMU, 2012). The focus on relationship building, team work and flattening hierarchies evident in servant leadership also align with GMUs institutional goals. Provost Wu has also placed an emphasis on what he calls the 60/40 rule. This idea states that individuals should spend 60% of their time on work for their own unit, with the other 40% spent helping other units succeed (Wu, 2015). This emphasis on the needs of others also aligns with servant leadership.

Outcomes

The learning outcomes for this program cover specific knowledge of servant leadership and its application in the workplace, as well as outcomes related to skills development need to practice servant leadership behaviors. At the end of this program students will be able to:

Identify the characteristics and dimensions of servant leadership

Recognize servant leadership behaviors participant already employs

Modify personal behavior to incorporate servant leadership behaviors s/he wishes to further develop

Use effective listening skills

Practice ethical decision making

Demonstrate improved team-work and relationship skills

Identify with less hierarchical leadership attitudes

Servant Leadership

The term servant leadership, made popular by Robert Greenleaf in the 1970s, may sound like a contradiction. How does one both serve and lead? According to Greenleaf the difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant: - first, to make sure that other peoples highest priority needs are being served. The best test is: do those servedbecome healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? (as cited in Crippen, 2004, p. 12). Greenleaf developed this paradoxical theory after reading Herman Hesses Journey to the East, which tells a tale of a group of travelers who set out on an arduous journey. One of the travelers, Leo, functioned as a servant to the rest of the group, doing menial chores for his fellow travelers, but also helped to keep their spirits up on the trek. However, when Leo disappeared, the company disintegrated and the journey came to an end. It is eventually revealed that Leo was in fact the head of the organization which had sponsored the original journey. The message Greenleaf took away from this story, that people will be recognized as leaders by their services to society, became the basis of his servant leadership theory (Crippen, 2004).

Unfortunately, Greenleaf never operationally defined his concept, so several researchers have attempted to do so in his place, resulting in several sets of characteristics related to servant leadership. Spears, a colleague and friend of Greenleafs, identified ten characteristics: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community (van Dierendonck, 2011). Liden, et al. (2008) identified nine dimensions of servant leadership, along with a construct with which to measure these dimensions. The nine dimensions are emotional healing, creating value for the community, conceptual skills, empowering, helping subordinates grow and succeed, putting subordinates first, behaving ethically, relationships, and servanthood.

The various words used to describe servant leadership may differ, but the overall message is the same, serving others first is the central component of servant leadership. Liden et al.s (2008) dimensions focus more on actions, for example, putting subordinates first is defined as using actions and words to make it clear to othersthat satisfying their work needs is a priority (p. 162). Spears characteristics focus on similar strengths, but in a more general sense. Commitment to the growth of people, his most similar characteristic to putting subordinates first, is defined as nurturing the personal, professional and spiritual growth of people (van Dierendonk, 2011, p. 1232). There are several overlaps between Spears and Liden et al.s dimensions, but the characteristics identified by Spears were never fully operationalized with a validated measurement as was done with Liden et al.s dimensions in the Servant Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ). As a result, this proposed program focuses on the nine dimensions identified by Liden et al. (2008), though elements of Spears characteristics are also included. Liden et al. (2008) defined their dimensions as follows:

1. Emotional healingthe act of showing sensitivity to others' personal concerns

2. Creating value for the communitya conscious, genuine concern for helping the community

3. Conceptual skillspossessing the knowledge of the organization and tasks at hand so as to be in a position to effectively support and assist others, especially immediate followers

4. Empoweringencouraging and facilitating others, especially immediate followers, in identifying and solving problems, as well as determining when and how to complete work tasks

5. Helping subordinates grow and succeeddemonstrating genuine concern for others' career growth and development by providing support and mentoring

6. Putting subordinates firstusing actions and words to make it clear to others (especially immediate followers) that satisfying their work needs is a priority (Supervisors who practice this principle will often break from their own work to assist subordinates with problems they are facing with their assigned duties.)

7. Behaving ethicallyinteracting openly, fairly, and honestly with others

8. Relationshipsthe act of making a genuine effort to know, understand, and support others in the organization, with an emphasis on building long-term relationships with immediate followers

9. Servanthooda way of being marked by one's self-categorization and desire to be characterized by others as someone who serves others first, even when self-sacrifice is required (p. 162)

In addition to similarities between varying definitions of the concept of servant leadership, several authors have discussed servant leadership in relation to other leadership theories, particularly transformational leadership. Servant leadership researchers argue that while there are overlapping components, transformational leadership theory focuses on aligning with organizational goals as opposed to servant leaderships focus on the individual goals of followers (Hawkins, 2009). Yoshida, Sendjaya, Hirst, and Cooper (2014) note that servant leadership has been shown to be a more significant predictor of positive, job related outcomes, such as team performance, commitment, and employee satisfaction, than transformational leadership.

Though servant leaders do not focus on organizational benefits in their service to others, several organizational benefits to this leadership style have been identified. Increases in work engagement have been found at technologies companies (De Clercq, Bouchenooghe, Raja, & Matsyborska, 2014) among employees who rated their supervisors high in servant leadership based on the SLQ. The authors argue this is because the servant leaders focus on the individuals creates a positive working environment that promotes psychological safety (De Clercq, et al., 2014, p. 201). This idea lines up well with Masons focus on wellbeing. The university has been recognized by the Chronicle of Higher Education as one of the best colleges to work for (Kamath, 2014), with the most recent recognition noting a focus on work/life balance. Improvements in employee retention also serve the bottom line of an organization as of a result savings on the significant costs associated with the hiring and training processes.

In addition to retention and engagement, servant leadership has also been related to feelings of empowerment, improved performance and creativity. Subordinates in small businesses working under individuals who exhibit servant leadership servant leadership feel empowered (Van Winkle, Allen, DeVore, & Winston, 2014). The authors explain that empowerment means letting people do their jobs by enabling them to learn, grow and progress (Van Winkle et al., 2014, p. 72). This is one of servant leaderships great strengths, according to the authors. Servant leaders are often referred to as first among equals, so empowering followers encourage them to contribute and collaborate, improving the organization as a whole. Creativity, improved performance and customer service behaviors were identified in relation to increased servant leadership behaviors in restaurants (Liden, Wayne, Liao, & Mesuer, 2014). It is also suggested that the less task-oriented, relationship focused servant leadership behavior will result in a less hierarchical view of leadership (Reynolds, 2011).

Leadership through Service Program Outline

The program, titled Leadership through Service, will be divided into several modules covering major topics of servant leadership (Table 1). This title was chosen because of the connotations that could arise from the term servant leadership. Spears and Lawrence (2002) note that the concept of servant leader needs to be explained thoroughly because it seems contradictory at first glance. The word service was chosen instead of servant for two primary reasons. First, service is a key component of servant leadership so the word still reflects the spirt of the theory without using a potentially off-putting word. Additionally, administrators often lament that it is notoriously difficult to entice faculty members to attend trainings. Service is a component of faculty performance evaluations, particularly for those pursuing tenure, so using this language may encourage more faculty participation.

Modules may vary in length, but none will run over 4 hours. All modules must be completed in order to obtain a certificate of recognition for program completion. Participants must attend Module 1 first, and while they are encouraged to attend the other modules in sequence, this is not required. Modules should be offered once a month depending on demand. In addition to the course requirement, all participants must volunteer a minimum of 3 hours a month for one organization during the duration of the program (a minimum of 24 hours total) and complete a service journal reflecting on the experience and their growth throughout the program. Participants are encouraged to utilize the universitys School Assistance/Volunteer leave if eligible, which would allow for 16 hours of paid leave for volunteer work.

Table 1. Module Structure and Learning Outcomes

Module

Topic

Learning Goals

Students will:

Module 1

Introduction to Servant Leadership

-Be introduced to program objectives

-Gain knowledge of servant leadership theory and concepts

Module 2

Creating Value for the Community

-Identify opportunities to serve

-Commit to service location for duration of the program

Module 3

Listening, Empowering, and Persuasion

- Be introduced to ways to improve listening skills

-Demonstrate effective listening skills

-Recognize how listening to others can help empower them -Identify ways to use listening to persuade others, rather than forcing acceptance with positional power

Module 4

Building Relationships, Trust, and Teamwork

-Identify characteristics of a good team

-Identify ways to build relationships and increase trust

Module 5

Empathy, Emotional Healing

-Show empathy for others

-Utilize self-awareness and sensitivity when communicating

Module 6

Ethical Leadership

-Introduce ethical frameworks

-Discuss case studies of ethical dilemmas

-Recognize the impact of unethical leadership

-Utilize ethical decision making frameworks to analyze ethical situations

Module 8

Conceptual Skills

-Develop an understanding of how situations are shaped by a broader context

Module 9

Helping Others Grow and Succeed

-Use effective listening skills

-Be introduced to effective coaching skills

-Identify positive institutional outcomes related to helping others

The following is a sample of activities and discussions for the proposed modules. Many of the activities were adapted from the KU Work Group for Community Health and Development (2014).

Module 1 will consist of the introduction to servant leadership theory and include an overview of the main characteristics and dimensions of servant leadership, as well research about the benefits of this leadership style. This module will also include information about the overall program. Before the lesson begins, the facilitator will ask participants to name characteristics of a good leader, followed by characteristics of a bad leader. After the lists are created, the program facilitator should discuss the servant leader characteristics. Were all of those characteristics included in the list the class list? Why or why not? Participants will also receive their first homework assignment: observe and make note of servant leadership behavior in others. These notes will be discussed throughout other modules. The assignment will later focus on the participants identifying those behaviors in themselves. As Spears and Lawrence (2002) note that the best way to understand servant leadership is to read Greenleafs writings as well as the book that inspired him, a recommended reading list (Appendix A) will be provided for students to read throughout the program.

The module on listening will use an active listening activity which allows participants to use verbal and non-verbal encouragers and practice listening skills. Participants break into groups of three, after active listening skills have been discussed, with one person speaking about a topic, any topic, which is important to him or her. One person is the listener who uses verbal and non-verbal encouragers and just listens. The third person observes the interaction and makes note of the listening behaviors, positive and negative. Each speaker will talk for a few minutes, after which the group will discuss. How did it feel to listen, was it difficult? Did the speaker feel listened to? What behaviors did the observer see? After a few more minutes for discussion, group members will trade roles. This is repeated until everyone has participated in all roles.

The trust and team building module will include a fictitious, controversial proposed change that is causing some conflict in the local high school. Some parents and school board members are for the change, but others in both groups are against the change. Split participants into two groups, one representing the parents and the other the school board, so each individual group can look at the issue from both sides. Discuss how the conflict resolution went, could it have gone better, what would a servant leader have done?

Assessment

Participants will complete a pre-test using the Leadership Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (Wielkiewicz, 2000) to identify levels of hierarchical and systemic thinking. They will be re-tested on this item after completing the program to see if their leadership attitudes have become less hierarchical. This scale is not ideal because while it has been validated with younger participants, it has not been fully studied outside of the college student context. However, it is the only validated measure the author was able to identify that could provide insight on participants levels of hierarchical thinking. Hierarchical thinking should be specifically addressed in module 3 (using persuasion rather than positional power) and module 9 (positive outcomes of working together and helping others grow could flatten hierarchy), and the overall approach of servant leadership is also expected to produce alterations in hierarchical thinking (Reynolds, 2011).

Liden et al.s (2008) SLQ will be used to assess levels of servant leadership in a pre-test/post-test format. The survey requires at least two subordinates to respond regarding the behaviors of their supervisors. The original version of the survey phrases the questions as My manager can solve work problems with new or creative ideas (Liden et al., 2008, p. 168), so there may be adjustments to the my manager language for non-supervisory participants to allow colleagues to complete the assessment. The instrument is a 28-item questionnaire with each question posed on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. It is expected that servant leadership behaviors will increase after the development program.

The self-reflections will also be reviewed to assess participant perceptions of their own behaviors. Assessment of skills based learning outcomes, such as listening, will be done by the module instructor via relevant topical assessments or class room observations.

Reflection

Servant leadership is the main theory that informed the development of my project, with some minor influence from transformational, emotional intelligence and ethical leadership ideas. I do believe servant leadership would fit well with Masons stated goals, however, it is doubtful this program would be implemented. Mason already has two leadership programs sponsored through HR. The New SUPERvisor Series has some leadership aspects, but mostly covers managerial skills such as creating an employee work profile and conducting performance reviews. The Experienced Supervisors program has some additional leadership concepts and seems to focus on Stephen Coveys leadership program. Covey was cited in some of the servant leadership work, so one possibility is for this program to be incorporated into the Experienced Supervisors program. That program does require an application process and 5 years of leadership experience or completion of the New SUPERvisors series to enroll. I feel strongly that a servant leadership program demands an open enrollment policy.

Another potential problem with this theory are the religious overtones. Greenleaf was a Quaker (Crippen, 2004) and biblical quotes pepper his own writing and that of others, noting Jesus as an exemplary servant leader. Mason, a public university, prizes the diversity represented on its campus and heavily Christian overtones in a school sponsored leadership program could create contention. However, the ideals of servant leadership can be identified in several religions (van de Bunt-Kokhuis, & Sultan, 2012). Another critique of the religious connections to this theory contend that the traditionally patriarchal religious ideas may minimize the feminist perspective (Reynolds, 2011). The conversations around this potentially controversial topic could lead to improved leadership outcomes through socio-cultural discussions with peers, which has been identified as a high impact practice for leadership development with college students (Dugan et al., 2013).

I am also conflicted over the idea of service learning in the context of community service and learning combined. By creating an educational reward, such as earning a certificate of completion/achievement in this case, how much service is truly left in the activity? Service learning has been identified as a high impact practice for student learners (Dugan et al., 2013), so I must assume some value remains even with mandated service, which is why I include this aspect in my own leadership program. However, requiring service to earn a certificate seems to run against the values of servant leadership, unless the experience is able to instill an intrinsic love of service in the participants.

Interestingly, the website for the Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership also does not seem to live up to the vision of putting others first. The Centers website, designed by a creative company who does not have their own web-presence, has several design flaws that are against rudimentary universal design principles, such as links that just say click here. This makes it difficult for individuals for vision impairment using assistive technology to access. While this error is likely out of ignorance and not malice, the Center for Servant Leadership should live up more fully to its name. There is also an academic journal, The International Journal of Servant-Leadership, that seems hypocritical to the espoused ideals. With open access journals increasing in popularity in todays information age, a journal that supports a philosophy that encourages considering others first, even to your own detriment, one would think the articles submitted to this journal would be available to others in the community free of charge. However, this is not the case and George Mason does not subscribe to this journal, so the views in those articles remain behind the paywall and were not considered in this proposal.

The extent of the servant leadership literature surprised me, but more research is always warranted. The primary gap in the servant leadership literature is the lack of consensus on how to operationalize and thus quantitatively study this concept. Servant leadership research exists on businesses large and small, as well as international populations, however, considering the strong service connection to education, more servant leadership research should be done on institutions of higher education.

Additional research should also be done to examine the effectiveness of servant leadership programs. While much research extoled the virtues of this paradigm and the organizational benefits of those who practice it, there was little available reporting how to best develop these skills. Several certificate programs exist through various institutions, including University of Virginia (http://www.darden.virginia.edu/executive-education/short-courses/servant-leadership/) and the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership (https://greenleaf.org/the-greenleaf-academy-certificate-program/). Gonzaga University also offers a concentration in servant leadership under the Organizational Leadership masters degree (https://online.gonzaga.edu/masters-in-organizational-leadership/orgl-servant-leader-concentration). These organizations have presumably done some research has been done to support their programs. It would be useful to see published results on the impact these, or similar, programs have had on learners.

Personal reflection

What a difference a semester makes! It has been interesting to go back over my original leadership statement from only a few months ago. I still value positional authority, but have begun to recognize leadership as more than a person with a set of leader traits. Looking back over my original essay I see statements I made such as Good leaders feel concern about the well-being of their teams and their teams respect them (p. 2), which suggest I was closer to this understanding at the beginning of the semester than I realized. I can see how this reflects the definition of leadership as a process and I have begun to see the value of viewing leadership through this lens.

In the original paper, I seemed hesitant to ascribe the title leader to myself. One of my biggest ah-ha moment actually came recently as I was reading Liden et al.s (2008) dimensions of servant leadership. I was having trouble identifying with the idea of servant leadership, wondering how this could really be a beneficial, despite the impressive research I had seen. The description of putting subordinates first says Supervisors who practice this principle will often break from their own work to assist subordinates with problems they are facing with their assigned duties (Liden et al., 2008, p. 162). Shortly before reading that, I had been a member of my team with a mounting pile of paperwork. I could tell she was starting to feel overwhelmed by the number of different things she had pending, so I offered to complete the pending paperwork. This took time away from my day-to-day responsibilities, but I did not think anything of it at the time. I am quicker at processing the paperwork, since I have been doing it longer, so it made sense for me to get through them quickly and allow her time for other work and reduce the stress she was feeling about the ever increasing stack of papers. Reading Liden et al.s (2008) definition made me see this action in a different light and examine other behaviors of mine differently as well. This experience is one of the reasons I included the learning outcome that participants be able to identify leadership behaviors in themselves. I think it is easy to read about something and conceptualize it, but being able to identify those concepts in yourself can make them come to life.

I still believe that some aspects of leadership cannot be taught. The behaviors in servant leadership, for example, could be reinforced in people with some prior inclination to put others first. However, I do not expect my program, or any other, to completely change the character of someone who is selfish and uncaring towards others. Personally, I will never have all of the characteristics of a charismatic leader such as being dominant, [and] having a strong desire to influence others (Northouse, 2013, p. 187). However, it could be possible for me to develop the behaviors associated with charismatic leaders such as appearing competent to followers and being a role model for followers, displaying the values I hope they will adopt.

As far as continued personal leadership development, I am currently enrolled in Masons New SUPERvisor program. The program focuses more on management skills than leadership, but some of the courses do teach skills like coaching that can contribute to relationship building, a key to the leadership process. Additionally, once I have completed this program, my supervisor has agreed to nominate me to attend one of the more leadership focused programs Mason offers, the Leadership Legacy program. She completed the program this semester and I saw several overlaps between what she learned in Leadership Legacy and our work in CTCH 810. I look forward to participating in the program after this experience. I believe it will offer a different perspective on some of the same topics, helping to further expand my understanding of leadership.

My supervisor has also helped me see the value in mentoring relationships, a high impact leadership development practice. She works with me to develop my leadership skills and provides feedback that has been extremely valuable. As a result, I have been working on developing my own mentoring skills to help grow and support my team. Additionally, I would be interested in exploring the followership literature. I found it interesting in researching servant leadership that the term subordinate was used so frequently. It simply refers to a lower positional power, but the term seems to have a negative connotation. With such an other-focused philosophy, I would have thought the researchers would be more careful with how they define those others.

I have learned a lot over the course of this semester, and look forward to continuing my leadership journey.

References

Beck, C. D. (2014). Antecedents of servant leadership: A mixed methods study. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(3), 299314. http://doi.org/10.1177/1548051814529993

Crippen, C. (2004). Servant-leadership as an effective model for educational leadership and management: First to serve, then to lead. Management in Education, 18(5), 1116.

De Clercq, D., Bouckenooghe, D., Raja, U., & Matsyborska, G. (2014). Servant leadership and work engagement: The contingency effects of leader-follower social capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 183212. http://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21185

Dugan, J. P., Kodama, C., Correia, B., Derringer, A., Howes, S., Bohle, C. W., LeBlanc, J. (2013). Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership insight report: Leadership program delivery. College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs. Retrieved from www.nclp.umd.edu

George Mason University. (2012). Mason Vision. Retrieved from vision.gmu.edu

Hamilton, F., & Bean, C. J. (2005). The importance of context, beliefs and values in leadership development. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(4), 336347.

Hawkins, C. (2009). Leadership theories-managing practices, challenges, suggestions. The Community College Enterprise, 15(2), 3962.

Hunter, E. M., Neubert, M. J., Perry, S. J., Witt, L. A., Penney, L. M., & Weinberger, E. (2013). Servant leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(2), 316331. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.12.001

Kamath, S. (2014, July 21). Great university=Great place to work: Mason named among best colleges to work for. Retrieved from https://newsdesk.gmu.edu/2014/07/great-university-great-place-work-mason-named-among-best-colleges-work/

KU Work Group for Community Health and Development. (2014). Chapter 13, Section 2: Servant leadership: Accepting and maintaining the call of service. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas. Retrieved from http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/leadership/leadership-ideas/servant-leadership/main

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 14341452. http://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0034

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161177. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (Sixth.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Office of Institutional Research and Reporting. (2014). Full-time academic faculty demographic profiles: Two year comparisons. Retrieved from https://irr2.gmu.edu/New/N_Faculty/FullTimeFacComp.cfm

Reynolds, K. (2011). Servant-leadership as gender-integrative leadership: Paving a path for more gender-integrative organizations through leadership education. Journal of Leadership Education, 10(2), 155171.

Spears, L. C., & Lawrence, M. (Eds.). (2002). Focus on leadership: servant-leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: J. Wiley & Sons.

Van de Bunt-Kokhuis, S., & Sultan, N. (2012). Servant-leadership: The online way! E-learning where community building is key. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 1.

Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 12281261. http://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310380462

Van Winkle, B., Allen, S., DeVore, D., & Winston, B. (2014). The relationship between the servant leadership behaviors of immediate supervisors and followers perceptions of being empowered in the context of small business. Journal of Leadership Education, 13(3), 7082.

Wielkiewicz, R. M. (2000). The leadership attitudes and beliefs scale: An instrument for evaluating college students thinking about leadership and organizations. Journal of College Student Development, 41(3).

Wu, D. (2015, April). Townhall. George Mason University.

Yoshida, D. T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G., & Cooper, B. (2014). Does servant leadership foster creativity and innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification and prototypicality. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 13951404. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.08.013

Appendix A

Recommending reading list

Greenleaf, R. K., Frick, D. M., & Spears, L. C. (1996). On becoming a servant-leader (1st ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Greenleaf, R. K., & Spears, L. C. (1998). The power of servant-leadership: essays. San Francisco, Calif: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Greenleaf, R. K., & Spears, L. C. (2002). Servant leadership: a journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness (25th anniversary ed). New York: Paulist Press.

Hesse, H., & Rosner, H. (2003). The journey to the East (1st Picador ed). New York: Picador.

Sipe, J. W., & Frick, D. M. (2009). Seven pillars of servant leadership: practicing the wisdom of leading by serving. New York: Paulist Press.

Sparough, J. M., Manney, J., & Hipskind, T. (2010). Whats your decision? How to make choices with confidence and clarity: an Ignatian approach to decision making. Chicago: Loyola Press.

Spears, L. C., & Lawrence, M. (Eds.). (2002). Focus on leadership: servant-leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: J. Wiley & Sons.

Thompson, C. M. (2000). The congruent life: following the inward path to fulfilling work and inspired leadership (1st ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.