Principles of Servant Leadership That Motivate Nonpaid Volunteers to Serve on Boards of Nonprofit,

UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE

La Verne, California

PRINCIPLES OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP THAT MOTIVATE NONPAID

VOLUNTEERS TO SERVE ON BOARDS OF NONPROFIT,

PHILANTHROPIC ORGANIZATIONS

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

in

Organizational Leadership

Diane J. Silvers

College of Education and Organizational Leadership

Organizational Leadership Department

February 2010

iv

ABSTRACT

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

Nonprofit, Philanthropic Organizations

By Diane J. Silvers, EdD

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to reveal the degree to which the principles of

servant leadership motivate nonpaid volunteers to serve on the governing boards of

nonprofit, philanthropic organizations in the United States.

Methodology: The subjects in this study were thirty-three nonpaid volunteer members of

the boards of directors of fourteen nonprofit, philanthropic organizations located in ten

states and the District of Columbia. The aggregate number of volunteer years represented

by the thirty-three participants in this study was 771 total years. The total number of

years on boards represented by the participants was 269. The critical incident technique

was the format for the interview questions. Interviews were conducted over the

telephone. The data were categorized and analyzed to determine the frequency with

which each participant used one or more of the ten principles of servant leadership as

identified by Robert Greenleaf and Larry C. Spears.

Key Findings: The actions described by the thirty-three volunteer board members were

found to be congruent with the ten principles of servant leadership. Each one of the

thirty-three participants interviewed cited incidents that represented actions consistent

with one or more of the ten principles of servant leadership while they were board

members. The board members described a total of 855 incidents of high satisfaction and a

total of 740 incidents of high dissatisfaction for a total of 1595 incidents that were

congruent with the ten principles of servant leadership. The board members cited

incidents that included the principles of commitment to growth and building community

more often than any of the other principles of servant leadership.

Conclusions: The thirty-three board members included in this study provided data, which

demonstrated congruency with the ten principles of servant leadership. The incidents of

satisfaction described positive use of the principles of servant leadership. The incidents

of dissatisfaction described negative use, or perceived lack of use, of the principles of

servant leadership. The ten principles of servant leadership may be used as a tool for

recruitment, retention, and assessment of volunteer leaders.

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

the ten principles of servant leadership and nonprofit, philanthropic volunteer board

leadership and volunteerism. The research may be expanded to include the private sector.

v

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

Chapter

I. A PERSPECTIVE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF SERVANT

LEADERSHIP FOR NONPAID VOLUNTEER LEADERS OF

NONPROFIT, PHILANTHROPIC ORGANIZATIONS IN THE

UNITED STATES .................................................................................... 1

Introduction ............................................................................................... 1

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

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

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

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

Delimitations ............................................................................................. 12

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

Summary ................................................................................................... 16

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

Introduction ............................................................................................... 18

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


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

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

vi

Transformational Leadership ............................................................. 23

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

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

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

Volunteer Board Leadership of Nonprofit, Philanthropic

Organizations in U.S. ......................................................................... 30

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter Summary...................................................................................... 58

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

Introduction ............................................................................................... 60



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

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

Instrumentation ......................................................................................... 64

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

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

vii

Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 70

Limitations ................................................................................................ 70

Chapter Summary...................................................................................... 72

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

Introduction ............................................................................................... 74

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

Purpose ............................................................................................... 74

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

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

Profile of the Participants: Descriptive Characteristics of

Participants ................................................................................. 76

Findings .................................................................................................... 80

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

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

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

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

V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 126

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



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

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

viii

Summary of the Key Findings .................................................................. 130

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 145

A. MATRIX OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND TEN PRINCIPLES OF

SERVANT-LEADERSHIP ........................................................................... 146

B. HERZBERG'S MOTIVATORS AND HYGIENE FACTORS ..................... 148

C. USA MAP ...................................................................................................... 150

D. INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................ 152

E. LETTER TO BOARD MEMBERS REQUESTING INTERVIEW

PARTICIPATION ......................................................................................... 154

F. DR. TODD BLISS PERMISSION LETTER ................................................ 156

G. DR. KARIN LUBIN PERMISSION LETTER ............................................. 158

H. FIELD-TEST INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE FEEDBACK GUIDE ..... 160

I. SIX ORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS ................ 162

J. LETTER OF CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH ................... 164

K. URBAN INSTITUTE, NATIONAL CENTER FOR CHARITABLE

STATISTICS CHART ................................................................................... 168

ix

L. INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS' GENERAL INFORMATION AND

DEMOGRAPHICS ........................................................................................ 170

M. INTERVIEW RESPONSE DATA CLASSIFICATION CODING

SYSTEM ........................................................................................................ 173

N. FREQUENCIES OF BOARD MEMBERS' ACTIONS ................................ 175

O. PARTICIPANT VOLUNTEER SERVICE TOTALS AND

COMPARISONS ........................................................................................... 178

P. UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD

STUDY APPROVAL .................................................................................... 180

Q. MASLOW'S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS ...................................................... 182

R. DATA CLASSIFICATION CHARTS .......................................................... 184

S. NONPROFIT QUARTERLY ILLUSTRATED NONPROFIT

ECONOMY ................................................................................................... 187

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 191

x

FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Maslow's hierarchy of needs ................................................................................ 7

................................................................................................................... 26

................................................................................................................... 55

2. Herzberg's motivators and hygiene factors .......................................................... 24

3. Six organizational health levels ........................................................................... 35

4. Servant leadership and the servant organization (OLA) model ........................... 56

5. Frequency of perceptions: Satisfaction ................................................................ 83

6. Frequency of perceptions: Dissatisfaction ........................................................... 84

7. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction compared ........................................................... 124

A1. Herzberg's motivators and hygiene factors ......................................................... 149

A2. Six organizational health levels .......................................................................... 163

A3. Maslow's hierarchy of needs ............................................................................... 183

xi

TABLES

Table Page

1. Attributes of servant leadership ........................................................................... 53

2. Source of data: Interview participants—General information ............................. 77

3. Response category codes for each of the ten principles ...................................... 85

A1. Source of data: Interview participants—General information ............................ 171

A2. Response category codes for each of the ten principles ...................................... 174

xii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The support of many family, friends and colleagues made this study possible. A

very special thanks goes to my husband, Jonathan Weiner, PhD, MD. His patience,

encouragement, and support were there for me throughout the process.

I would like to thank my committee chairman, Dr. Larry Kemper, who guided me

through the journey to completion of this dissertation. I am grateful for his confidence in

me and his expertise throughout my doctoral journey.

Special thanks go to Dr. Leo St. John, and Dr. Alice Talnack, my committee

members, for their patience and encouragement. Thanks for their help and support.

I would also like to thank Dr. Karin Lubin and Dr. Todd Bliss for making their

work available so that I might have a starting point and the necessary tools to begin my

research.

My deepest thanks go to all of the participants in the study. They gave so

generously of their time and allowed me to interview them in depth. The rich data

provided valuable insights into board membership and leadership. I have the utmost

respect for volunteer leaders, volunteers, and their constituencies.

And I want to thank the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership and ARNOVA

(Association for Research on Nonprofits Organizations and Voluntary Action) for the

wealth of information that was available for the study. The pioneering efforts of people

such as Robert K. Greenleaf, Larry Spears, and many others, made the research possible.

xiii

I believe that the concept of Servant Leadership can serve as a valuable tool and model

for successful leadership in the 21st century.

1

CHAPTER I

A PERSPECTIVE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP FOR

NONPAID VOLUNTEER LEADERS OF NONPROFIT, PHILANTHROPIC

ORGANIZATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

The servant-leader is servant first. It begins with the natural feeling that one wants

to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead.

—Robert K. Greenleaf, The Servant as Leader

Introduction

Bill and Melinda Gates, like many people, assumed that the malaria problem in

Africa was being worked on. They were looking for ways to help when they discovered

the "vacuum that does need to be stepped into" (Bower 2006, 63). According to Time

Magazine, "The Gates Foundation provides more than a third of the world's entire

malaria research funding" (63). It is this concept of volunteering and giving of one's time

that is the subject of this study, specifically, those who choose to serve on governing

boards of nonprofit philanthropic organizations. This study looks at specific motivations

that stimulate leaders to volunteer to serve on the governing boards of nonprofit,

philanthropic organizations.

Those who choose to lead and to serve may be motivated to do so by several

different factors. Specifically, this study looks at volunteer leaders who choose to lead by

using the principles of servant leadership, as presented by the Greenleaf Center for

2

servant leadership. Servant leaders actively work toward the betterment of those they

work with and toward the betterment of mankind.

Volunteers often make up the difference between the number of employees paid

for their work at nonprofit, philanthropic organizations and the number of people actually

required to fulfill all of the organization's functions. Without volunteers, nonprofit,

philanthropic organizations might not be able to fulfill their commitments. According to

Wymer and Starnes (2001), "Many nonprofit organizations are dependent upon their

volunteer workers. Volunteers serve in providing direct service to the nonprofit's clients.

Volunteers serve in administration (e.g., board members)" (64).

Time and money are two basic elements that motivate most people. Yet those who

choose to serve on governing boards of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations are giving

up a significant portion of their time and money when they fulfill their commitment to

their chosen organization(s). The researcher hopes that this study will lead to a better

understanding of what motivates these individuals to make this choice.

When one analyzes the economic system in the United States, we observe three

basic sectors: (1) the business sector, (2) the government sector, and (3) the nonprofit

sector. In 2001, the nonprofit sector was composed of 1.14 million nonprofit

organizations, which accounted for $621.4 billion in revenue (Wymer and Starnes 2001).

One of the most critical issues for the nonprofit sector is that nonprofit

organizations cannot provide services without volunteers. Good leadership is also vital to

their success. Examples of outstanding volunteer leaders include Bill Gates, Melinda

Gates (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), Jimmy and Rosalind Carter (Habitat for

3

Humanity), Roger Baldwin (ACLU—American Civil Liberties Union), Clara Barton

(ARC—American Red Cross), Lincoln C. Chen, MD (CARE—Cooperative for

Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc.), Dr. Ethel Percy Andrus (NRTA—National

Retired Teachers' Association, a division of the Association of Retired Persons), Don

Harris and Fred Fisher (Sierra Club/Earth Justice), Joseph Wales (ALA—American Lung

Association), David O. Wiebers, MD (HSUS—Humane Society of the United States),

and Henry Bergh (ASPCA—American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals).

Problem Statement

In 2009, with a changing economy and new leadership in the United States, the

focus on philanthropic efforts is expected to be greater than ever. Paul Schmitz (2008),

the CEO of Public Allies, says,

Now more than ever, nonprofit organizations need to get ahead of the curve. We

have entered a difficult period, when the need for nonprofit services will increase,

and the resources to pay for these services—public and private—will be

constrained. . . . Our special role in bringing citizens together to serve . . . to fulfill

our missions will be greatly challenged. In such challenging times, nonprofits

need to identify the most cutting edge organizational tools, technologies, and

behaviors that engage constituents and achieve results. . . . In many ways, [this]

has exemplified the qualities promoted in recent years . . . and symbolized the

kind of organization whose culture of innovation, inclusion, and performance

inspires and attracts workers, volunteers, donors, and champions. (1).

Servant leadership can empower volunteers to accomplish the goals of the organization.

The history of volunteer organizations in the United States begins in England with

a look at the development of the English Poor Laws in 1601. These laws allowed for the

oversight of the conditions of the poor. The concept was that those who could not fulfill

their basic needs through the ability to work and support themselves and/or their families

4

would be taken care of by the general society. "While the English Parliament was the first

to establish these laws . . . the early American settlers adopted similar principles" (Ott

2001, 99). Stephen R. Block explains that "the early implementation of poor laws in the

United States were mainly at the state level" (Ott 2001, 99). By the late 1850s, the

Industrial Revolution had led to overpopulated urban centers and mass immigration from

Europe. The responsibility of society to oversee the needs of the poor was more than

could be handled by a few designated groups or people. It is at this time that philanthropy

for the poor began to grow.

A review of the history of "poor houses" recalls several settlement houses

modeled after the Toynbee House settlement in England. For example, Hull House in

Chicago, Neighborly Guild in New York, South End House in Boston, and Northwestern

University Settlement House in Chicago were all "settlement houses" that cared for the

poor and attempted to give them hope and opportunity to improve the conditions of their

lives (Ott 2001).

Other English inventions such as the Charity Organization Society were adopted

by the United States. The desired outcomes of these organizations were to improve the

lives of those less fortunate. The business community felt that private charities would be

better administered than public charities. Over time, this led to donors seeking to create a

federal organization of charities that would regulate fund-raising activities.

During the early 1900s, periodicals devoted to charitable causes were created.

Steven Ott (2001) cites Paul Kellogg's publication of The Survey in 1909. The Survey was

one of the first national magazines devoted to both paid and nonpaid volunteer workers.

5

Is there a differentiation between volunteering and acts of charity or

philanthropy? The literature shows that all three activities require some form of giving.

While charity and philanthropy may require giving little, volunteering requires giving of

one's time and money and therefore requires direct involvement. However, it is also

important to note that volunteering does not require giving of one's time and money only

to the poor. In contemporary America we choose to volunteer for all sorts of activities

that may or may not benefit those less fortunate. In contrast, charity and philanthropy do

benefit those less fortunate in all instances.

Alexis de Tocqueville, French political thinker and historian (1835), was one of

the earliest observers of American volunteerism. He felt that American volunteerism was

unique in that it promoted our democratic society. One might note that England was

considered to be a democratic society as well and much of the volunteer efforts of that

time were adapted in some form from English "models" of volunteerism.

A brief overview of a few notable volunteers in U.S. history follows. "Clara

Barton (1821-1912) dominates the early history of the American Red Cross, which was

modeled after the International Red Cross. . . . She successfully organized the American

Association of the Red Cross in Washington, D.C. on May 21, 1881 . . . and she served as

the organization's volunteer president until 1904" (American Red Cross n.d., 1).

Another important nonprofit, philanthropic organization is the American Civil

Liberties Union (ACLU), which was founded by Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, and

Albert DeSilver in 1920. The ACLU mission is that civil liberties must be respected.

6

Today the ACLU is composed of over 500,000 members and supporters. The ACLU

handles nearly six thousand court cases annually from all over the United States.

Dr. Ethel Percy Andrus, a retired high school principal, founded American

Association of Retired Persons (AARP) in 1958. She had originally established the

National Retired Teachers' Association (NRTA) in 1947 "to promote her philosophy of

productive aging, and in response to the need of retired teachers for health insurance"

(American Association of Retired Persons 2009, 2). Dr. Andrus was instrumental in

getting many of the benefits that today serve the needs of over 35 million AARP and

NRTA members.

CARE is a humanitarian organization that fights global poverty. The CARE

website explains CARE's work in the following manner: "We place special focus on

working alongside poor women because, equipped with the proper resources, women

have the power to help whole families and entire communities escape poverty" (1).

CARE was originally founded in 1945 to provide relief to survivors of World War II and

is today one of the world's largest humanitarian organizations "committed to helping

families in poor communities improve their lives and achieve victories over poverty" (1).

CARE provides support and services that address basic human needs, survival needs, and

quality of life issues.

When the theories of Maslow and Herzberg are reviewed, significant insight into

human needs and motivations is gained. Maslow's hierarchy of needs explains that our

needs are prioritized beginning with survival needs and culminating in highly individual

esoteric needs (see figure 1 and appendix Q).

7

Figure 1. Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Reprinted with permission.

Hertzberg's (1959) research has certain parallels with Maslow's work. Herzberg

proved that people strive to achieve hygiene needs because they are unhappy without

them. However, once they are satisfied that they have acquired these needs, they will go

on to acquire the "true motivators" (appendix B). Examples of hygiene needs (e.g.,

maintenance factors) in the workplace are the following:

Policy

Relationship with supervisor

Work conditions

8

Salary

Company car

Status

Security

Relationship with subordinates

Personal life

True motivators were found to be completely different factors (appendix B). Herzberg's

true motivating factors (appendix B) include:

Achievement

Recognition

Work itself

Responsibility

Advancement

Personal growth

With Herzberg's and Maslow's theories as a resource, one can then move on to

consider the central concept of this study—servant leadership. An overview of Robert K.

Greenleaf's concept of servant leadership begins with a brief description of servant

leadership from the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership (2006): "Servant-Leadership

is a practical philosophy which supports people who choose to serve first, and then lead

as a way of expanding service to individuals and institutions. Servant-leaders may or may

not hold formal leadership positions. Servant-leadership encourages collaboration, trust,

9

foresight, listening, and the ethical use of power and empowerment." Robert Greenleaf

(1970), the person credited with inventing the concept, put the idea into words by saying:

The servant-leader is servant first. . . . It begins with the natural feeling that one

wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead.

He or she is sharply different from the person who is leader first, perhaps because

of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions.

For such it will be a later choice to serve—after leadership is established. The

leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are

shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature. (27)

The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure

that other people's highest priority needs are being served. According to Greenleaf

(1970), "The best test, and one that is difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as

persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous,

more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least

privileged in society; will they benefit, or, at least, will they not be further deprived?"

(Greenleaf 2002, 27).

The Hampton House at Butler University describes servant leadership this

way:

Servant Leadership is a practical philosophy supporting those who choose to lead

as a way of serving individuals and institutions. It encourages collaboration, trust,

foresight, listening, and the ethical use of power and empowerment. Servant

leaders may or may not hold formal leadership positions. (adapted from Greenleaf

1970)

This study looks specifically at individuals who are members of governing boards

of directors of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations and are working as nonpaid

volunteer leaders.

10

Gabriel Berger (1991) has written a definitive body of work about volunteerism in

the Third Sector (e.g., nonprofit sector). His dissertation was published in 1991 and

explains the "economic importance of volunteering in the planning and delivery of

fundamental social welfare services" (50). An overview of the importance of and reliance

upon voluntary leadership includes the fact that good leadership is critical to the survival

of many nonprofit, philanthropic organizations. While Toqueville looked at American

democratic society and the importance of volunteerism in the democratic society, we also

can see the influence of the biblical tradition in American volunteerism.

Gabriel Berger (1991) mentions John Winthrop's famous sermon to his fellow

Puritans, delivered in 1630, in which he preached about each individual's social

commitments and responsibility to their fellow men in society. Most important is the fact

that many of our organizations today could not provide the services to their clients if it

were not for the effective leadership provided by the volunteer leaders serving on their

governing boards.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this study was to reveal the degree to which the ten principles of

servant leadership, as presented by the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, motivate

nonpaid volunteers to serve on the governing boards of nonprofit, philanthropic

organizations in the United States. The principles are: (1) listening, (2) empathy,

(3) healing, (4) awareness, (5) persuasion, (6) conceptualization, (7) foresight,

(8) stewardship, (9) commitment to growth, and (10) building community.

11

Research Questions

The researcher included the principles of servant leadership in the each of the

three research questions according to the overarching themes presented by Robert

Greenleaf (1977), Larry Spears (1995), and Dr. Kent Keith (2008), former, past, and

current Chief Executive Officers of the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. The

three overarching themes are: (1) relationship-building actions, (2) future-oriented

actions, and (3) community-building actions. The researcher adapted the research

questions used by Karen Lubin (2001) and Todd Bliss (2006) and developed an

alignment matrix to show compatibility of the research questions with the 10 principles

(appendix A). The three research questions are:

1. To what degree do volunteer board members of nonprofit, philanthropic

organizations identify incidents that reflect the servant leadership principles of listening,

empathy, healing, and awareness as their motivations to serve? The overarching theme is

relationship-building actions.


organizations identify incidents that reflect the servant leadership principles of

persuasion, conceptualization, and foresight as their motivations to serve? The

overarching theme is future-oriented actions.



stewardship, commitment to growth, and building community as their motivations to

serve? The overarching theme is community-building actions.

12

Significance of the Study

Steven J. Ott (2001), author of The Nature of the Nonprofit Sector, explains, "A

strong individual element pervades volunteerism. This element consists of the giving and

volunteering behaviors that make the work of the voluntary sector possible" (62).

Research indicates that nonprofit, sometimes called Third Sector organizations, are

constantly looking for ways and means to recruit individuals to assist with the

organization's efforts on all levels. The boards of directors (governing boards) of

nonprofit, philanthropic organizations are critical to the organization's success. Simply

put, a ship without a rudder cannot sail on course."

Delimitations

The delimitations of this study include the following features.

1. The study covered ten states within the United States and the District of

Columbia. The interview participants were from Alabama, California, Connecticut,

Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, New York, Virginia, Washington, and the District of

Columbia.

2. The demographic features of the study included thirty-three interview

participants who had chosen to serve on the boards of directors of nonprofit,

philanthropic organizations in the United States.

3. The subjects studied were all nonpaid volunteer board members.

4. The classification of organizations studied was nonprofit, philanthropic

organizations.

13

5. The interviews contained two critical incident questions regarding satisfaction

and dissatisfaction.

6. The interviews took place between April 2006 and June 2007.

7. Each interview was approximately one hour in length and conducted over the

telephone.

Definitions of Terms

The definitions of terms begin with the ten principles of servant leadership,

defined by Larry Spears, former Chief Executive Officer of the Greenleaf Center and

successor to Robert K. Greenleaf. Larry Spears felt that while the ten principles "are by

no means exhaustive, "they serve to communicate the power and promise that the concept

offers" (Spears 2004, 7). The ten principles are:

Listening. Traditionally, leaders have been valued for their communication and

decision making skills. Servant-leaders must reinforce these important skills by making a

deep commitment to listening intently to others. Servant-leaders seek to identify and

clarify the will of the group. They seek to listen receptively to what is being said (and not

said). Listening also encompasses getting in touch with one's inner voice, and seeking to

understand what one's body, spirit, and mind are communicating.

Empathy. Servant-leaders strive to understand and empathize with others. People

need to be accepted and recognized for their special and unique spirit. One must assume

the good intentions of coworkers and not reject them as people, even when forced to

reject their behavior or performance.

14

Healing. Learning to heal is a powerful force for transformation and integration.

One of the great strengths of servant-leadership is the potential for healing one's self and

others. In "The Servant as Leader," Greenleaf writes, "There is something subtle

communicated to one who is being served and led if, implicit in the compact between the

servant-leader and those led is the understanding that the search for wholeness is

something that they have."

Awareness. General awareness, and especially self-awareness, strengthens the

servant-leader. Making a commitment to foster awareness can be scary—one never

knows what one may discover! As Greenleaf observed, "Awareness is not a giver of

solace—it's just the opposite. It disturbs. They are not seekers of solace. They have their

own inner security."

Persuasion. Servant-leaders rely on persuasion, rather than positional authority in

making decisions. Servant-leaders seek to convince others, rather than coerce

compliance. This particular element offers one of the clearest distinctions between the

traditional authoritarian model and that of servant-leadership. The servant-leader is

effective at building consensus within groups.

Conceptualization. Servant-leaders seek to nurture their abilities to "dream great

dreams." The ability to look at a problem (or an organization) from a conceptualizing

perspective means that one must think beyond day-to-day realities. Servant –leaders must

seek a delicate balance between conceptualization and day-to-day focus.

15

Foresight. Foresight is a characteristic that enables servant-leaders to understand

lessons from the past, the realities of the present, and the likely consequence of a decision

in the future. It is deeply rooted in the intuitive mind.

Stewardship. Robert Greenleaf's view of all institutions was one in which CEO's,

staff, directors, and trustees all play significant roles in holding their institutions in trust

for the great good of society.

Commitment to the growth of people. Servant-leaders believe that people have an

intrinsic value beyond their tangible contributions as workers. As such, Servant-leaders

are deeply committed to a personal, professional, and spiritual growth of each and every

individual within the organization.

Building community. Servant-leaders are aware that the shift from local

communities to large institutions as the primary shaper of human lives has changed our

perceptions and caused a sense of loss. Servant-leaders seek to identify a means for

building community among those who work within a given institution.

Along with the principles of servant leadership, it is important to understand the

following terminology included in this study:

Nonprofit. Defined as "not organized or engaged in with the purpose of making a

profit," according to the Wordsworth Concise English Dictionary (1994).

Philanthropic. Defined as "characterized by philanthropy, benevolent, humane,"

according to the Oxford English Dictionary (1970).

United States. Includes the forty-eight continental United States and Alaska and

Hawaii. A map including the boundaries is included in appendix C.

16

Volunteers. Individuals who choose to use some of their time to help others

(humans or animals). They do so without receiving compensation for their work and

efforts.

Participants. Individuals who agreed to participate in this study, to be interviewed

by telephone, and to answer questions presented by the researcher.

Summary

The focus of this study was to reveal the degree to which the principles of servant

leadership motivate nonpaid volunteer leaders to serve on the governing boards of

nonprofit, philanthropic organizations in the United States. The study is presented in the

following chapters. An appendix and reference list are included at the end of the

dissertation.

Chapter I provided an introduction, a statement of the problem, the purpose of the

study, the research questions, the significance of the study, the delimitations of the study,

the definitions of terms, and this summary.

Chapter II presents the literature review including an introduction, a brief history

of servant leadership, leadership theory, and an explanatory history of nonprofit,

philanthropic board leadership, servant leadership history and models, an explanation of

the ten principles of servant leadership, and a summary.

Chapter III presents the methodology used for this study, including the kind of

research and design of the research, a description of the population and sample,

explanations of the instrumentation used, procedures used for data collection, procedures

17

used for mathematical analysis of the data, and a discussion of the limitations of the

study.

Chapter IV describes the results of the study, including the findings of the

research and data collected as well as a comprehensive summary.

Chapter V reviews conclusions as a result of this study, the implications of the

findings for the nonprofit sector, implications of the findings for people working within

the nonprofit sector, recommendations for future actions and/or research within the scope

of servant leadership and the nonprofit sector.

18

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

The twenty-first century presents the global community with challenges such as

overpopulation, health and welfare problems, healthcare delivery problems, global

warming, energy-related issues, problems related to educational delivery systems, and the

global financial crisis. "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

(Recovery Act), signed into law by President Obama included $201 million in funding

for the Corporation for National and Community Service to support an expansion of

AmeriCorps State and National and AmeriCorps VISTA programs," according to the

Corporation for National & Community Service (2009).

Each year, AmeriCorps offers 75,000 opportunities for adults of all ages and

backgrounds to serve through a network of partnerships with local and national nonprofit

groups. The expansion would incrementally increase the number of participants in this

nation-at-service program from 75,000 to 250,000 in 2017. AmeriCorps money goes to

nonprofit groups and public agencies that recruit and supervise volunteers (Perry 2009).

AmeriCorps is made up of three main programs: AmeriCorps State and National,

AmeriCorps VISTA, and AmeriCorps NCCC (National Civilian Community Corps).

AmeriCorps State and National supports a broad range of local service programs that

19

engage thousands of Americans in intensive service to meet critical community needs.

AmeriCorps offers individuals the opportunity to serve others in need.

Ott (2001) stated, "People everywhere respond to problems by coming together

out of mutual caring, organizing their efforts, and initiating activities and programs to

ameliorate, remedy, or 'pick up the pieces' behind society's problems or nature's disasters"

(2). Nonprofit organizations look to volunteerism to fill the gaps between available

financial and other resources and the needs of their constituents and constituencies.

This chapter looks at volunteerism and servant leadership. After briefly

considering morals, values, and ethics in relation to servant leadership, the chapter

presents an overview of leadership theory, philanthropy and volunteerism, and volunteer

board leadership of nonprofit philanthropic organizations. A brief history of servant

leadership is presented followed by leadership in education and religious life. The chapter

concludes with an in-depth look at the ten principles of servant leadership and servant

leadership theory and models.

Purpose of the Study




organizations in the United States.

20

Research Questions



empathy, healing, and awareness as their motivations to serve?



persuasion, conceptualization, and foresight as their motivations to serve?




serve?

An example of the new leadership required in this millennium is stated succinctly

by President Obama's appointment for Veteran's Affairs Secretary, General Eric K.

Shinseki. When he left his post in June 2003, Shinseki warned against arrogant leadership

when he said, "You must love those you lead before you can be an effective leader. You

can certainly command without that sense of commitment but you cannot lead without it.

And without leadership, command is a hollow experience, a vacuum often filled with

mistrust and arrogance" (© Associated Press, 2008, reprinted with permission)

Brief Overview of Leadership Theory

According to Tosi, Mero, and Rizzo (2005),

Though contemporary organizational behavior began to emerge as a distinct area

of research and academic specialization in the late 1950s and early 1960s, it can

trace its roots to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, and its conceptual

21

roots to four approaches to management: 1. The scientific management approach,

2. Administrative theory, 3. Industrial psychology, and 4. The human relations

perspective. (6)

As the field of management and management research developed, the concept of

transactional analysis and leadership evolved.

Bliss (2006) stated,

The literature is filled with theorists on leadership. Warren Bennis, Margaret

Wheatley, Peter Senge, Peter Drucker, Stephen Covey, Jim Collins, and Thomas

Sergiovanni are among the most widely respected management scholars. . . .

Recurring themes within their writings suggest that truth, integrity, building

relationships and service are essential leadership qualities. (22)

This chapter looks briefly at leadership theory and finally its relationship to servant

leadership.

Basic Leadership Approaches

First, there are behavioral approaches and models of leadership. Autocratic

leadership theory presents the leader as an authority figure and followers as subject to his

or her control. Participative leadership includes input from the members of the group

and/or organization so that members are considered to be participants rather than

followers. Laissez-faire leadership is explained as basically a "what will be, will be" type

of leadership (Tosi, Mero, and Rizzo 2005, 457).

Contingency theories include Fiedler theory, path-goal theory, and Vroom-Yetton

theory (Tosi, Mero, and Rizzo 2005). The Fiedler theory accounts for situational factors

and integrates relationships between leader and group, task structure, and the leader's

orientation toward those with whom he works rather than the leader's behavior. Path-goal

theory looks at the leader's behavior and links it to performance. In other words, the tasks

22

to achieve a goal are the path, and organizational outcomes are the goals. It is the leader's

job to basically remove barriers on the path so that the goal(s) can be achieved. The

Vroom-Yetton model is presented as a decision matrix. It is based upon situational

variables that occur within an organization and identified characteristics of the leader and

how the two interact (Tosi, Mero, and Rizzo 2005).

Process theories of leadership have been developed more recently and look at the

process(es) wherein a relationship develops between leaders and subordinates. One of

these theories is transformational leadership theory (Tosi, Mero, and Rizzo 2005).

Transformational leadership, as compared to transactional leadership, has a completely

different impact upon those being lead.

"The transactional leadership style was first described by Max Weber in 1947

and again by Bernard M. Bass in 1981" (Moneyzine.com 2004-2007, 1). One way to

think of transactional leadership is this: "It's at the opposite end of the leadership

spectrum" (Moneyzine.com 2004-2007, 1). Transactional leadership has to do with price

and payment. One person contracts with another for the purpose of exchanging

something or things of value. The transactional leader provides payment that is valued by

the follower (Tosi, Mero, and Rizzo 2005). Transactional leaders work within the

existing organizational climate.

The transactional leadership style developed by Max Weber in 1947 and

described again by Bernard M. Bass in 1981 is based on the hypothesis that followers are

motivated through a system of rewards and punishment. The transactional leader's view

of the leader/follower relationship is one of quid pro quo—or this for that. If the follower

23

does something good, he or she will be rewarded. If the follower does something wrong,

he or she will be punished (Money-zine.com 2006).

Transformational Leadership

James MacGregor Burns (1978) first introduced the concepts of transformational

and transactional leadership in his treatment of political leadership, but this term is now

used in organizational psychology as well.

Transformational leadership actually changes the organizational climate. In other

words, Burns (1978) states, "Transformational leadership occurs when one or more

persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to

higher levels of motivation and morality" (20). The online definition (Wikipedia.com),

"Transformational leadership is a leadership style where . . . a transformational leader

focuses on 'transforming' others to help each other, to look out for each other, be

encouraging, harmonious, and look out for the organization as a whole."

Todd Bliss (2006) explained the models of transactional and transformational

leadership as "two forms of leadership that would provide a conceptual framework for

how future theorists defined the role of leadership" (37). Burns (1978) defined

transactional leadership as "leaders inducing followers to act for certain goals that

represent the values and motivations and wants and needs, the aspirations and

expectations of both leaders and followers" (133).

Motivation Theory

Motivational theory deals with intrinsic and extrinsic rewards that serve as a

24

catalyst to a person's actions:

There is a great deal of evidence that people are hardwired to care about purposes.

We seem to need to see ourselves as going somewhere—as being on a journey in

pursuit of a significant purpose. . . . There is also much evidence that people

suffer when they lack purpose. Clinical studies show that people deteriorate in

various ways without purpose. (Thomas 2000, 22)

Frederick Herzberg, in his book The Motivation to Work (1959), researched what

motivates people to want to work and what motivates people to be productive in their

jobs. He developed categories of motivators and hygiene factors. As shown in the graphic

chart in figure 2, factors that lead to advancement are motivators, and factors that lead to

personal satisfaction/dissatisfaction are hygiene factors.

Figure 2. Herzberg's motivators and hygiene factors. Reprinted with permission.

25

The number one satisfier among Herzberg's (1959) motivators is achievement.

Herzberg's motivators and hygiene factors, as seen in figure 2, displays percentages of

frequency causing high and low attitude effects. The number one motivator with the

highest frequency cause of satisfaction is achievement. Second is recognition, third is the

work itself, and fourth is responsibility. In other words, when people achieve their goals

and objectives (purpose), they are the most highly satisfied. This is an example of an

intrinsic (e.g., internal) reward and validates the fact that most people need to have a

sense of purpose. Figure 2 refers to Herzberg's motivators and hygiene factors.

Dr. Tom Harvey and Dr. Bonita Drolet (2004) summed up the concept of a sense

of purpose leading to achievement when they said, "In motivation and change theory, this

concept is called 'valence'—people do things for which they expect payoff . . . not

necessarily in money, but perhaps in recognition, achievement, or interpersonal relations"

(216). When success leads to personal recognition, a personal sense of achievement, and

enhanced interpersonal relations, an individual is moving toward self-actualization (see

figure 1). The chart in figure 1 displays a pyramid with self-actualization at the top of the

pyramid. Covey, Merrill, and Merrill (1995) explained that "when the conditions of

empowerment are in place, servant leadership creates powerful results" (251).

Service Model

Kent M. Keith (2008), CEO of the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership,

explains that the service model has a base that is moral, that identifies and meets the

needs of others, and treats them as equals and partners. He explains,

26

The servant leader knows that power is a means, not an end. It is only a tool.

Often it is not even the most important tool. There are many tools, such as

listening and coaching, that turn out to be more important than power. Because

power is only a tool, great servant leaders have been willing to give it up when

they no longer need it to serve others. . . . They made the leadership contribution

that was needed at the time, and then passed the power to others. (Keith 2008, 24)


Philanthropy and Volunteerism

The roots of philanthropy date back to the time of Plato (Purcell 2001). Plato's

will stated that his farm was to be left to a nephew. The instructions stated that the

proceeds were to be used to support students and faculty at the academy he founded.

27

Throughout the following centuries, philanthropy developed and grew to be what it is

today. Charitable organizations represent healthcare, welfare, education, the ministry, and

a host of domestic and international causes.

According to Gibson (2008), "Nonprofits' role in promoting democracy . . . goes

beyond individual communities. As it has been for the past century, the nonprofit sector

is the doorway through which millions of Americans pursue a diverse array of cultural,

social, political, and religious beliefs through civic opportunities that are the hallmark of

a healthy democracy" (29).

The Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action

(ARNOVA) recognized philanthropic challenges and traditions in the book Philanthropy

in Communities of Color (Rogers 2001). Representatives of the various communities

discuss African American, Latino, Native American, and Asian American traditions and

challenges. Socioeconomic, cultural, historical, contemporary, religious, and other

philanthropic contexts specific to each group are discussed. Dr. Pier C. Rogers, editor,

concludes:

Although differences (among each group) are highlighted, there are many

parallels that emerge or that can be drawn out of the various examples . . . which

can then be incorporated into a variety of approaches that are suitably altered to

address the values of the different individuals and communities. (95).

This study makes note of the fact that philanthropy, volunteerism, and servant

leadership have no cultural, ethnic, racial, gender, socioeconomic, community, domestic,

international, or any other boundaries. Philanthropy, volunteerism, and servant leadership

are concepts and practices available to anyone throughout his or her lifetime.

28

The National Philanthropic Trust reports that there are approximately 1.1 million

charitable organizations in the United States today (appendix K). There are a reported

355,000 religious congregations in the United States. While "American giving reached a

record high in 2006, with donations totaling $295 billion," giving to the arts and

education saw donations rise more than 6 percent in 2006 (Giving USA Foundation 2007;

National Philanthropic Trust 2008). In 2006, 83 percent of total contributions came from

donations from individuals. This number includes individuals and bequests. These

numbers are astonishing when we consider the power individuals have to make a positive

impact on the domestic and global economies.

A Chronological History of Philanthropy in the United States (National

Philanthropic Trust 2008) shows the positive and lasting effect Benjamin Franklin had

during his life in Philadelphia, PA and Boston, MA. A few organizations, which he was

instrumental in starting, include The Library Company of Philadelphia, American

Philosophical Society, Proposals for Education of Youth in Pennsylvania, The

Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia Bettering House, (e.g., Pauper House), St. George

Society (e.g., oldest charity in the U.S.), and the Society for Alleviating the Miseries of

Public Prisons (e.g., earliest prison reform). Today there are millions of philanthropists

and volunteers working to improve society (see appendix K).

One study conducted by Johns Hopkins University in 2003 explains that nonprofit

employees and volunteers account for approximately 10 percent of America's work force

(Greene 2003). This number is growing during these challenging economic times. In fact,

the nonprofit sector employs 10.2 million people, accounting for 6.9 percent of the total

29

U.S. work force (see appendix K), and the number of U.S. nonprofits has doubled in the

past five years. Perhaps the most crucial component of the nonprofit sector workforce is

the volunteers. Light (2002) stated,

To get Americans into the volunteering habit, though, it will not be enough to ask

them to volunteer—or even to get them to show up for a first experience. The

service itself must be meaningful or volunteers will not come back. To the extent

that interest in work in the nonprofit sector can be used as a surrogate for future

interest in volunteering, these data suggest that the quality of the volunteer

experience matters. [The] President may well encourage more volunteers to show

up, but it is up to the organizations they serve to provide the work needed for a

longer engagement. (47)

Gabriel Berger (1991), a leading researcher on factors explaining volunteering in

the U.S., explained,

The consensus among critics of the altruistic vision of volunteering is that most

volunteer activity is the result of multiple causation, with altruism being a very

minor factor in volunteering for organizations. While altruism entails self-

sacrifice for the common good or to help others, Smith (1981) argues that there is

no absolute altruism because even in apparent altruistic acts, individuals obtain

self-satisfying psychic rewards from them. Contrary to common beliefs which

relate volunteer work solely to altruistic motives, people would have at the same

time both other and self-oriented reasons to volunteer. (80)

According to Eisner et al. (2009), "If nonprofit leaders want highly skilled

volunteers to come and stay, they need to expand their vision of volunteering by creating

an experience that is meaningful, develops skills, demonstrates impact, and taps into

volunteers' abilities and interests" (35). The most important factor here is that no matter

how truly altruistic each volunteer may be, the volunteer experience must be satisfying to

each volunteer if the organization wants to retain its volunteers.

The executive director, or president, of the organization interfaces between the

organization and the board of directors. As the point person, it is his or her responsibility

30

to convey the wishes of the board to the employees of the organization. As Dr. Berger's

(1991) dissertation clearly states, "You have to have people to manage volunteers, and

encourage volunteers, and to support volunteers" (335).

Volunteer Board Leadership of Nonprofit, Philanthropic

Organizations in the U.S.

A nonprofit board is a group of people chosen to oversee the long-term health of

the organization. Board members typically serve without financial compensation and are

responsible for (1) setting policies, (2) hiring the executive director of the organization,

(3) overseeing organization finances, and (4) raising funds. In a larger sense, board

members are charged with preserving the public trust—making sure that the organization

does not abuse the special rights it has been afforded by the government via its IRS status

as a public charity (e.g., 501 (c)(3) corp.). "In the U.S. the law ultimately holds the board

of a nonprofit organization responsible for the affairs and conduct of the organization.

The moral assumption is that the board will conduct the affairs of the charity as a public

steward, ensuring that the organization serves the interests of the larger community"

(Herman and Renz 1997, 2).

Board members are recruited from the ranks of dedicated volunteers and

community members who are dedicated to the philanthropic effort(s) of the organization.

The World Wings International board is selected by the following process. This process

is generically representative of process(es) used by most organizations in the United

States. The nominating committee proposes a slate of potential nominees prior to the

general election. The general election then takes place through U.S. mail, electronic mail,

31

and/or at a meeting of the general membership once every three years. While board

membership can potentially be political in nature, ultimately the membership has the

voting capability to select board members who appear to represent the best interests of

the organization during their campaigns.

Another class of board membership is the board members who are selected at the

discretion of the president or chairperson of the board. These appointed board members

hold positions such as membership development director, communications director, and

editor. These positions are often critical to the survival of the organization but are not

subject to general election, due to the charter of the organization and/or the nature of the

position and the qualifications necessary to carry out the job. Peter Dobkin Hall (2003)

stated,

Like property rights, the roles and responsibilities of boards of directors and the

organizations with which they are associated—as well as the broader legal,

governmental, and economic settings in which they operate—have evolved and

changed over time. . . . The antecedents of modern nonprofit governance practices

in America date back to the earliest settlers. . . . The Massachusetts Bay

Company's charter—which created the first American board . . . delegated the

right to govern. . . . Perpetual succession, in other words, became an attribute of

the corporation rather than of the individuals who comprised it. (3-4)

Hall (2003) went on to explain how the origins of lay governance occurred at

Harvard: "Recognizing the need to train future leaders, the Massachusetts colonists

established a college in 1636. The legislature placed the school under the authority of a

governing board consisting of 12 overseers, including six magistrates and six ministers"

(5). As time progressed, Yale appointed a board of trustees as well. Hall continued,

"Yale's new charter strengthened the college's capacity to govern itself by clarifying

trustees' roles as members of a corporation. But while clarifying its character to act

32

collectively, the charter left the capacities of individual trustees to act independently

undefined" (7).

As time progressed, the role of the nonprofit board and its members clearly

needed defining. According to Hall (2003),

The decision in the Dartmouth College [board] case was perhaps the single most

important judgment handed down by an American court. [Chief Justice]

Marshall's decision did more than protect corporations from legislative

interference: It advanced the notion that the will of the public could be expressed

by other than electoral and governmental means. In doing this, it legitimated the

idea of private associational initiative in the public interest. To this conception,

perhaps more than any other, the nonprofit sector owes its existence. (12)

According to John Carver (2006), considered to be the foremost authority on

board governance, "Boards control most group undertakings in the world. . . . They are

our most ubiquitous, visible, powerful instance of group servant-leadership—or lack of it.

With respect to a 'moral ownership' (if not always a legal one), the board is a group

servant-leader" (1).

Carver (2006) stated, "With respect to the board, the chairperson is a servant-

leader. The chair, therefore, holds a double servant-leader role. . . . The role of board

chairperson properly construed is the most pervasive instance of institutional servant-

leadership in our culture" (1). It is the board chairperson who is the point person for the

executive director of each organization.

It is within the context of the board as a "group servant-leader" that Dr. Carver

(2006) explains his vision of effective board leadership as transformative thereby having

the ability to produce "a substantially new institution" (3). By a new institution, Dr.

Carver explains that effective policy governance will create a board that is responsive to

33

the needs of the organization while leading with transparency and clarity. Dr. Carver

says, "The choice of servant-leadership is not something you do, but (is) an expression of

your being" (3).

Robert Greenleaf's (2002) vision of board members was, "The most important

qualification for trustees should be that they care for the institution, which means that

they care for all of the people the institution touches, and that they are determined to

make their caring count" (68). He added to the general qualifications for board

membership by explaining, "The chairman stands apart from administration, but he is

inside. He must be well informed and, as the servant-leader of the board, he must be

influential. But he must also stand outside with some objectivity that allows him to watch

and evaluate. There is a subtle paradox in his role—he is both inside and outside" (7).

The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies has put together a list of universally desirable

leadership attributes (House et al. 2004). The research included the following attributes:

trustworthy, foresight, positive, confidence builder, intelligent, win–win problem solver,

administrative skilled, excellence oriented, just plans ahead, dynamic, motivational,

decisive, communicative, coordinator, honest, encouraging, motive arouser, dependable,

effective bargainer, informed, team builder.

A review of the GLOBE universally desirable leadership attributes shows that the

attributes are aligned with the ten principles of servant leadership.

According to Hsu (2005),

America's Best Leaders were chosen by the Center for Public Leadership at

Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. The committee

used a four-point selection criteria—accomplishments within the past five years,

values, durability, and commitment to developing other leaders. All twenty-five

34

leaders share a clearly articulated vision, measurable results, and in the words of

one management guru, Big Hairy Audacious Goals. (63)

Two of the twenty-five distinguished leaders selected were Bill and Melinda

Gates. A review of board leadership history often begins with Bill and Melinda Gates

because she has been described in the following manner: "She will happily roll up her

sleeves to understand the real-world applications" (Chase 2006, R3). Melinda Gates is

quoted as telling her children about her visits to AIDS projects worldwide because "they

(her children) need to know the problems of the world and their own responsibility in

addressing them" (Chase 2006, R3). Both successful leaders and successful organizations

have been found to practice servant leadership.

Dr. Laub's (2003) OLA (organizational leadership assessment) model, "Six

Organizational Health Level Descriptions" (see chart in figure 3) has been used

extensively by many consultants and organizations as a tool for organizational leadership

assessment purposes. The model has also been used to develop the growing body of

research about servant leadership. The model represents the distinct differences between

three major leadership styles: (1) autocratic, (2) paternalistic, and (3) servant leadership.

The "Six Organizational Health Level Descriptions" can be used to assess leadership

effectiveness in small and large, old and new, and centralized and decentralized

organizations.

35

Ser

van

t L

ead

ersh

ip

Org 6

Optimal

Health

Workers experience this organization as a servant-minded organization

characterized by authenticity, the valuing and developing of people, the

building of community and the providing and sharing of positive leadership.

These characteristics are evident throughout the entire organization. People

are trusted and are trustworthy throughout the organization. They are

motivated to serve the interests of each other before their own self-interest

and are open to learning from each other. Leaders and workers view each

other as partners working in a spirit of collaboration.

Org 5 Excellent

Health

Workers experience this organization as a servant-oriented organization


building of community and the providing and sharing of positive leadership.

These characteristics are evident throughout much of the organization.

People are trusted and are trustworthy. They are motivated to serve the

interests of each other before their own self-interest and are open to learning

from each other. Leaders and workers view each other as partners working

in a spirit of collaboration.

Pate

rnali

stic

Lea

der

ship

Org 4 Moderate

Health

Workers experience this organization as a positively paternalistic (parent-

led) organization characterized by a moderate level of trust and

trustworthiness along with occasional uncertainty and fear. Creativity is

encouraged as long as it doesn't move the organization too far beyond the

status quo. Risks can be taken but failure is sometimes feared. Goals are

mostly clear, through the overall direction of the organization is sometimes

confused. Leaders often take the role of nurturing parent while workers

assume the role of the cared-for child.

Org 3 Limited

Health

Workers experience this organization as a negatively paternalistic (parent-

led) organization characterized by minimal to moderate levels of trust and

trustworthiness along with an underlying uncertainty and fear. People feel

that they must prove themselves and that they are only as good as their last

performance. Workers are sometimes listened to but only when they speak

in line with the values and priorities of the leaders. Conformity is expected

while individual expression is discouraged. Leaders often take the role of

critical parent while workers assume the role of the cautious child.

Au

tocr

ati

c L

ead

ersh

ip

Org 2 Poor

Health

Workers experience this organization as an autocratic-led organization

characterized by low levels of trust and trustworthiness and high levels of

uncertainty and fear. People lack motivation to serve the organization

because they do not feel that it is their organization or their goals.

Leadership is autocratic in style and is imposed from the top levels of the

organization. It is an environment where risks are seldom taken, failure is

often punished and creativity is discouraged. Most workers do not feel

valued and often feel used by those in leadership. Change is needed but is

very difficult to achieve.

Org 1 Toxic Workers experience this organization as a dangerous place to work…a place

characterized by dishonesty and a deep lack of integrity among its workers

and leaders. Workers are devalued, used and sometimes abused. Positive

leadership is missing at all levels and power is used in ways that are harmful

to workers, and the mission of the organization. There is almost no trust and

an extremely high level of fear. This organization will find it nearly

impossible to locate, develop and maintain healthy workers who can assist

in producing positive organizational change.

Figure 3. Six organizational health levels. Source: Laub 2003. Reprinted with permission.

36

Six Organizational Health Level Descriptions

The following organizations represent a small selection of some of the thousands

of nonprofit philanthropic organizations in the United States. They fulfill some or most of

the criteria for excellent and optimal health as stated in the servant leadership portion of

the "Six Organizational Health Levels" matrix (see chart in figure 3).

1. CARE (Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc.) is a leading

humanitarian organization fighting global poverty worldwide. CARE seeks to empower

women and children globally by establishing projects throughout the developing

countries that assist the least fortunate inhabitants.

2. World Wings International was incorporated in the state of New York in 1959

as a philanthropic organization of former flight attendants of Pan American World

Airways. World Wings is a U.S.-based nonprofit organization and has partnered with

CARE in support of CARE's humanitarian efforts. While World Wings is primarily

involved in fundraising efforts, there is some participation of its members in the oversight

of international and local philanthropic projects.

3. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)

works tirelessly 24/7 toward the goals of preventing animal cruelty and finding

permanent, loving homes for America's adoptable pets. Chapters of the SPCA, such as

the Peninsula Humane Society, work toward the overarching goals of the ASPCA at the

local level.

4. Breathe California is dedicated to healthy air and preventing lung and other air

pollution-related diseases by working with the community. Breathe California was a

37

chapter of The American Lung Association until 2006. They established their

independent charter in 2006. Breathe California serves over 140,000 people in the San

Francisco Bay area.

5. Japanese-American Museum of San Jose (JAMS) preserves and disseminates

information about the culture and history of Japanese Americans, with a special focus on

the Santa Clara Valley, California. JAMS board is committed to outreach throughout the

community in order to educate the community about Japanese history and culture.

6. TESOL is the acronym for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other

Languages. TESOL is the largest and most well-known organization that serves teaching

professionals worldwide. Based in Alexandria, Virginia, TESOL serves thousands of

educators by providing networking opportunities and professional development courses

to professionals who often would have no way to improve and/or enhance best practices

in the profession of teaching language acquisition and development. TESOL's mission is

to ensure excellence in English language instruction.

7. Mission Hospice provides quality professional care and compassionate support

for terminally ill patients. In March of 1979, Mission Hospice was incorporated in San

Mateo County, California. Since that time, Mission Hospice has served thousands of

terminally ill patients and their loved ones.

8. The Chaffey College Foundation was organized and established in 1987 by

friends and alumni of the college. The purpose of the foundation is to retain Chaffey's

leadership role in higher education by raising the necessary funds to fulfill student

enrichment and goals. The task is achieved through student scholarships and

38

programs/facility enhancements. The Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization of

dedicated community leaders who volunteer their time.

9. Altrusa International is a U.S.-based international association of professional

women and men who volunteer their energies and expertise in projects dedicated to

community betterment. Altrusa is also a community service organization that espouses

volunteerism, service, and fights for literacy and against AIDS.

In the twenty-first century there are a growing number of organizations that are

present in the virtual world (Internet) as well as the physical world. An example of a

successful Internet-based nonprofit organization is Bridges for Women. Collins (2007)

stated, "Bridges, offers employability programs for abused women. Opened in Victoria,

British Columbia, Canada in 1988, Bridges now runs 12 offices around B.C. and also

offers classes through its website. . . . But for Bridges, and other nonprofits like them, a

presence in a virtual world could be the future of their operations" (A19). Bridges for

Women has established its presence in the virtual world of Second Life

(http://www.secondlife.com).

When considering the operations and functions of boards, in the physical world or

in the virtual world, the board chairperson sets the tone for the board and for the

organization. In his book, The Unique Double Servant Leadership Role of the Board

Chairperson, John Carver (1999) explains the transformative role of the board

chairperson or the board president and its relationship to servant leadership. He states,

"The governing role of any board is not to administer an institution, but to be an owner-

representative . . . must recognize that proper governance is a logical impossibility if it

39

does not include the concept of servant-leadership. The board is a microcosm of the

ownership . . . the board is an organ of ownership" (6).

In the monograph, John Carver (1999) explains his Policy Governance® model

and the role of the chairperson. He coded his Policy Governance model of board

leadership and applies it to all governing. Carver then positions Policy Governance with

respect to Greenleaf's work. He explains how his vision of effective governance and the

use of servant leadership result in effective transformative board leadership and thus

transformational organizational change. Carver says, "If the judgment of history is kind,

the Policy Governance model may merit being seen as a technology of Servant-

leadership" (4). In other words, the board chairperson is the servant leader leading the

servant leaders. The Policy Governance model is explained as follows:

Policy Governance®, an integrated board leadership paradigm created by

Dr. John Carver, is a groundbreaking model of governance designed to empower

boards of directors to fulfill their obligation of accountability for the organizations

they govern. As a generic system, it is applicable to the governing body of any

enterprise. The model enables the board to focus on the larger issues, to delegate

with clarity, to control management's job without meddling, to rigorously evaluate

the accomplishment of the organization; to truly lead its organization.

In contrast to the approaches typically used by boards, Policy Governance

separates issues of organizational purpose (ENDS) from all other organizational

issues (MEANS), placing primary importance on those Ends. Policy Governance

boards demand accomplishment of purpose, and only limit the staff's available

means to those which do not violate the board's pre-stated standards of prudence

and ethics. (PolicyGovernance.com 2009)

History of Servant Leadership

The concept of servant leadership came to be as a result of Robert K. Greenleaf's

forty years at American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T). Robert Greenleaf (1904-

1990) spent much of his time working in the field of organizational management and

40

research, development, and education. He then went on to become a consultant for

twenty-five more years after his retirement from AT&T. Greenleaf concluded that

leadership should meet the needs of the members of the organization/group and should be

focused on others rather than oneself. In other words, leadership should not be guided by

self-interest. He founded the Center for Applied Ethics in 1964, and the center became

the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership in 1985. He published many essays,

monographs, papers, and books on the subject of servant leadership.

Greenleaf (1977) had a twofold concern: "First for the individual in society and

his bent to deal with the massive problems of our times wholly in terms of systems,

ideologies, and movements . . . [and] second . . . for the individual as a serving person

and his tendency to deny wholeness and creative fulfillment for himself by failing to lead

when he could lead" (7).

The concept of servant leadership came from two major sources: first, Greenleaf's

years of work with large organizations and his observations of leadership within these

organizations and second, his reading of Herman Hesse's novel Journey to the East. In

Hesse's novel a group of people take a mythical journey on a spiritual quest. The central,

sustaining person on the quest is Leo. Greenleaf (2008) relates,

Leo accompanies the party as the servant who does their menial chores, but who

also sustains them with his spirit and his song. He is a person of extraordinary

presence. All goes well until Leo disappears. Then the group falls into disarray

and the journey is abandoned. They cannot make it without the servant Leo. The

narrator, one of the party, after some years of wandering finds Leo and is taken

into the Order that had sponsored the journey. There he discovers that Leo, whom

he had known first as servant, was in fact the titular head of the Order, its guiding

spirit, a great and noble leader. (27)

41

Greenleaf (2008) finds that Hesse's story clearly says, "The great leader is seen as

servant first, and that simple fact is the key to his greatness. Leo was actually the leader

all of the time, but he was servant first because that was what he was, deep down inside"

(9). Greenleaf uses the reference to Hesse as an introduction to his writing about servant

leadership and his thesis, "that more servants should emerge as leaders, or should follow

only servant-leaders" (12).

Greenleaf (2008) recognized that his concept of servant leader was a contradiction

in terms and that the world is full of contradictions. He also prophetically recognized that

"among the legions of deprived and unsophisticated people are many true servants who

will lead, and that most of them can learn to discriminate among those who presume to

serve them and identify the true servants" (16). Robert Greenleaf coined the term servant

leader and published his first booklet about servant leadership, The Servant as Leader, in

1970. The revised printing was published in 2008.

Larry Spears, CEO of the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership until 2007,

studied the original works of Robert Greenleaf and identified the ten principles of

servant leadership: (1) listening, (2) empathy, (3) healing, (4) awareness, (5) persuasion,

(6) conceptualization, (7) foresight, (8) stewardship, (9) commitment to growth, and

(10) building community. Albert Einstein understood the concept of serving when he

said, "The high destiny of the individual is to serve rather than to rule." Servant

leadership is a way to work toward that high destiny (Keith 2008, 30).

Kent M. Keith (2008), current CEO of the Greenleaf Center for Servant

Leadership, explained, "The concept of servant leadership is closely aligned with the

42

concepts of stewardship, co-leadership and transforming leadership" (10). He went on to

explain,

A transactional leader may be a power-oriented leader. . . . A transforming leader

may be a servant-leader, a 'servant-first' because he or she satisfied higher needs,

and converts followers into leaders and leaders into moral agents. . . . The

transforming leader looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy

higher needs, and engages the full person of the follower. The result of

transforming leadership is a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that

converts followers and leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents. (12)

In his book, The Case for Servant Leadership, Keith (2008) recognized other

experts such as Ken Blanchard, who Keith said was convinced that "servant leadership is

the foundation for effective leadership" (31). Keith also recognizes Stephen Covey, Peter

Drucker, Jim Collins, and Peter Senge, among others, as advocates of servant leadership

due to their recognition of servant leadership as "the deeper territory of true leadership"

(Senge 1995).

Larry Spears (1995) stated,

We are beginning to see that traditional autocratic and hierarchical modes of

leadership are slowly yielding to a newer model—one that attempts to

simultaneously enhance the personal growth of workers and improve the quality

and caring of our many institutions through a combination of teamwork and

community, personal involvement in decision making, and ethical and caring

behavior. This emerging approach to leadership and service is called servant-

leadership. (2)

Servant Leadership in the Profession of Education

There have been studies throughout the United States that detail the work of

exemplary teachers and their successful use of servant leadership in their teaching

practice. Servant Leadership and the art of Teaching, by Joshua B. Powers and John W.

Moore (2004) examines how servant leadership is fundamental to the practice and

43

profession of successful teachers. They stated, "Recent scholarship on teaching practice

reinforces Greenleaf's ideas on serving students. . . . Their study of more collaboratively

based and active-learning approaches to teaching showed highly significant increases in

learning over the traditional passive lecture approach. Best practices in teaching display

the ten principles of servant leadership to varying degrees" (7).

In 2001, Dr. Karin A. Lubin published her dissertation about "Visionary Leader

Behaviors and Their Congruency with Servant Leadership Characteristics." The data

collection relied on oral responses to interview questions based on Larry Spears's (1995)

ten characteristics of servant leadership. Dr. Lubin interviewed "visionary leaders" at

small school sites. Based upon the questions that all of the interviewees answered, Dr.

Lubin then looked for associations between categories of data that included the ten

principles of servant leadership. Dr. Lubin found that the behaviors of visionary leaders

were congruent with nine of the ten principles of servant leadership. The evidence of this

premise was also presented in Todd Bliss's (2006) University of La Verne dissertation.

Dr. Bliss's study, "Servant Leadership in K-12 Distinguished Teacher's

Professional Practice," validated the employment of the ten principles of servant

leadership by outstanding teachers in Monterey County, California. He interviewed

"thirty-five publicly recognized distinguished teachers. The teachers were asked to give

examples of actions that are congruent with the characteristics of servant leadership. His

study examined the perceived relationships between successful teaching techniques

utilized by outstanding teachers and servant leadership practices as defined by Robert

Greenleaf (1977) and Larry Spears (1995)" (Bliss 2006, 10-12). Studies have consistently

44

validated the use of some, or all, of the ten principles of servant leadership by successful

educational leaders.

Servant Leadership in Religious Life

Servant leadership is prevalent throughout religious and secular life. Some of

those who have answered the call to be servant leaders are those who have entered the

ministry. Rick Warren, founding pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California,

gave the invocation speech at the Inauguration of President Barack Obama on January 20,

2009. The content of his speech included the concept of servant leadership. In his most

recent book, The Purpose-Driven Life, Rick Warren (2002) explains his vision of life's

purpose within a religious context. His biblical references and quotes lead the reader on a

journey of self-discovery. Rick Warren writes, "Servants think about their work, not what

others are doing. They don't compare, criticize, or compete with other servants or

ministries. They're too busy doing the work" (268). The book is written to guide the

reader toward religious discovery; however, the essence of servant leadership can be

derived from several passages throughout the book.

Ten Principles of Servant Leadership

We are all of us both leaders and followers in different parts of our lives. Servant-

Leadership encourages everyone to balance leading and serving within his or her

own lives. For people who are in leadership positions, it reminds us that our

primary responsibility is in serving others. For those in follower positions, it

encourages us to look for situational opportunities to provide leadership. The end

result of this moving back-and-forth between leading and following is to enhance

our lives as individuals, and to raise the very possibilities of our many institutions.

—Burkhardt and Spears, Servant-leadership and Philanthropic Institutions

45

The work of Robert K. Greenleaf Center inspired Larry C. Spears to become the

CEO of the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, located in Indianapolis, Indiana.

After carefully studying Greenleaf's work, Spears identified ten characteristics of servant

leadership. Larry Spears retired in 2008, and Kent M. Keith became the CEO of the

Greenleaf Center. The ten characteristics, identified by Spears, became known as the ten

principles of servant leadership (Spears 1995). The ten principles are the foundation of

servant leadership today . The principles are: listening, empathy, healing, awareness,

persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth, and

building community.

Betsy N. Hine (2008) volunteered her library skills and expertise for the benefit of

the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. She compiled The Hine Bibliography of

Selected Monographic Resources on Servant Leadership. The Hine Bibliography serves

as a definitive resource for those wishing to study servant leadership more in depth.

A review of the literature presents many writers who have expressed, as Lubin

(2001) stated, "the dilemma of leadership that is disconnected from the workers whom

the leaders serve. Emerging alternative leadership models are especially relevant in

today's world. Servant Leadership offers a model which embraces people in relationships

and incorporates ethical and caring values" (30).

Writers who were pioneers in the field of servant leadership and/or addressed one

or more of the ten principles of servant leadership in detail include Autry (2001), Bekkers

(2004a, 2004b), Berger (1991), Blanchard (2003), Block (1996), Bollier (1996), Carver

(1999), Collins (2001), Covey (1991), Covey, Merrill, and Merrill (1995), DePree (1995),

46

Greenleaf (1972, 1977), Keith (2008), Kim (2002), Kouzes and Posner (1995), Light

(2008), Maxwell (2007), Powers and Moore (2004), Senge (1990), Senge et al. (1994),

Spears (1995, 1997, 2001, 2004, 2005), Wheatley (2002), and many more. The ten

principles of servant leadership are highlighted by several of these writers and scholars as

follows:

1. Listening. Leaders have traditionally been valued for their communication and

decision-making skills. While these are also important skills for the servant leader, they

need to be reinforced by a deep commitment to listening intently to others. The servant

leader seeks to identify the will of a group and helps clarify that will. He or she seeks to

listen receptively to what is being said. Listening, coupled with regular periods of

reflection, is essential to the growth of the servant-leader. Spears (1995) stated,

"Listening, coupled with regular periods of reflection, is essential to the growth of the

servant leader" (4).

2. Empathy. The servant leader strives to understand and empathize with others.

People need to be accepted and recognized for their special and unique spirits. One

assumes the good intentions of coworkers and does not reject them as people, even if one

finds it necessary to refuse to accept their behavior or performance. Burkhardt and Spears

(2000) pointed out, "They accept and recognize others for their unique gifts and spirits.

One assumes the good intentions of co-workers and does not reject them as people" (4).

3. Healing. One of the great strengths of servant leadership is the potential for

healing oneself and others. Many people have broken spirits and have suffered from a

variety of emotional hurts. Although this is part of being human, servant leaders

47

recognize that they also have an opportunity to "help make whole" those with whom they

come in contact. In Practicing Servant Leadership, Spears (2004) writes, "There is

something subtle communicated to one who is being served and led if implicit in the

compact between servant-leader and led is the understanding that the search for

wholeness is something they share" (8). We find examples and stories about healing

oneself and healing others throughout religious and secular history. Healing is perhaps

one of the most powerful of the principles but perhaps the least publicized or understood.

4. Awareness. General awareness, and especially self-awareness, strengthens the

servant leader. Awareness also aids one in understanding issues involving ethics and

values. It lends itself to being able to view most situations from a more integrated,

holistic position. As Greenleaf (1991) observed: "Awareness is not a giver of solace--it is

just the opposite. It is a disturber and an awakener. Able leaders are usually sharply

awake and reasonably disturbed. They are not seekers after solace. They have their own

inner serenity" (29).

Best-selling author James A. Autry (2001) substantiates this concept when he

writes, "The art of acceptance does not imply that you accept everyone's ideas without

critical analysis, discussion, and judgment—only that you accept the ideas as valid for

discussion and review, and that you focus on the ideas themselves, not on the person who

presented them" (17).

5. Persuasion. Another characteristic of servant leaders is a primary reliance on

persuasion rather than positional authority in making decisions within an organization.

Spears (1995) stated, "The servant-leader seeks to convince others rather than coerce

48

compliance. This particular element offers one of the clearest distinctions between the

traditional authoritarian model and that of servant-leadership. The servant-leader is

effective at building consensus within groups" (5). Greenleaf (1977) explained persuasion

succinctly when he said, "Leadership by persuasion has the virtue of change by

convincement rather than coercion. Its advantages are obvious" (31).

Barack Obama is an example of a persuasive leader and potentially a servant

leader. His campaign speeches were both charismatic and persuasive during his campaign

to be elected as president of the United States. He campaigned on a platform for change

in the United States. The American people will ultimately decide if he was a servant

leader.

6. Conceptualization. Servant leaders seek to nurture their abilities to "dream

great dreams." The ability to look at a problem (or an organization) from a

conceptualizing perspective means that one must think beyond day-to-day realities. For

many managers this is a characteristic that requires discipline and practice. Servant

leaders are called to seek a delicate balance between conceptual thinking and a day-to-

day focused approach.

Consider the case of Howard Schultz who was recruited by one of the original

owners of Starbucks, teacher Jerry Baldwin, to be head of sales and marketing. Bollier

(1996) related that Schultz was on a buying trip to Italy and he noticed that the Italians

"were passionate about their coffee. . . . No matter what people were doing during the

day, when they entered the coffee bars, there was a feeling of safety, of warmth, of

comfort. Almost an extension of their front porch" (213). Schultz's ability to

49

conceptualize what Starbuck's could be is a classic example of servant leadership and the

employment of conceptual thinking and a day-to-day focused approach. The success of

the servant leadership at Starbuck's is self-explanatory.

7. Foresight. Foresight is a characteristic that enables the servant leader to

understand the lessons from the past, the realities of the present, and the likely

consequence of a decision for the future. It is also deeply rooted within the intuitive

mind. Foresight remains a largely unexplored area in leadership studies but one most

deserving of careful attention.

Dr. Daniel Kim (2002), author and consultant, explains that there needs to be

foresight in the face of complexity, that forecasting is different from predicting, that there

is a difference between helping and meddling, that the role of vision is important to

gaining foresight, that we have the power to choose responsibly, that we are the stewards

for our children's future, that ultimately, "Only then, from a place of authenticity, may we

answer the call to serve. . . . Foresight is about being able to perceive the significance and

nature of events before they have occurred (which is achievable)" (3).

8. Stewardship. Robert Greenleaf's view of all institutions was one in which

CEOs, staffs, and trustees all played significant roles in holding their institutions in trust

for the greater good of society. Servant leadership, like stewardship, assumes first and

foremost a commitment to serving the needs of others. It also emphasizes the use of

openness and persuasion rather than control. According to Greenleaf (1972), "The most

important qualification for trustees should be that they care for the institution, which

means that they care for all of the people the institution touches, and that they are

50

determined to make their caring count" (15). Another interpretation by Spears and

Lawrence (2004) of this fundamental principal of servant leadership is that "foundations

operate as stewards for a public interest. They hold resources on behalf of a society"

(240).

9. Commitment to the growth of people. Servant leaders believe that people have

an intrinsic value beyond their tangible contributions as workers. As a result, the servant

leader is deeply committed to the growth of each and every individual within the

institution. The servant leader recognizes the tremendous responsibility to do everything

possible to nurture the growth of employees.

Leonard O. Pellicer (2003), retired Dean of the School of Organizational

Leadership, University of La Verne, explained what nurturing others is when he wrote,

"Leaders are servants to their followers in that they seek to remove the obstacles that

prevent them from doing their jobs and to give them the freedom and incentive to live up

to their potential, while completing themselves as human beings" (17).

Kent M. Keith (2008), CEO of the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership,

noted, "The servant-leader takes great pleasure in helping others to grow and become all

that they can be" (45). He went on to say, "Servant-leaders know that the mission of the

organization is bigger than any one person. By developing their colleagues, servant-

leaders improve not only the organization's performance today but far into the future"

(46)

10. Building community. The servant leader senses that much has been lost in

recent human history as a result of the shift from local communities to large institutions

51

as the primary shaper of human lives. This awareness causes the servant leader to seek to

identify some means for building community among those who work within a given

institution. Servant leadership suggests that true community can be created among those

who work in businesses and other institutions. Robert K. Greenleaf said, "All that is

needed to rebuild community as a viable life form for large numbers of people is for

enough servant-leaders to show the way, not by mass movements, but by each servant-

leader demonstrating his own unlimited liability for a quite specific community-related

group" (Larry Spears, former CEO, Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership).

Peter Senge (1990) presents compelling evidence for the principle of building

community. Senge presents the five principles he sees as central to building learning

organizations and some issues and questions concerning the theory and practice of

learning organizations as they are related to servant leadership. Senge states, "Since 1989

our classrooms have undergone an amazing transformation. Our jobs have shifted from

dispensers of information to producers of environments that allow students to learn as

much as possible. . . . Not only are we covering more materials than just the required

curriculum, but we are covering it faster" (489). One may consider the concept of a

learning community in the bigger picture of all organizations. The emergence of the

global economy and global information at warp speed dictates that we must convert

systems learning to learning communities so that we can teach all citizens of the global

community as rapidly as possible.

52

Servant Leadership Theory and Models

Leadership, in all cultures, affects not only those who follow, but also the leaders

themselves, the products, patients, clients, customers, and all of the constituents involved

in a business and/or service. The quality of leadership shapes the long-term results for

every organization at every level. Success or failure depends upon what Robert Greenleaf

originally distinguished as the difference between the power model versus the service

model. The power model includes leaders who seek power because of their own needs,

not the needs of others. The power model rarely, if ever, endures over time because

people choose to follow leaders they love and trust. Those who seek power for their own

self-interest do not earn trust and thus have a difficult time inspiring a shared vision.

Leaders who use the power model seek compliance and offer payment for that

compliance; or they threaten lack of payment for lack of compliance (Greenleaf 2008).

In an attempt to give cohesion to the development of a theory, Stone, Russell, and

Patterson (2004) established a practical model of servant leadership. They also identified

functional and accompanying attributes of servant leadership (see table 1).

Because the practice of servant leadership is empowering, it is also considered to

be transformational. People can choose to transform the way they do things when their

values change (Kouzes and Posner 1995). Kouzes and Posner (2009) recently wrote,

"Being forward-looking—envisioning exciting possibilities and enlisting others in a

shared vision of the future—is the attribute that most distinguishes leaders from non-

leaders" (1). Examples of transformational leaders are Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther

King, Mahatma Gandhi, and Mother Teresa (Bliss 2006).

53

Table 1. Attributes of servant leadership

Functional attribute Accompanying attribute

Vision

Communication

Honesty, integrity Credibility

Trust Competence

Service Stewardship

Modeling Visibility

Pioneering Influence

Persuasion

Appreciation Listening

Encouragement

Empowerment Teaching

Delegation

Tosi, Mero, and Rizzo (2005) explained,

Transformational leaders articulate a vision that subordinates can understand and

accept. [They] do this by providing an optimistic and attainable view of the

future. [They] empower subordinates. This means two things. First, you must be

willing to delegate important responsibilities to them (subordinates) to

demonstrate your confidence in their ability. Second, you have to use language

that lets them know that you believe they can succeed and that you will help them

to succeed. (480)

Since we know that persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, and

commitment to personal growth and the growth of others are all principles of servant

leadership, we can understand how servant leadership empowers others to transform

themselves and their organizations (Tosi, Mero, and Rizzo 2005).

Values are the ideas and/or beliefs that guide us through the process toward

decision(s) and action(s). It is our values that influence and direct our actions. When we

alue others we naturally work toward the betterment of each individual and ultimately the

54

group as a whole by empowering others to achieve the common goals of the organization

(Tosi, Mero, and Rizzo 2005).

Dr. Thomas J. Sergiovanni (2007), in his book Rethinking Leadership, writes

about moral leadership, instructional leadership, and building learning communities. He

explains the effects of values-based leadership this way:

The prizing of social machinery beyond its technical role is largely a reflection of

the unique way it fulfills personal or group needs. Whenever individuals become

attached to an organization or a way of doing things as persons rather than as

technicians, the result is a prizing of the device for its own sake. From the

standpoint of the committed person, the organization is changed from an

expendable tool into a valued source of personal satisfaction. (13)

Herzberg's (1959) motivators and hygiene (as shown in figure 2) show that

achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, and advancement are the primary

motivators for working individuals. Consider Sergiovanni's theory showing that work can

become a valued source of personal satisfaction and look at it through the lens of

Herzberg's motivators. One can understand the importance of leadership that empowers

individuals to take pride in themselves and their work. Servant leadership empowers

individuals to be the best they can be, thereby empowering them at work and in their

personal lives (Sergiovanni 2007).

Another perspective through which one can observe servant leadership is

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, which is reproduced here (figure 1). Maslow's theory was

the basis of most twentieth century motivational theory. The hierarchy details the

following concept. As an individual satisfies each level of need, his or her desire to

satisfy the next level of need becomes the major motivator. In this manner, the individual

satisfies survival needs, then basic needs, and finally mental and spiritual needs. As an

55

individual fulfills each level of need(s) in the pyramid, he or she approaches and achieves

self-actualization.


Table 1 presented the traits of servant leadership as seen within the "Six

Organizational Health Level Descriptions" (Laub 2005, 180). The complete model is

displayed in figure 3. The model in figure 4 presents a snapshot of the two highest levels

of organizational health, according to author Jim Laub (1999). The two highest levels of

organizational health are optimal health and excellent health. Wherever servant

56

leadership is practiced, one will observe most or all of the traits of leadership as they

appear in the top two tiers of the model.

Servant Leadership is…

an understanding and practice of leadership that places the good of those led over the self-interest of

the leader. Servant leadership promotes the valuing and development of people, the building of

community, the practice of authenticity, the providing of leadership for the good of those led and

the sharing of power and status for the common good of each individual, the total organization and

those served by the organization.

The Servant Leader…

Values People * By believing in people

* By serving other's needs before his or her own

* By receptive, non-judgmental listening

Develops People * By providing opportunities for learning and growth

* By modeling appropriate behavior

* By building others through encouragement and

affirmation

Builds Community * By building strong personal relationships

* By working collaboratively with others

* By valuing the differences of others

Displays Authenticity * By being open and accountable to others (transparency)

* By a willingness to learn from others

* By maintaining integrity and trust

Provides Leadership * By envisioning the future

* By taking initiative

* By clarifying goals

Shares Leadership * By facilitating a shared vision

* By sharing power and releasing control

* By sharing status and promoting others

The Servant Organization is…

…an organization in which the characteristics of servant leadership are displayed through the

organization culture and are valued and practiced by the leadership and workforce.

Figure 4. Servant leadership and the servant organization (OLA) model. Source: Laub 2003.

Reprinted with permission.

Dr. Laub (2003) came to the following conclusion as a result of his research and

development of the organizational leadership assessment (OLA model in figure 4):

57

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

leadership) a critical mass of organizations will begin to take seriously their

responsibility to lead and serve their communities, their workers and their world

who will, through the power of their example, create a new model of leadership

that will literally transform the way organizations are experienced. (13).

During these challenging times, conclusions such as Laub's are increasing in significance

as organizations, and the people who make up the organizations, face global and personal

economic challenges of epic proportions.

Laub's OLA model, "Servant Leadership and the Servant Organization," might be

considered a rubric and/or a checklist for observing the successful practice of servant

leadership. The central theme of the OLA model (figure 4) presents the concept that the

good of the group is always more important than the interests of the individual leading

the group. When this concept is practiced, trust is built. Where there is trust there are

individuals who will work toward the good of the group, above and beyond the call of

duty and the basic requirements of the organization (Laub 1999).

The OLA Model (figure 4) is a graphic presentation that displays the principles of

servant leadership embedded within explanations of the practice of servant leadership. As

one reviews the model, the ten principles may be seen embedded within the model. The

principles are (1) listening, (2) empathy, (3) healing, (4) awareness, (5) persuasion,


(10) building community. Look for the ten principles as key words within the model.

Listening is seen next to "values people." Empathy is included as "receptive,

nonjudgmental listening." Healing is included within the concept of "building others."

Awareness may be seen as both "believing in people" and being "receptive." Persuasion

58

may be viewed in the model through the lens of "modeling appropriate behavior" and

"clarifying goals." Conceptualization is visible within the concept of "envisioning the

future." Foresight is also included within the concept of "provides leadership" by

"envisioning the future" and "taking initiative." Stewardship is clearly within the domains

of authenticity and shared leadership. Commitment to growth appears within the topic

of "develops people." Building community has its own category as seen in the model in

figure 4.

Chapter Summary

The new millennium was ushered in with all the speed and change that is a result

of the Internet, digital technology, satellite technology, population growth, environmental

and ecological change, and all of the issues that go along with rapid growth and change.

The ability to cope with rapid change and global issues will be shaped by the quality of

leaders domestically and globally. Kent Keith (2008) summed up the importance of

leadership in a changing world in his book, The Case for Servant Leadership:

The fact is that you and I, as individuals, can't control the external world. We can't

control the world economy, and the rate of population growth. We can't control

the weather, or natural disasters like fires and floods. We can't control when

terrorists may strike or wars may break out. We can't control which companies

will acquire which companies, and which jobs will be downsized and which jobs

will open up. We can work hard, and prepare, and seize opportunities – and we

should. We can join with others to influence those external events – and we

should do that, too. But there are lots of things in our external world we just can't

control. (60).

The topics in this chapter focused on leadership theory, philanthropy and

volunteerism, volunteer board leadership of nonprofit philanthropic organizations, a brief

history of servant leadership, servant leadership in education and in religious life, servant

59

leadership theory and models, and an in-depth review of the ten principles of servant

leadership.

This study examined the extent to which the ten principles of servant leadership

motivate nonpaid volunteer leaders who serve on the boards of nonprofit, philanthropic

organizations. The study showed that each of the ten principles of servant leadership

plays a key role in board leadership.

Chapter III presents the methodology used for this study. Chapter IV presents the

findings of the study. Chapter V examines to what degree each of the ten principles of

servant leadership motivates nonpaid volunteers who serve on the boards of directors of

nonprofit, philanthropic organizations. Chapter V also presents conclusions and ideas for

future study.

60

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

Chapter III presents the methodology used for this study including the kind of

research used, a description of the population and sample, an explanation of the

instrumentation developed and used by the researcher, procedures used for data

collection, and procedures used for statistical analysis of the data. The limitations of the

methodology are discussed at the end of the chapter (Roberts 2004).






Research Questions




61







serve?

Type of Research and Design

The type of research selected for the study was descriptive. Descriptive studies

are nonexperimental research. Descriptive research strives to accurately and

systematically describe areas of interest and/or situations that look at how often, how

much, or how many times incidents occur that either validate or invalidate the research

questions (Isaac and Michael 1990). Descriptive study employs the use of questionnaires,

surveys, and/or interviews. Descriptive studies include "task analysis studies,

questionnaire and interview studies, critical incident reports" (43). Data were collected

using interviews that were coded (appendix M), translated, and then analyzed in a logical

manner with respect to the topic(s) presented in this study (Harvey 1996).

Population and Sample

The target population of this study consisted of all nonpaid volunteer members of

the boards of directors of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations in the United States.

Not all nonprofit, philanthropic organizations have boards of directors. As noted by the

62

Urban Institute National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS), the number of small

community groups and partnerships, et cetera is unknown for reporting purposes

(appendix K). Therefore, for the purposes of this study, the number of nonprofit

organizations that would most likely have boards is listed on the chart in appendix K.

There were over 1.4 million nonprofit organizations in the United States as of 2006 (see

appendix K). The Urban Institute breaks down the classifications of 501(c)(3) public

charities into several detailed categories (appendix K).

This study included twenty participants who were on the boards of one (or more),

out of a total of ten, human welfare nonprofit organizations; ten participants who were

on the boards of one or more of three educational nonprofit organizations; and three

individuals who were on the board of an animal welfare nonprofit organization.

Board members who were paid, who worked for organizations that operated for

profit, or who worked outside of the United States were not considered for this study.

Sampling was done according to criteria defined as follows:

1. The board members were nonpaid.

2. The board members were volunteers.

3. The board members were (at that time) currently working for one or more

nonprofit, philanthropic organization(s) within the United States of America.

4. Board members agreed to be interviewed regarding the critical incidents in

their lives that had occurred during their service on their current board positions.

5. Board members were active members of the boards of their organizations.

63

6. Board members participated in board operations and decisions and had

decision-making (e.g., voting) rights on their boards.

The researcher used purposive, nonrandom, criterion-based sampling for the

study. Purposive sampling relied on asking only individuals who had volunteered to

serve, and were currently serving, on boards of directors of nonprofit, philanthropic

organizations. The sources for the sample included public records, referrals from other

board members, and volunteers in the Third Sector (ARNOVA journal). ARNOVA is the

acronym used for Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary

Action. Sources also included directories such as the ARNOVA directory, the

researcher's contacts as a result of networking at the 2006 ARNOVA Conference,

referrals to members of boards of directors by active World Wings members in the

United States, nonprofit and Third Sector journals (e.g., Nonprofit Quarterly), other

University of La Verne doctoral candidates, and other individuals who were interested in

this study (e.g., the three participants who piloted the interview process and were part of

the expert panel).

The researcher sent a formal letter of introduction about this study, along with an

explanation of the purpose of the study (appendix E and appendix K), to board members

who were potential participants. The letter requested participation in the study. It was

sent to members of boards of directors of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations serving

on boards within the United States who agreed to participate in the study and resided in

Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, New York,

Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia. The letters were sent to members of

64

the boards of directors in these states as the researcher gained access and referrals to

names, e-mail addresses, physical addresses, and phone numbers of board members. The

delimiting factor was the time available to contact potential participants.

The researcher's goal was to finish the interview process by June 2008. That

meant that all participants would need to be contacted and agree to participate in the

study prior to June 2008. The first interview was conducted in April 2007, and the last

interview was conducted in June 2008. Therefore, the goal timeline for interviews was

achieved.

The letter introduced the researcher, explained the type of research, included a

brief description of servant leadership, and requested participation in the study. The issue

of confidentiality was addressed along with the promise that all responses and discussions

would remain completely confidential. The researcher explained to each participant that

the responses would be kept in a locked, secure safe and that the responses would be

deleted from the tapes after the study was published.

Instrumentation

Interview questions were open ended. The critical incident technique (CIT) was

used to ascertain if servant leadership was being practiced and exhibited. The researcher

found two University of La Verne dissertations to be particularly applicable to this study.

Todd Bliss, in his 2006 dissertation, at the University of La Verne (ULV) adapted

questions from Karen Lubin's dissertation. Karen Lubin's dissertation had been completed

at the University of La Verne (ULV) and published in 2001. The researcher, for this

study, adapted both Todd Bliss's and Karen Lubin's questions to fit the purpose of this

65

study. Both Todd Bliss and Karen Lubin granted their permission, in writing, to the

researcher (appendix F and appendix G). The questions used in this study were a hybrid

adaptation of Karen Lubin's (2001) questions used for her dissertation, "Visionary Leader

Behaviors and Their Congruency with Servant Leadership Characteristics" and Todd

Bliss's (2006) questions used for his dissertation, "Servant Leadership in K-12

Distinguished Teacher's Professional Practice."

Validity and Field-test

The two interview questions (critical incident technique) were field-tested for

alignment with the research questions and validation of the administration of the test.

Three pilot interviews were conducted to assure construct validity and finally interrater

reliability (Harvey and Drolet 2004) (appendix H). The three individuals interviewed

were (1) a current member of the board of directors of a nonprofit, philanthropic

organization who was also a practicing LCSW (Licensed Clinical Social Worker), (2) a

professor of education from CSULB (California State University Long Beach) who is

also active on an educational board, and (3) an MFCC (Marriage, Family, and Child

Counselor), California Board Certified, who was also active on a professional nonprofit

board (Harvey 1996). The reliability evaluators were not included in the study as

participants. The Field-test Interview Questionnaire Feedback Guide was used to assure

consistency and reliability among the three evaluators' responses and finally

administrator validation (appendix H).

The pilot interviewees (e.g., expert panel) listened to the researcher's presentation

of the questions contained in the Interview Guide (appendix D). The researcher asked the

66

expert panel to critically evaluate and consider any potential corrections that might need

to be made prior to beginning the interview process. The panel observed that the

Interview Guide and use of the critical incident technique would serve as an appropriate

catalyst for responses that would be useful for the purposes of the study.

The field-test proved that the respondents understood the researcher's instructions,

that the critical incident technique questions were clear, and that answers to the questions

were adequate and showed sufficient detail. Regional differences among the expert

participants were not noted even though there were gender differences, significant age

differences (twenty years or more), and the three "pilot participants" living in different

regions of the United States. One lived in Florida, one lived in Southern California, and

one lived near Washington state. There were no difficult sections or irrelevant questions.

The questions were perceived to be the appropriate length. The critical incident questions

were neither too easy nor too difficult to be understood. The experts in the pilot group did

mention that there might be times when what appeared to be a "satisfier" for one board

member might be a "dissatisfier" for another board member. Since the purpose of the

study was to identify incidents that were the most highly satisfying and the most highly

dissatisfying, this enhanced the potential value of the findings of the study.

The researcher developed a spreadsheet, which listed the ten principles of servant

leadership as ten categories. The researcher reviewed the transcripts from the pilot

interviews and pulled quotes and responses from the pilot interviews and deposited them

into one or more of the ten categories. To assure the reliability of the classifications of

raw data, the researcher sent the completed Raw Data Classification sheets to an expert

67

panel for review. The expert panel consisted of an assistant superintendent of a school

district (EdD, University of La Verne), a university professor (PhD Education, UCLA),

and a researcher and physician (PhD, UMass-Amherst, MD, NYU). Each reliability rater

made comments regarding the reliability of the raw data classifications and returned the

data classification charts (appendix R) to the researcher. The one observation that was

made by each reliability rater included the suggestion that, in some cases, comments by

subjects interviewed could fit into more than one category. The expert panel concurred

that the researcher's placement of the raw data into one or more of the data classifications

were essentially accurate.

Data Collection Procedures

After contacting as many executive directors and board presidents of nonprofit,

philanthropic organizations as possible, members of these organization(s) nominated

forty-seven board members as potential participants for the study. The nominees were

contacted directly by U.S. mail and/or e-mail (appendix E).

Thirty-seven individuals responded that they were willing and/or interested in

participating in the study. Individuals who responded that they were willing to participate

and were qualified to participate were sent a letter of consent to participate in the study

prior to participating in the study (appendix J).

Every individual who fit the criteria and responded with interest in the study was

interviewed. Three respondents were interviewed and their interviews were used as

validity interviews as explained in the "field-test" section of this chapter. One respondent

had appeared to be qualified and was interviewed. During the course of the interview, it

68

was noted that the participant was not qualified to participate, and the interview was not

used in the study. Therefore, there were a total of thirty-three participants whose

interviews were included in the study for data analysis and interpretation.

The interviews were arranged by telephone and/or e-mail, and they were

conducted by telephone. Each participant selected the interview time of his or her choice.

The researcher made every effort to conduct the telephone interview at the time of day

that was selected by the participant. The same questions (e.g., critical incident technique)

(appendix D) were asked of each person interviewed (Isaac and Michael 1990).

Interviewees were asked for their permission to be recorded. The interviewer also took

handwritten notes during the interviews and explained to the participants that notes would

be taken to remind the researcher of interview highlights. Interviews were scheduled for,

and lasted, approximately one hour. There were some interviews that concluded after

approximately thirty to forty-five minutes, and some interviews that lasted longer than

one hour. Confidentiality remained intact throughout the process of this study.

The critical incident technique was used to format the interview process. This

technique has been used for the past fifty years and is explained in the following manner:

The traditional critical incident technique (CIT) and variants of the same have

frequently been applied in service research for several decades. The technique has

often been used to capture data on and analyze both negative and positive critical

incidents. While one technique displays hosts of critical incidents in benchmark

type series (SIT), another variant describes the dynamism in one discrete critical

incident and a third the dynamism of the configuration of critical incidents

(SPAT). (Edvardsson and Roos 2001, 251-268)

Furthermore, Wikipedia explains the critical incident technique this way:

The Critical Incident Technique (or CIT) is a set of procedures used for collecting

direct observations of human behavior that have critical significance and meet

69

methodically defined criteria. These observations are then kept track of as

incidents, which are then used to solve practical problems and develop broad

psychological principles. A critical incident can be described as one that makes a

significant contribution—either positively or negatively—to an activity or

phenomenon. Critical incidents can be gathered in various ways, but typically

respondents are asked to tell a story about an experience they have had.

The interview questions, using the critical incident technique, were designed to

allow participants to discuss events that were the most highly satisfying and/or the most

highly dissatisfying during their service as board members.

The researcher transcribed each of the responses. The transcripts of the

conversations were then analyzed and quotes were abstracted (appendix O) that

addressed one or more of the ten principles of servant leadership. The principles are as

follows: (1) listening, (2) empathy, (3) healing, (4) awareness, (5) persuasion,


(10) building community.

The quotes were deposited into a spreadsheet, which listed the ten principles as

categories (appendix N). Interviews were tested and conducted to be as close to one hour

in length as possible. The interviews allowed more depth; because interviews provide an

immediate response from the interviewee to the interviewer, and interviews are

interactive. Interviews were taped on a digital tape recorder. The interviewer took notes

during the interview to flag critical elements of the responses for future analysis.

The interview data were transcribed from the tapes of the thirty-three interviews

and included the notes taken by the researcher during the interviews. All data were coded

according to alignment with the principles of servant leadership. Appendix A displays a

70

matrix of the alignment of the research questions and the ten principles of servant

leadership.

Data Analysis

The participant database included general information and demographic

information including the following: gender, position on the board, type of organization,

location of the organization, each participant's years of service on the board, and each

participant's total years of service as a volunteer. Each participant's critical incident

responses were deposited into one or more of the ten categories taken from the ten

principles of servant leadership: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion,

commitment, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth, building community. Strands

of themes and/or events related to the ten principles of servant leadership were

recognized, categorized, and earmarked. Dr. Edward Tronaas, PhD, assisted the

researcher with the initial development and coding of the categories for potential

responses (appendix M).

After careful analysis of the coded responses, the researcher identified actions and

events that displayed the manner in which nonpaid volunteer leaders on the boards of

directors of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations exhibited alignment/congruency with

the ten principles of servant leadership.

Limitations

1. There are many boards of directors in different areas of the country, and each

organization has its own corporate culture, which can lead to differences in responses.

71

2. Due to time constraints, interviews rarely exceeded one hour, thereby limiting

lengthy responses.

3. Interview techniques are subject to potential bias. Either the interviewer or the

interviewee might want to please the other person. Bias is a possibility in any verbal

interview due to potential voice intonation(s) (Isaac and Michael 1990).

4. Interviews require much more time than other information-gathering

techniques such as questionnaires or surveys. Time is its own pressure during a one-hour

time limit.

5. Interviews provide candid answers that may not be 100 percent objective.

There is no proven method to ascertain when a respondent is telling the absolute truth and

telling it objectively.

6. Data collection relied on perception(s) and subjectivity. Because this was a

descriptive study, there was always the potential for perception to enhance or diminish a

response. There was always the possibility that the perception of the researcher was not

completely objective. The researcher consciously made every effort to remain as

objective as possible throughout the process.

7. While one cannot prove qualitative behavior(s) or their results within the + or -

.05 percent confidence level, it is widely believed and accepted that leaders who use the

ten principles of servant leadership are more effective, successful leaders and that they

guide their organizations to achieve increased organizational success (Bliss 2006; Lubin

2001).

72

Chapter Summary

Chapter III detailed the methodology used to determine the principles of servant

leadership that motivate nonpaid volunteers to serve on the boards of directors of

nonprofit, philanthropic organizations. Purposive, nonrandom, criterion-based sampling

was used. Thirty-three nonpaid volunteer members of the boards of directors of nonprofit,

philanthropic organizations within the United States were identified and interviewed.

The researcher developed interview questions based upon the questionnaires used

by Karen Lubin's (2001) University of La Verne dissertation and Todd Bliss's (2006)

University of La Verne dissertation. The researcher then modified the critical incident

technique used by the two preceding researchers and developed a questionnaire

containing two critical incident questions to be asked of each participant. Three construct

validity interviews were conducted to assure interrater reliability. The field-test

interviews and questionnaire validated the critical incident technique for reliability and

consistency. Once interrater reliability was established, the researcher was ready to

proceed with the interviews.

The responses to the critical incident questions were coded and classified

according to a potential fit into any one or more of the ten principles of servant

leadership. Dr. Edward Tronaas (EdD, ULV 1991) and Dr. Jonathan Weiner (PhD,

University of Mass-Amherst 1974, MD NYU 1976) served as reliability experts during

the development of the coding system. Data were reviewed and classified into a

spreadsheet with individual and aggregate responses included under "satisfaction" and

73

"dissatisfaction" columns (appendix N). Limitations were listed along with their

rationale. Chapter IV presents the findings of this study.

74

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION OF THE DATA

Introduction

Chapter IV presents qualitative research results using descriptive study

methodology. Thirty-three telephone interviews were conducted using the critical

incident technique, which included two questions formulated by the researcher. The two

critical incident technique questions used for the interview were:

Interview question 1: Can you tell me about a time, or times, when you were most

highly satisfied with your volunteer work as a member of the board?


highly dissatisfied with your volunteer work as a member of the board?

Overview of the Presentation of the Data

Purpose





Research Questions


75









serve on the board of directors?

Profile of the Sample Population

Community leaders were asked to nominate potential participants for this study.

The community leaders nominated potential study participants who were volunteer board

members serving on the boards of directors of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations in

the United States. The researcher then verified that each nominee who was selected to

participate in the study fit the criterion to participate in the study. The criterion included

that participants must be volunteer board members serving on the boards of directors of

nonprofit, philanthropic corporations within the U.S.

The researcher developed three research questions, listed on the following page.

Each research question included three or more of the ten principles of servant leadership.

The research questions were placed in a matrix on the y-axis. The ten principles of

servant leadership were placed in the matrix on the x-axis (appendix A). The ten

principles of servant leadership are: (1) listening, (2) empathy, (3) healing, (4) awareness,

76

(5) persuasion, (6) conceptualization, (7) foresight, (8) stewardship, (9) commitment to

growth, and (10) building community. The matrix served as a tool to view the potential

alignment of the research questions with the ten principles of servant leadership.

The researcher used the critical incident technique as the format for the interview

instrument. Interviews were conducted over the telephone. The two interview questions

asked were (1) Can you tell me about a time, or times, when you were most highly

satisfied with your volunteer work as a member of the board of directors? and (2) Can

you tell me about a time, or times, when you were most highly dissatisfied with your

volunteer work as a member of the board of directors?

Profile of the Participants: Descriptive

Characteristics of Participants

Thirty-seven subjects participated in the interview process (see table 2 and

appendix L). All of the interviewees were active nonpaid board members. One subject

was disqualified because he or she did not meet the criterion for the study. Three

interviews were specifically not used for the purpose of the study because they were used

as field-test (e.g., validation and reliability) interviews (appendix H). Therefore, thirty-

three interviews were used for the purpose of the study. Twelve participants revealed that

they had advanced educational degrees (e.g., masters or doctorate). Twelve participants

stated that they were past or present presidents of their current boards or of a board on

which they had previously been a member. All participants were or had been voting

members of their boards.

77

Table 2. Source of data: Interview participants—General information

Interview

participant Gender

Position on

board Name/type of org.

Years on

board

Total

years

volunteer

service

NBS

F

President

WWI

9

38

SF F Treasurer WWI 4 12

JB F VP ways and

means

WWI 9 25

BG M Int'l membership WWI 1 5

CC F Record. secretary WWI 15 20

LJ F VP membership WWI 9 38

LA F Convent. coord. WWI 5 50

SH F VP charity WWI 3 5

JF F Corresp. sec. WWI 6 20

MS F President Breathe CA 20 26

MP F Board member PHS/SPCA,WWI 5 23

DG F Board member PARCA 2 36

TT M Past pres., bd.

mbr.

Breathe CA 16 20

JD M Board member Breathe CA 2 10

DC F Board member Breathe CA 2 25

MM F Board member Mission Hosp./WWI 2 30

BYS F Board member PHS/SPCA 10 30

DF F Board member PHS/SPCA 10 30

SR F Board member Chaffy College

Foundation

10 20

SS F President Chaffey College

Foundation

20 30

LS M Board member Chaffey College

Foundation

20 40

MF F Board member Mission Hospice-San

Mate

1 5

GC F Past pres., bd.

mbr.

Mission Hospice-San

Mate

1 25

SG M Asst. chairperson Vista Center. for the

Blind

15 15

JO F President Stanford Child. Aux.-

Burl.

3 20

BB1 M Board member TESOL 3 7

78

Table 2 (Continued)

Interview

participant Gender

Position on

board Name/type of org.

Years on

board

Total

years

volunteer

service

JA

F

Board member

Palm Beach. County.

NTC

8

8

GL F Board member McKinley Children's

Center

2 40

GH M Past pres.,

bd.mbr. chair

ARC, McKinley Child.

Ctr., United Way

7 30

MA M Pres.elect,

bd.mbr.

TESOL 7 28

BB M Past pres., bd.

mbr.

David & Margaret

Family Services

6 30

JWH F Pres., board

member

Altrusa International,

WWI

4 10

AI F VP, past pres. Japanese American

Museum of SJC

20 20

33 participants

*3 Content

validity

interviews

not included

on this list

9 males

24 females

*12+ board

members

have

advanced

degrees

*12 past /present

board presidents

Types of organizations—

10 Human welfare-

related orgs

3 Education-related

orgs

1 Animal welfare-

related orgs

Bd. mbrs. interviewed

from following orgs.

20 human welfare orgs.

10 educational orgs.

3 animal welfare-

related orgs.

Total

board

years =

269

Average

per board

member =

8.15 yrs.

Total

volunteer

years =

771

Average

per board

member =

23.36 yrs.

The types of organizations represented in the study included ten human welfare

organizations, three educational organizations, and one animal welfare organization. All

of the organizations represented in this study have parent organizations, subsidiary

organizations, and/or chapter organizations throughout the United States. This added to

the richness of the study because the types of organizations represented in the study were

79

representative of organizations throughout the United States. Eight participants reported

that they were concurrently serving on more than one board of more than one nonprofit,

philanthropic organization.

Appendix O presents a graphic display of the number of years each participant

served on his or her respective board as compared to the total number of years he or she

served as a volunteer in any capacity. Table 2 shows the data for those figures. Each of

the participants' total number of years as a volunteer was equal to or greater than each of

their total years of service on the board. The aggregate number of years of nonprofit

board service for all of the participants in this study (e.g., thirty-three board members)

totaled 269 years. The aggregate number of years of volunteer service in any capacity, for

the same group of thirty-three participants, totaled 771 years (see table 2).

All of the interviews were conducted by phone. Participants were given as much

time as they needed to answer the two interview questions. To reiterate, the two interview

questions were (1) Can you tell me about a time, or times, when you were most highly

satisfied with your volunteer work as a member of the board? and (2) Can you tell me

about a time, or times, when you were most highly dissatisfied with your volunteer work

as a member of the board?

The interviews ranged in length from a minimum of forty minutes to a maximum

of one hour and a half. The respondents were asked to give examples of their most highly

satisfying and most highly dissatisfying experiences during their time as nonpaid

volunteer board members. The responses were divided into two categories: (1) most

satisfying and (2) most dissatisfying.

80

In summary, this study included thirty-three nonpaid board members representing

the boards of directors of fourteen different nonprofit, philanthropic organizations. The

thirty-three respondents represented 771 total years of volunteer experience with an

average of 23.36 years of volunteer experience per person. The total years of experience

on the board, for all thirty-three respondents, was 269 years with an average of 8.13 years

on the board per person. The researcher noted that the numbers of years of board service

per person varied greatly. Three respondents had one year of experience, while four

respondents had twenty years of experience (see table 2).

Findings

Overview of the Findings

The responses are presented as descriptive actions in narrative format. The

responses are quoted directly from the transcripts to provide the most accurate data

possible. Similar actions were grouped together under one or more of three overarching

themes: (1) relationship-building actions, (2) future-oriented actions, and (3) community-

oriented actions.

The researcher included the principles of servant leadership in the each of the

three research questions according to the overarching themes presented by Greenleaf

(1977), Spears (1995), and Keith (2008). The researcher adapted the research questions

used by Karen Lubin (2001) and Todd Bliss (2006) and developed an alignment matrix to

show compatibility of the research questions with the ten principles (appendix A).

81

The three research questions were:



empathy, healing, and awareness as their motivations to serve? The overarching theme of

this question is relationship-building actions.




overarching theme of this question is future-oriented actions.




serve? The overarching theme of this question is community-oriented actions.

The researcher used the critical incident technique. This technique employed the

use of an interview guide, which included two open-ended questions (appendix D). The

questions probed for responses that included the most highly satisfying and most highly

dissatisfying incidents that occurred during the participant's (board member) tenure on

the board.

General Findings

The researcher was able to pull quotes and descriptions of actions from the

interview transcripts and place the quote(s), or incident(s) described into the appropriate

category or categories. It was noted that respondents described incidents that fit directly

82

into one or more of the categories (e.g., the ten principles of servant leadership and the

thirty-four subcategories attached to those principles). The ten principles were listening,

empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship,

commitment to growth, and building community. The responses provided rich data for

analysis.

Each incident was placed under the research classifications of satisfaction and/or

dissatisfaction. At times, one or more specific incident(s) fit into both a satisfying and a

dissatisfying classification(s), because the incident had both satisfying and dissatisfying

components.

Figure 5 and figure 6 display the frequencies of perceptions of satisfaction and

dissatisfaction, respectively, that were recorded from the tapes, transcripts, and interview

notes. Figure 5 displays the frequencies of incidents of satisfaction that were consistent

with each of the ten principles of servant leadership. Figure 6 displays the frequencies of

incidents of dissatisfaction that were consistent with the ten principles of servant

leadership.

The incidents, described by the interview participants, were then grouped by

subcategories within each of the ten principles of servant leadership. The coded

subcategories are presented in table 3. The researcher then went through all of the tables

of data and classified each statement according to the thirty-seven subcategories, as seen

in table 3.

85

Table 3. Response category codes for each of the ten principles

Listening—receptively to what is being said (and not said)

L1—to self

L2—to another person

L3—to the board

L4—to the group/population served

Empathy—seeking to understand, making positive assumptions, compassion

E1—understanding self

E2—understanding another person

E3—understanding the board

E4—the group/population served

Healing—search for wholeness (physical, mental, spiritual)

H1—search for wholeness of self

H2—search for wholeness of another person

H3—search for wholeness of the board

H4—of the group/population served

Awareness—making a commitment to foster awareness

A1—of self

A2—of another person

A3—of the board

A4—of the group/population served

Persuasion—seeking to convince rather than to coerce, building consensus

P1—of self

P2—of another person

P3—striving for board consensus

P4—the group/population served

Conceptualization—thinking beyond day-to-day realities while balancing daily focus

C1—concept/idea(s) generated by oneself

C2—concept/idea generated by another person

C3—concept/idea(s) generated by the board

Foresight—intuitive abilities to learn from past and see future consequences of actions

F1—self

F2—another person

F3—the board

Stewardship—holding the institution in trust for the good of society

S1—role of self in stewardship

S2—role of another person in stewardship

S3—role of the board in stewardship

86

Table 3 (Continued)

Commitment to growth—personal, professional, and spiritual of self and others

G1—growth of self

G2—growth of another person

G3—growth of the board

G4—growth of the group/population served

Building community—benevolent, humane, philanthropic, to benefit others

B1—role of self

B2—role of another person

B3—role of the board

B4—role of the group/population served

Note: Same codes were used for interview question 1 (satisfaction) and interview question 2

(dissatisfaction).

Appendix N, Exhibit 15.1 presents the recorded individual frequencies of actions

related to satisfaction. Appendix N, Exhibit 15.2 presents the recorded individual

frequencies of actions related to dissatisfaction. Figure 5 (satisfaction) and figure 6

(dissatisfaction) display the comparisons of the numbers of responses within each of the ten

categories (e.g., ten principles of servant leadership).

The research shows that, out of the ten principles, building community was the most

frequently mentioned and/or discussed motivating factor (e.g., principle of servant

leadership). One hundred seventy incidents of building community were mentioned during

the interviews when considering incidents of highest satisfaction (figure 5). One hundred

sixty-nine incidents of building community were mentioned during the interviews when

considering incidents of highest dissatisfaction.

The second most frequently mentioned set of incidents of satisfaction and

dissatisfaction are related to the principle of commitment to growth. There were 139

87

incidents of satisfaction cited during the interviews, and there were 138 incidents of

dissatisfaction. This finding presents the combined total for the principle building

community = 339 incidents. This is more than twice the combined total for each of the

other nine principles, excluding awareness. It is 1.83 times greater than the principle of

awareness.

Similarly, the combined totals for commitment to growth = 277 incidents. This

combined total is more than twice the combined totals for the principles of listening,

empathy, healing, foresight, and stewardship, and it exceeds the remaining totals for the

principles of awareness, persuasion, and conceptualization. The 277 incidents described

regarding commitment to growth are in second place behind the principle building

community, by 62 incidents (see figure 7). This finding shows that building community is

the most frequently cited principle of servant leadership when board members are

considering their motivations to serve on the boards of directors of nonprofit, philanthropic

organizations.

Presentation of Participants' Responses

The critical incident technique required that the researcher to ask two interview

questions. The two questions were (1) Can you tell me about a time, or times, when you

were most highly satisfied with your volunteer work as a member of the board? (2) Can

you tell me about a time, or times, when you were most highly dissatisfied with your

volunteer work as a member of the board?

The researcher digitally recorded, then transcribed, and finally classified the

responses that were presented during the interview(s). The ten principles of servant

88

leadership were divided among the three research questions. The principles were divided

and embedded within each of the three research questions in exactly the same order as

they appeared in the literature presented by the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.

The three themes were adapted from a review of the books and articles written by

Greenleaf (1977), Spears (1995), Lubin (2001), Bliss (2006), and Keith (2008). Each of

the principles of servant leadership that were included in each of the three research

questions enabled the researcher to present the data according to the three overarching

themes.

The overarching themes were (1) relationship-building actions, (2) future-oriented

actions, and (3) community-building actions. The interview participants' actions, as

derived from the critical incidents they described, were placed within one or more of the

three overarching themes: (1) relationship-building actions, (2) future-oriented actions,

and (3) community-building actions.

Research Question One

Research Question one was: To what degree do volunteer board members of

nonprofit, philanthropic organizations identify incidents that reflect the servant

leadership principles of listening, empathy, healing, and awareness as their motivations

to serve? The principles listening, empathy, healing, and awareness were viewed as

actions that build and enhance relationships (e.g., relationship-building actions).

The two critical incident technique questions allowed the researcher to probe for

responses that included the board members' motivations to serve on their boards. Again

the two probing questions were:

89





Once the interviews were completed and transcribed, the researcher was then able

to abstract the responses that included actions that were consistent with one or more of

the ten principles of servant leadership. The responses to the interview questions that

included the most highly satisfying relationship-building actions are included as follows.

1. The servant leadership principle listening was explained in the following

manner by Spears (2005): Traditionally, leaders have been valued for their

communication and decision making skills. Servant-leaders must reinforce these

important skills by making a deep commitment to listening intently to others. Servant-

leaders seek to identify and clarify the will of the group. They seek to listen receptively to

what is being said (and not said). Listening also encompasses getting in touch with one's

inner voice, and seeking to understand what one's body, spirit, and mind are

communicating.

There was a total of thirty-eight responses that included satisfaction when

considering the principle of listening. When considering the four subcategories under the

principle of listening, ten responses included incidents of listening to oneself (L1), eight

responses included listening to another person (L2), eight responses included listening to

the board (L3), and twelve responses included listening to the group/population served

90

(L4) (see figure 5). Examples of responses that included high satisfaction when

considering the principle of listening are:

"It (listening) takes you outside of yourself."

"(We) were listening to parents to what they needed to help their children."

"Parents were always volunteers. They were in volunteer mode 'give back' and

assist the community. Volunteerism comes from parents."

"(It) Listening allows people to express their opinions."

"I have a love for learning."

"When issues come up they (staff) give me a call."

"Listening, luck, empathy, negotiating to the common ground."

"A lot of people appreciate what we do. It is very gratifying."

There was a total of fifty-four responses that included incidents of dissatisfaction

when considering the principle of listening. Fifteen incidents included self-awareness.

Sixteen incidents included awareness of another person. Twelve incidents included

awareness of the board. Eleven incidents included awareness of the group/population

served (figure 6). Examples of responses that included dissatisfaction when considering

the principle of listening were:

"Either I did not reach someone or I can't reach them and I have to move on.

Some people have criticized me."

"If you don't have something good to say, go somewhere else."

"There was a difficult (person) to deal with."

"You are wishing you could do more."

91

"There was a lack of trust in the original Executive Director."

"No one wants to deal with death. Death is a fact of living but no one wants to

deal with it."

"I'm impatient with the board. They were not on time. There was too much

talking . . . gossip, pettiness. I quickly work with a disagreeable person and then move

away."

"Conflicting issues cause the most grief in the nonprofit sector."

2. The servant leadership principle empathy was explained in the following

manner by Spears (2005): Servant-leaders strive to understand and empathize with

others. People need to be accepted and recognized for their special and unique spirit.

One must assume the good intentions of coworkers and not reject them as people, even

when forced to reject their behavior or performance. Empathy is seeking to understand,

making positive assumptions, and having compassion.

There was a total of forty-two responses that included incidents of satisfaction

when considering the principle of empathy. When considering the four subcategories

under the principle of empathy, fifteen responses included the concept of empathy (e.g.,

understanding) oneself (E1), two responses included empathy for another person (E2),

five responses included empathy for the board (E3), and twenty responses included

empathy for the group/population served (E4) (figure 5). Examples of these responses

that included satisfaction when considering the principle of empathy were:

"We have a more open heart and we understand who we are. It's easier to be true

to yourself. We have a deeper understanding of what their lives are really like."

92

"They understood they weren't alone. They were talking to others in the same

situation."

"They were so grateful to see you because basically they were so isolated due to

the stigma of the disease."

"The organization provides training . . . you get to know people . . . interacting.

You meet contemporaries."

"I enjoy coming to meetings."

"We want everyone to have dignity at the end of life.

"People want to be thanked and appreciated, happy. We involve people to

empower them to do things and make decisions."

"Kids who don't fit into the general population. (We) celebrate their successes.

Role modeling, nurturing, supporting, rewards. . . . Kids are proud. They go out of their

way to greet you."

There was a total of thirty-two responses when considering the most highly

dissatisfying incidents that included the principle of empathy. Six responses included

understanding oneself. Ten responses included understanding another person. Eight

responses included understanding the board. Eight responses included understanding the

group/population served (figure 6). Examples of responses that include high

dissatisfaction when considering the principle of empathy were:

"Upheaval was negative. There was insecurity—we should be doing more."

"I don't care for board members who don't understand their purpose."

93

"When we go to other board meetings, no one wants to talk about death.

Americans are funny about death."

"People who don't feel it (the desire to help others)."

3. The servant leadership principle healing is described in the following way by

Spears (2005): Learning to heal is a powerful force for transformation and integration.

One of the great strengths of servant-leadership is the potential for healing one's self and

others. The search for wholeness includes physical, mental, and spiritual wholeness.

There was a total of sixty-four responses that included incidents of satisfaction

when considering the principle of healing. Twenty responses included the search for

wholeness of oneself (H1). Ten responses included the search for wholeness of another

person (H2). Eight responses included the search for wholeness of the board (H3).

Twenty-six responses included the search for wholeness of the group/population served

(H4) (figure 5). Examples of responses that included highly satisfying incidents, when

considering the principle of healing, were:

"We could see kids we were helping on a one-on-one basis."

"The lighting of all 178 candles of everyone who had died. I had touched people."

"It involves moms and kids. The medical, drugs, water, food—it all leads to hope

that their lives will improve—maybe their kids' lives will improve. I feel so alive,

gratified, happy. It gives me energy."

"Music has a special part to it that heals—it's healing. . . .The man's head was

down and as we began to sing his head came up and he sang with us."

"We look for toxic materials. We help others become aware of climate change."

94

"It's so outstanding to link the family with something they need. I was impressed

that they could figure out how to get to the health fair and at their ability to use the

system."

"It's also rewarding to put someone through drug and alcohol rehab and they

actually sobered up."

"You give but you deeply get back. It pays me back greatly."

"Every moment of his life was taken care of for him. Someone was there. WE

made sure he got what he needed."

"We have a ceremony as a remembrance of people that have passed. I was in on

the planning. It brought something spiritual to everyone."

"We created a library for the children. None of the kids were achieving well in

life. The library we developed is a blessing."

"We go to the hospital, take a tour and see where your dollars are going. It's very

gratifying to see the fatality rate down and the survival rate up."

"It's most gratifying to see the kids going through the school—to see kids

graduating."

"It's satisfying to work first hand with people and help families that are affected

with the disease."

"There's something so rewarding about saving a life."

There was a total of sixteen responses that included the most highly dissatisfying

incidents when considering the principle of healing. Three incidents included healing

oneself. Six incidents included healing another. One incident included healing the board.

95

Six incidents included healing the group/population served (figure 6). Examples of

responses that included high dissatisfaction when considering the principle of healing

were:

"The memorial service had put a somber cast on everything."

"The disease has a stigma attached to it."

"People have to get in tune with nature. There's too much stress. We 'bottom-line'

everything. There's no longer respect for others."

"It's so sad to see kids that are abused and neglected."

4. The servant leadership principle awareness is described in the following

manner by Spears (2005): General awareness, and especially self-awareness, strengthens

the servant-leader. Making a commitment to foster awareness can be scary—one never

knows what one may discover!

There was a total of 112 responses that included incidents of satisfaction when

considering the principle of awareness. Fifty-two responses included self-awareness.

Twelve responses included awareness of others. Twenty-one responses included

awareness of the board. Twenty-seven responses included awareness of the

group/population served (figure 5). Examples of responses that included high satisfaction

when considering the principle of awareness were:

"I felt proud . . . (it) gave me a rush of adrenalin."

"I admire everyone who worked so hard."

"It feels good to know that you help children and that children matter! It's really

rewarding to know you can make a difference—both in dollars and physical."

96

"Everyone appreciates everyone's journey. We're touching the heart. It's so

important to understand how important one little thing is. The ripple effect. That is what a

small thing can do."

"I had to overcome challenges. It's so interesting to see different personalities and

to see how they work."

"It was reassuring to know that I was in the same situation as others."

"(We) received outstanding chapter in the state (but) it wasn't more important than

my being a regular volunteer."

"In my older years I want to do something. This is a good opportunity. I had

helped out on the periphery. This is a chance to develop meaning in my existence. "

"Serving is integrated into volunteering in my life."

"It's a good feeling knowing you've helped someone because the work and money

you put out there is helping someone."

"There is joy out of giving to animals. My calling was identified. People that

volunteer do it for fulfillment. The basic nature-nurture."

"Now that we're on the road to building a successful board and organization . . . a

sense of pride will continue to grow."

"Now that I am retired from work, I can fully embrace my passion for the

organization. It's very satisfying to give back to something."

"We helped people out on the street and they helped us. All of us participate in

some way. When we help one person, it means a whole lot."

97

"Volunteering gets you out of yourself. You're in the know. You're current. You

walk into a group and get a warm feeling."

"I was named Woman of the Year!" Very satisfying, wonderful, and humbling. A

unique experience for me."

"(Mentoring) is a good use of my time. We have a responsibility to give back.

There are always people with more and with less."

"It connected me with my son. I was elected to the board of directors."

"It (board work) feels like a "calling." For some people it's a gift. I'm called to

leadership. It's a fabulous way to go to the mountaintop. That's why people volunteer. I

made a difference."

"Being and doing. Staying current is the payoff as a volunteer. It adds to my own

life. You go from working to a new purpose."

"My university appreciates that I wear a lot of hats so they are all connected."

"The only constant in life is change. I feel good about giving back."

"All of us have time, treasure, and talent."

There was a total of seventy-three responses that included incidents of

dissatisfaction when considering the principle of awareness. Twenty-six responses

included self-awareness. Sixteen responses included awareness of another person.

Twenty responses included awareness of the board. Eleven responses included awareness

of the group/population served (figure 6). Examples of responses that included high

dissatisfaction when considering the principle of awareness were:

98

"My dissatisfaction centers around the entitlement attitude of so many members.

People are not willing to work with us. The 'I'm going to get as much as I can attitude' A

lack of appreciation."

"There's a small core group."

"We had taken a vote and signed a contract. I couldn't go back on my word. I

dislike people who aren't constructive on the board. Nay-sayers, negative energy."

"When there are disrespectful e-mails. I can't take it personally. The board

sometimes has to make unpopular decisions. I'm a sensitive person and I shouldn't take it

personally."

"I'm a transparent person. I've only a few times in my life not been trusted."

"People on the board do all the work—but we do it for love."

"The fact that patients died is very sad."

"The early days on the board . . . there was a horrible, awful person."

"I don't need my name in the paper. There was friction on the board. I was tired.

The fight had gone out of me. I needed to move on."

"If other board members are destructive to the mission of the organization.

Behavior sidetracks what we're trying to accomplish. These are 'parking lot' meetings."

"Holistic medicine is not often accepted."

"Start on time and end on time."

"Volunteers haven't worked in the business world."

"We don't see what happens to people. They're disconnected after eighteen (years

of age)."

99

"Why am I here? I need to be contributing. If I'm not contributing, I move on."

"I don't like it when someone does the opposite of what they say they're going to

do. When people leave you 'holding the bag'—not coming through with what they said

they would do."

"I made friends with the local newspaper . . . the 'old guard' raised their

eyebrows."

Research Question One Summary

When considering listening, there were thirty-eight responses that included

satisfaction compared to fifty-four responses that included dissatisfaction for an overall

total of ninety-two responses for this principle. When considering empathy, there were

forty-two responses that included satisfaction compared to thirty-two responses that

included dissatisfaction for an overall total of seventy-four responses for this principle.

When considering healing, there were sixty-four responses that included satisfaction

compared to sixteen responses that included dissatisfaction for an overall total of seventy-

seven responses. When considering the principle of awareness, there were 112 responses

that included satisfaction compared to seventy-three responses that included

dissatisfaction, for an overall total of 185 responses for this principle.

Among the four principles of servant leadership that are considered to be

relationship-building actions, awareness was mentioned more than twice as often as

listening, empathy, or healing. Listening was mentioned 1.2 times more often than

empathy or healing. Empathy and healing are mentioned seventy-four and seventy-seven

times respectively. Thus healing is mentioned in three more incidents than empathy.

100

Research Question Two

Research question two was: To what degree do volunteer board members of


leadership principles of persuasion, conceptualization, and foresight as their motivations

to serve?

Research question two included the servant leadership principles of persuasion,

conceptualization, and foresight, which were considered to be future-oriented concepts.

The researcher again used the critical incident technique by asking the two

following probing questions. The interview questions enabled the participant(s) to discuss

his or her most highly satisfying and/or most highly dissatisfying incident(s) during his or

her time as a board member. The two probing questions were: Interview question 1: Can

you tell me about a time, or times, when you were most highly satisfied with your

volunteer work as a member of the board?




to abstract the responses that included actions that were consistent with at least one of the

ten principles of servant leadership. The responses to the interview questions that

included the most highly satisfying future-oriented actions are included as follows.

5. Persuasion was defined by Spears (2005): Servant-leaders rely on persuasion,

rather than positional authority in making decisions. Servant-leaders seek to convince

others, rather than coerce compliance. This particular element offers one of the clearest

101

distinctions between the traditional authoritarian model and that of servant-leadership.

The servant-leader is effective at building consensus within groups.

There was a total of eighty-four responses that included incidents of satisfaction

when considering the principle of persuasion. Seventeen incidents included self-

persuasion. Twelve incidents included persuading others. Twenty-seven incidents

included persuading the board. Twenty-eight incidents included persuading the

group/population served (exhibit 5). Examples of responses that included highly

satisfying incidents when considering the principle of persuasion were:

"We share our knowledge with our lawmakers."

"We all agreed that we wanted to do something that mattered."

"We motivated the membership."

"The board always talks about team work. People are very dedicated."

"I proposed . . . the change became the name we have now."

"It's a fun experience because it's enjoyable to see kids make progress in their

education and health. And admin implements improvements if they see how to make the

changes."

"We got all five city council members to agree to $1 per year (for the facility)."

"The most satisfying for me as a board member is turning someone around (from

accepting dying to fighting dying)."

"I ran the Gala for our party. Our children came. My daughter and her friends—

they did special projects. They're all young women."

102

"Trying to get publishers to donate books. There's a lot of synergy in all of this.

Listening, luck, empathy, negotiating to a common ground. I look for a way to set up

concepts and/or constructs (framework) for people to communicate."

"Talking to concerned members to have them put away their fears. Not a

masterpiece, but it was successful."

There was a total of fifty-seven responses that included incidents of

dissatisfaction when considering the principle of persuasion. Twelve incidents included

self-persuasion. Seventeen incidents included persuading others. Twenty-three incidents

included persuading the board. Five incidents included persuading the group/population

served (figure 6). Examples of responses that included highly dissatisfying incidents

when considering the principle of persuasion were:

"It's hard to get people to volunteer."

"A lot is said at board meetings. Nothing is decided. Do this, do that. A lot of talk

but not much action. Ideas bantered around. We need concrete discussions."

"I get irritable with someone's 'high-handedness.'"

"A board that just 'rubber-stamps' whatever the Executive Director says."

"Someone leading the group who doesn't know how to lead."

"How someone didn't agree with the way the issue was resolved. (They)

sabotaged the board's direction. 'Sour grapes' has a negative effect."

"(It's) frustrating because we can't reach more people."

"I tell them my opinion and if they don't agree that's fine. I can't be bothered with

in-fighting."

103

"I get frustrated if you try to head up a project and you can't make the volunteers

do what needs to be done."

"Conflicting issues cause the most grief in the nonprofit sector."

"Garbage-can meetings—no purpose, no goal. The leader decided where we

needed to go. I was being shot down. Not allowed to speak. There was a lack of

articulation and shared values."

6. Conceptualization is described the following way by Spears (2005): Servant-

leaders seek to nurture their abilities to "dream great dreams." The ability to look at a

problem (or an organization) from a conceptualizing perspective means that one must

think beyond day-to-day realities. Servant leaders must seek a delicate balance between

conceptualization and day-to-day focus.

There was a total of eighty-one responses that included incidents of satisfaction

when considering the principle of conceptualization. Forty-two incidents included

concepts/ideas generated by oneself. Six incidents included concepts/ideas generated by

another person. Thirty-three incidents included concepts/ideas generated by the board

(figure 5). Examples of responses that included high satisfaction when considering the

principle of conceptualization were:

"I had a vision—something slim and gorgeous."

"(It) makes me feel satisfied because they all have clean water so they can work.

It leads to a better life."

"I expanded my horizons."

"The Corgie Program. That's how the HOPE Program started."

104

"It's important to be in the 'now.'"

"We wanted to be the premier organization. Making the right decision was

definitely the most satisfying. We saw that the organization had to be run like a

business."

"Every nonprofit has a mission."

"You spend three years preparing for the position before you become president.

During your term you have the challenge to take the organization (where you want to

take it)."

"A group of us got together and said, 'What can we do to make our city better?'

We made goals and objectives."

"We hope to reach all levels of people who need us. Give them dignity. Give them

relief. Find new ways of giving the gift to people."

"(I) go out on my own and get it done. I do marketing for them. It's name-brand

recognition. Developing a marketing strategy for the corporation. The organizational

vision is a first-class environment."

"The (library) is an ongoing project. Kids never had a book in their hands. There

was a room and a box of books. Now it's a building. Now there's a chapel and spiritual

life at (the school)."

"It's gratifying to see the value of the work."

"I have the time and the tools and I feel responsible to make things happen."

"I helped to organize a campaign to take a trip to the organization. I was

enthralled with what they were doing for abandoned, neglected, abused kids."

105

"It's fabulous going to the 'mountain top'. That's why people volunteer."

"My value is to develop programs for girls. We have a program committee. The

(organization) tries to tailor programs to get money within limitations to be in keeping

with the mission statement. Leadership is about empowering others."

There was a total of sixty-five responses that included incidents of dissatisfaction

when considering the principle of conceptualization. Seventeen incidents included

concepts generated by oneself. Twenty-one incidents included concepts generated by

another person. Twenty-seven incidents included concepts generated by the board (figure

6). Examples of responses that included high dissatisfaction when considering the

principle of conceptualization were:

"How do we keep everyone focused and motivated?"

"It's a painful division to have to go out on your own (the organization)."

"It's difficult to balance everything. There's more and more work to do. There's an

ever-greater demand for services. There's pressure on education and community services.

There are clients with chronic problems."

"When dollars are wasted. When decisions are made without doing marketing

research."

"Not reaching the goals."

"The board agreed on a course of action and it can't be implemented because we

don't have the time, talent, and treasure."

"At this point there are no facilities for children."

106

"The organization is run like a company. The board is huge and unwieldy. There

are no goals and objectives. When they (subcommittees) all get into the room, everyone

wants to be involved. The executive director should delegate."

"Time commitments are difficult."

"There is a lack of organization on the part of the organizers. When meetings are

not set. Inconsistency. Things need to be consistent."

"It's sad to see volunteers take a job (volunteering) and then not want it because of

the economy."

"There's a burnout factor because there's no structure. There are great ideas but no

support structure. No org chart. No foundation." "Bureaucracy!"

7. Foresight is described the following way by Spears (2005): Foresight is a

characteristic that enables servant-leaders to understand lessons from the past, the

realities of the present, and the likely consequence of a decision in the future. It (e.g.,

Foresight) is deeply rooted in the intuitive mind.

There was a total of sixty-two highly satisfying incidents reported when

considering the principle of foresight. There were thirty-seven incidents of foresight

generated by oneself. There were five incidents of foresight generated by the board.

There were twenty incidents of foresight generated by the board (figure 5). Examples of

responses that included high satisfaction when considering the principle of foresight

were:

107

"The reward of visiting our charities and seeing where our donations were put to

use. The satisfaction is to know what we're doing is helpful. People can move on,

reconstruct their lives."

"It took so much time to put it together. It came off flawlessly and . . . "

"Lifelong learning enriches life."

"It's important that the organization continues. (The board) needs to be motivated

and working."

"Education about animals—for the children."

"(To see) levels of pollution. We're able to help people out."

"Once we targeted the director, we knew he was the right guy. Success in hiring

him/her was a major satisfier. Now we reach out more. Do more for the animals. (The

board) needs to shift focus, open doors."

"I encouraged others to be on the board because of how much they can learn and

accomplish."

"Train your employees to be your replacement. Whatever event you run for

charity has to be unbelievable. People have to be smiling. Every year we accomplish the

above. Always one step better."

"The young group is an asset. Friendships, special projects, helping each other,

camaraderie. This is very meaningful to me."

"Whenever we can recognize them (teachers), respect is part of the leadership

role."

108

"We helped any way we could. Some boys went on to bigger and better things.

They were pulled out of the ghetto. Kids got out of gangs, out of the ghetto and got an

education and wound up teaching college!"

"Giving forward—his life is working with volunteers (father). The 'aha' moment

when you know you've led people in a direction that leads to policy that leads people.

You've had an impact (positive, significant) on other people's lives. Some things work out

how they're supposed to."

"They (students) are going to become adults. If you're trying to 'break the cycle'

(of abuse) . . . caring, nurturing, valuing, makes the effort to break the cycle."

"And the family shelter . . . that was satisfying because we helped a number of

people who would have been out on the street otherwise and it also helped make that

connection again with the school district."

There was a total of seventy-three highly dissatisfying incidents reported when

considering the principle of foresight. Twenty incidents included foresight generated by

oneself. Twenty-nine incidents included foresight generated by another person. Twenty-

four incidents included foresight generated by the board (figure 6). Examples of

responses that included the most highly dissatisfying incidents when considering the

principle of foresight were:

"I used a new model and people criticized me."

"Some (people) could care less about deadlines."

109

"It feels like we're treading water. There's less motivation—memories are fading.

We have to step out of the comfort zone and try something different (for recruiting and

motivation)."

"There wasn't enough information to plan the trip."

"I told him he needed to straighten up." He blamed me for losing his job."

"The membership will discontinue over time. Charitable contributions will die

with us."

"The only negative experience is disruption of service."

"We need to ID ways to provide service and to find other services (for clients)."

"We need to find more volunteers to support services."

"Seeing people lose their jobs after time after time of getting them into rehab."

"It's not the role of the board to be involved in day-to-day operations."

"I'm dissatisfied in having committee meetings and nothing comes of it. I've been

to committee meetings where staff is afraid to ask board to take over. The board didn't

recruit younger members."

"We don't get the money because people won't face death. If we're limited in

fundraising, we're limited in how much we can do."

"We don't see what happens to people that we've helped.

"I wish we (the board) had met more often."

"It's a crisis—the diminishing ability of people to volunteer. It's always a matter

of money. Thousands of kids are on the streets now."

"The 'old guard' assumed everyone knew about the organization."

110

Research Question Two Summary

When considering the principle of persuasion, there were eighty-four responses

that included incidents of satisfaction compared to fifty-seven responses that included

incidents of dissatisfaction with a combined total of 141 incidents. When considering the

principle of conceptualization, there were eighty-one responses that included incidents of

satisfaction compared to sixty-five incidents that included dissatisfaction, for a combined

total of 146 incidents. When considering the principle of foresight, there were sixty-two

incidents that included satisfaction compared to seventy-three incidents that included

dissatisfaction for a combined total of 135 incidents.

For these three principles of servant leadership that are considered to be future-

oriented actions (e.g., persuasion, conceptualization, foresight), there is a difference of

nine incidents between the most frequently mentioned principle, persuasion, and the least

frequently mentioned principle, foresight. There were 422 incidents recorded for research

question two. Nine incidents represent 2 percent of the total number of incidents.

Research Question Three

Research question three was: To what degree do volunteer board members of


leadership principles of stewardship, commitment to growth, and building community as

their motivations to serve? The principles stewardship, commitment to growth, and

building community were considered to be community-building actions.

111

Again the researcher used the critical incident technique to probe for responses

that presented themselves as motivations to serve on the participants' respective boards.

The two probing questions were:




highly dissatisfied with your volunteer work as a member of the board? Responses to the

questions are described as follows.


to abstract the responses that included actions that were consistent with at least one of the

ten principles of servant leadership. The responses to the interview questions that

included the most highly satisfying community-building actions are included below.

8. Stewardship is described in the following way by Spears (2005): Robert

Greenleaf's view of all institutions was one in which CEO's, staff, directors, and trustees

all play significant roles in holding their institutions in trust for the great good of society.

There was a total of sixty-three incidents of satisfaction when considering the

principle of stewardship. There were twenty-six incidents where the role of self played

the major part in stewardship. There were fourteen incidents where the role of another

person played the major part in stewardship. There were twenty-three incidents where the

board played the major role in stewardship (figure 5). Examples of responses that

included the most highly satisfying incidents when considering the principle of

stewardship were:

112

"We world travelers have a duty to shine the spotlight on the rest of the world."

"We have a history."

"Both organizations are a cog in the wheel."

"I enjoy coordinating people. Being able to give guidance in finance. It's a chance

to give back in a good organization."

"I act as advice and counsel, an advisory role."

"I'm proud of the organization. We do what's good for all animals."

"I had to step up my service. The focus (of the board and the organization) began

to change. We tied up a lot of loose ends. I'm always there for the history—questions."

"It's highly satisfying to serve under the leadership of someone who is good at

what they do. S/he just deals with the group and keeps moving things forward."

"Corporate America encouraged people to donate their time, treasure, and talent."

"The goal of the co-chair group is to continue the vision."

"Employees give money. There's matching funds."

"My strength is institutional."

"The organization—no matter what happens, they're always providing ways for

people to rebuild their lives. The successor made the school blossom."

"The most highly satisfying time is when I felt that I made a significant

contribution that would have an impact on the organization that would impact people in

the field."

"Leadership is about empowering others."

113

"To see people who could work themselves for the 'cause' but did not have a

personal connection to it (the disease). This was very satisfying."

There was a total of sixty-three most highly dissatisfying incidents reported when

considering the principle of stewardship. Twenty-six incidents included the role of self.

Fourteen incidents included the role of another person. Twenty-three incidents included

the role of the board. Examples of responses that include high dissatisfaction when

considering the principle of stewardship were:

"There was a lack of focus. A loss of momentum and we'll never get it back."

"Everyone deferred to another one. Passing the buck."

"I kept the goal of the organization in mind and that's how I survived."

"It's a good organization but there's no follow-through."

"You're wishing you could do more."

"It was very challenging when we made the decision to separate from the national

organization."

"Getting on the board and everyone has duties but half the people do all the

work."

"Half the people sit back."

"It was the organization I loved and it was going downward."

"I stepped up my role and was functioning as the actual chair."

"Politics—(it) makes it hard for them (nonprofits) to function."

"Not knowing the goals of the organization. Not knowing the purpose. If I can't

see the greater good to come out of it. The leader wanted us to take a certain direction."

114

"We tend to chase grant dollars—public or private. People try to conform the

mission to get dollars. People are making policy and are not the ones that are the most

informed. It's the organization and mission that are far more complex than policies can

be."

"The past (board officer) disappeared from the board. After many e-mails I had to

go out to explain."

9. Commitment to growth is described as follows by Spears (2005): Servant-

leaders believe that people have an intrinsic value beyond their tangible contributions as

workers. As such, Servant-leaders are deeply committed to a personal, professional, and

spiritual growth of each and every individual within the organization.

There were 139 incidents of satisfaction when considering the principle of

commitment to growth. Fifty-one incidents involved self-growth. Eighteen incidents

involved the growth of another person. Thirty-one incidents involved the growth of the

board. Thirty-nine incidents involved the growth of the group/population served (figure

5). Examples of responses that included the most highly satisfying incidents when

considering the principle of commitment to growth were:

"We give much more than money. . . . (It) creates a very heady feeling."

"This helped us grow from a group of ladies who might have spare change to a

force that they (the organization) take into account!"

"God's hand was directing everyone. Afterwards was incredible. It was

unexpected. Something magical and divine. It (the ceremony) had special meaning. It

was a very spiritual experience."

115

"People can have a little business and then they can expand. The idea of

sponsorship."

"It opened doors."

"People can come to us and we can go to you."

"It's a sense of accomplishment—an intern joins me. The intern helps out. I love

teaching."

"We're providing support and direction."

"Satisfaction comes from growth and development of children. By providing

counsel to administration about clinical issues. I assist the population to advocate for

themselves."

"We're helping someone to do the job."

"We're tutoring kids. They're inspired. There are swimming days and field trips."

"The goals I had set had been accomplished. I didn't do it myself. You gently

encourage, nudge, show people the way."

"I learned how to handle the situation. After 5-10 years I had more self-esteem. I

encouraged others to be on the board because of how much they can learn and

accomplish. I had personal experience with your services . . . created good people.

Trainers are mentors, helping kids. We provide education to people . . . and also classes."

"It is satisfying to set a goal and reach it."

"We did youth mentoring, raising money for after-school programs. We wanted

the best for the kids."

116

"The basic satisfaction was to create more enthusiasm to work toward goals and

developing young people."

"The coaches are nurturing, close, comfortable."

"The library opens up an opportunity for a child. It teaches kids to read who have

never read. Women are being released from a facility and turned loose. Their entire life

had to be created. It's a rewarding experience from the point that we helped."

"We recognize new board-certified teachers. Mentoring is very successful. We're

part of the world to learn at the spiritual level. I keep moving forward. I do course

development. Always moving forward."

"I began to get more and more involved. I got financially involved. It's wonderful

to see teachers who manage kids who are highly disruptive. Then there's the growth of

the organization. Most kids turn out pretty good with a little bit of nurturing."

"The idea of volunteering is deeply involved. We give back. Everyone takes their

turn. Sometimes the busiest people are giving back. They feel a commitment. You've had

an impact, a positive impact on other people's lives. It can be from one-on-one to a larger

impact of several thousand."

"You look at your work. Some parents get involved. Everybody has a purpose."

"Professional involvement gave me opportunities to meet well-connected people

that I might not meet otherwise."

"I'm very proud of our accomplishments. We painted the wall on the domestic

violence center."

117

There were 138 most highly dissatisfying incidents when considering the principle

of commitment to growth. Fifty one incidents included self-growth. Eighteen incidents

included the growth of another person. Thirty-one incidents included the growth of the

board. Thirty-eight incidents included the growth of the group/population served (figure

6). Examples of responses that included high dissatisfaction when considering the

principle of commitment to growth were:

"When I failed to achieve my goals."

"The inability of people to adjust and to get out of the time warp."

"It feels like we are treading water. The motivation—the memories are fading."

"Women in leadership have to take care of themselves."

"Meetings were painful . . . made even more painful because of the division."

"You're always wishing you could do more."

"Disruption (separation of the two organizations) occurred in the volunteers

lives."

"If I'm not given an opportunity to do anything."

"Board members not willing to do what they're there to do."

"If people don't know who you are (the organization). You need to get the

message out."

"When you empower people to do their work and sometimes they go too far and

sometimes they don't make any decisions."

118

"Volunteers don't see the results of their efforts. There is little or no follow

through with the children I've helped. You lose track quickly. There's no continuity.

When others just disappear—it's very frustrating."

10. Building community is described as follows by Spears (2005): Servant-leaders

are aware that the shift from local communities to large institutions as the primary

shaper of human lives has changed our perceptions and caused a sense of loss. Servant-

leaders seek to identify a means for building community among those who work within a

given institution. Servant leaders look for benevolent, humane, and philanthropic ways to

benefit others.

There were 170 incidents of high satisfaction when considering the principle of

building community. There were sixty-six incidents where the role of self was discussed

when building community. There were seven incidents where the role of another person

was the focus in building community. There were thirty-eight incidents where the role of

the board was the focus in building community. There were fifty-nine incidents where the

participant perceived his or her role to be highly satisfying when considering the

group/population served within the context of building community (figure 5). Examples

of responses that included the most highly satisfying incidents when considering the

principle of building community were:

"We are ambassadors for (the organization). We want to be true partners. It's the

gift that keeps on giving. The rest of the world matters. We became active partners."

"What is very important for me is fundraising—giving. We give amenities to

make their lives easier."

119

"To give back to make someone else's life better. Working together as a large

group. It (philanthropy) kept a very large group of people very close together."

"It (the organization) has a positive impact on kids."

"I never met a more dedicated group. Our organization is a team effort out of love

and respect of what to honor and respect. We give back. We are lucky. We serve. It has to

do with our life. Being part of a like-minded group. We support each other. It's a team

effort, a joint effort, socializing is important too."

"It is satisfying to be part of a team—a great team-building experience. I enjoy

being at the convention and meeting everyone."

"The board expressed their appreciation for the staff and the way we work as a

team."

"We are a family. We raise money for hospice and the shelter."

"We talk to others in the same situation. We find way to go out into the

community and work together."

"To make the world a better place."

"I volunteer because of work with community agencies. It's a chance to give back

and assist the community. I have a team of students who do healthcare teaching. It's

satisfying when we make decisions that benefit others. It's satisfying working as a team."

"What we're doing helps the community—fun raising money—fun people.

Someone out there is being helped. You are anonymous."

"We're focusing on animals and animal rights."

120

"We're going to build a new shelter (animal). Kids influence parents about

contributing."

"A group of us got together and said what can we do to make our city better. It's

very satisfying to see the community come together. We didn't know each other when we

first came together. Networking served as a springboard to make contacts to help. It's

satisfying to see kids involved with community organizations."

"We want to have everyone around them (clients) at the end of life. Our board

tries to find ways to reach out."

"As a board member I worked with outreach. I went out to educate the

community."

"Sometimes the collective good is better than individual work."

"The blessing of giving back and being part of a community. Those that have the

opportunity give back."

"It's about connecting with kids. As a board of directors, we feel we're all part of

one team, part of the family, part of the community."

"The times when I feel best are when I can communicate with membership and

communicate everyone's needs.

""We had a lot of new people moving into the community. This year we got

eighty people to attend our event!"

"We identified the number of homeless people in the community. That led to

granting and then a partnership because those kids at the shelter were in our schools and

121

then we could follow up with them. We could close the loop and make sure the kids did

not fall through the cracks."

There were 169 incidents of dissatisfaction when considering the principle of

building community. Sixty-six incidents included the role of self. Five incidents included

the role of another person. Thirty-nine incidents included the role of the board. Fifty

incidents included the role of the group/population served (figure 6). Examples of

responses that included the most highly dissatisfying incidents when considering the

principle of building community were:

"I get dissatisfied with people who won't help. A lack of participation. Everything

was done by a 'committee of three.'"

"A lot of people just don't give. Some people are takers—not givers. There are

people who never become officers."

"During the early days on the board, there were horrible people on the board. The

organization I loved was going downward. The upheaval was negative."

"There are board members who won't be an officer. Other people should

participate on the board. The same people year after year are doing the work. There is a

lack of publicity. It's frustrating when we can't get known in the community."

Research Question Three Summary

When considering the principle of stewardship, there were sixty-three incidents

that included satisfaction compared to sixty-three incidents of dissatisfaction for a

combined total of 126 incidents. When considering the principle of commitment to

growth, there were 139 incidents that included satisfaction compared to 138 incidents that

122

included dissatisfaction, for a combined total of 277 incidents. When considering the

principle of building community, there were 170 incidents that included satisfaction

compared to 169 incidents that included dissatisfaction for a combined total of 339

incidents.

When comparing the three principles of servant leadership that are considered to

be community-building actions (e.g., stewardship, commitment to growth, and building

community), commitment to growth was mentioned 2.2 times more often than

stewardship. Building community was mentioned 1.2 times more often than commitment

to growth. Building community was mentioned 2.7 times more often than stewardship.

Chapter Summary

This study examined the degree to which the principles of servant leadership

motivate nonpaid volunteers to serve on the boards of directors of nonprofit,

philanthropic organizations. The aggregate number of years of volunteer service in any

capacity for the participants totaled 771 years. The aggregate number of years of

nonprofit board service for all of the participants in the study (e.g., thirty-three board

members) totaled 269 years. As a point of reference, consider the following passage from

John C. Burkhardt and Larry C. Spears (2000):

We are all of us both leaders and followers in different parts of our lives. Servant-

Leadership encourages everyone to balance leading and serving within his or her

own life. For people who are in leadership positions, it reminds us that our

primary responsibility is in serving others. For those in follower positions, it

encourages us to look for situational opportunities to provide leadership. The end

result of this moving back-and-forth between leading and following is to enhance

our lives as individuals, and to raise the very possibilities of our many institutions.

(3-4)

123

There were 1592 incidents of satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction described and

recorded during the interviews. Due to the large number of incidents, not every incident

was quoted. Figure 7 shows the aggregated totals for incidents of satisfaction and

incidents of dissatisfaction. The combined totals were: (1) listening—92 incidents,

(2) empathy—74 incidents, (3) healing—77 incidents, (4) awareness—185 incidents,

(5) persuasion—141 incidents, (6) conceptualization—146 incidents, (7) foresight—135

incidents, (8) stewardship—126 incidents, (9) commitment to growth—277 incidents,

(10) building community—339 incidents.

All responses were placed within at least one of the three overarching themes for

analysis. Appendix N, exhibit 15.1 displays a spreadsheet with tallies of all of the

frequencies of actions that were most highly satisfying and their alignment with the

ten principles of servant leadership. Subtotals and aggregated totals are presented.

Appendix N, exhibit 15.2 presents a spreadsheet with tallies of the frequencies of

actions that were most highly dissatisfying and their alignment with the ten principles of

servant leadership. Subtotals and aggregated totals are presented.

The principles of servant leadership, according to their aggregated totals, are

listed in order from the largest number of incidents to the least number of incidents, for

comparison purposes: (1) building community, (2) commitment to growth, (3) awareness,

(4) conceptualization, (5) persuasion, (6) foresight, (7) stewardship, (8) listening, and

(10) empathy (see figure 7).

125

The disaggregated totals for incidents of satisfaction and dissatisfaction follow the

same pattern, for comparison purposes. The relative numbers and order of appearance of

incidents are the same.

The 1592 specific examples of actions (satisfaction and dissatisfaction combined)

that reflected the respondents' personal motivations to serve on their respective boards

were found to be congruent with the ten principles of servant leadership as described by

Greenleaf (1977), Spears (2005), and Keith (2008). The participants' time limitations and

interview time limitations allowed for 1592 specific examples of satisfaction and/or

dissatisfaction to be described. If there had been no time limitations, it is highly likely

that more incidents would have been described. However, the data from the study show

consistency and congruency with the ten principles of servant leadership as seen in

figure 7.

Chapter V presents a summary of the key findings related to the literature,

conclusions, implications for action, recommendations for future research, and

concluding remarks which include personal reflections.

126

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

This chapter includes the purpose of the study, research questions, and a review of

the methodology. Limitations of the research are presented. The summary of key findings

presents the data in relationship to the research questions. Conclusions are presented with

regard to the key findings. Implications for actions, recommendations, and suggestions

for further research are followed by the chapter summary. Finally, concluding remarks,

including personal reflections about the study, are presented.





organizations in the United States. The principles are (1) listening, (2) empathy,

(3) healing, (4) awareness, (5) persuasion, (6) conceptualization, (7) foresight,

(8) stewardship, (9) commitment to growth, and (10) building community.

Research Questions


127


empathy, healing, and awareness as their motivations to serve? The overarching theme is

relationship-building actions.




overarching theme is future-oriented actions.




serve? The overarching theme is community-building actions.

Methodology

The study sample included thirty-three nonpaid volunteer members of the boards

of directors of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations in the United States. The volunteer

board members were nominated as potential participants in this study by civic and

community businessmen and women who felt the volunteers had provided exceptional

service to their communities and organizations. All of the nominees were contacted by

U.S. mail, phone, and e-mail to request their participation in the study.

The nominees were screened to be participants in the study if they met the

following criteria: (1) The board members were nonpaid; (2) The board members were

volunteers; (3) The board members were, at that time, currently working for one, or

more, nonprofit, philanthropic organization(s) within the United States; (4) Board

128

members agreed to be interviewed regarding the critical incidents in their lives that had

occurred during their service on their current board positions; (5) Board members were

active members of the boards of their organizations; (6) Board members participated in

board operations and decisions and had decision-making (e.g., voting rights) on their

boards.

The critical incident technique was used as the interview method. Two open-

ended questions were asked. The questions were (1) Can you tell me about a time, or

times, when you were most highly satisfied with your volunteer work as a member of the

board? (2) Can you tell me about a time, or times, when you were most highly

dissatisfied with your volunteer work as a member of the board? The two interview

questions allowed the participants to speak about their experiences on their board, or

boards, if they served on more than one boards, openly and candidly.

The interview data were transcribed from the researcher's notes taken during the

interviews and digital tape recordings taped during the interviews. The researcher then

abstracted quotes from the notes and transcripts that addressed any of the ten principles of

servant leadership. The actions were first sorted according to each of the ten principles

and then clustered according to the three research questions. The ten principles of servant

leadership are (1) listening, (2) empathy, (3) healing, (4) awareness, (5) persuasion,


(10) building community.

The ten principles were divided among the three research questions according to

the order in which they were presented by the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.

129

As a result, three categories (e.g., overarching themes) were revealed. They were

(1) relationship-building actions, (2) future-oriented actions, and (3) community-building

actions. Described incidents included actions that were identified to be consistent with

the ten principles of servant leadership. The actions could then be placed into categories

according to which of the three research questions they addressed.

For purposes of analysis and comparison, the findings were divided into two

categories according to the two interview questions. The two categories were (1) most

highly satisfying incidents, and (2) most highly dissatisfying incidents. Any/all of the

incidents described herein were described by nonpaid volunteer members of boards of

directors of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations.

Limitations of the Research

The study was limited to volunteer members of the boards of directors of

nonprofit, philanthropic organizations within the United States. While potential study

participants were nominated throughout the United States, the participants who agreed to

participate in the study and also fit the criteria to participate in the study, and were

therefore selected to participate in the study, were from the following: Alabama,

California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, New York, Virginia,

Washington, and the District of Columbia. These states are located in the West,

Northwest, Midwest, South, and the East. Therefore, the study participants were

considered to be representative of board members throughout the United States.

However, there is the possibility that board member responses in this study were not

130

completely reflective of potential board member responses that might have been gathered

throughout the fifty United States.

The length of the telephone interviews was thirty-five minutes for the shortest

interview and ninety minutes for the longest interview. The average time for each

interview was forty-five minutes. If time had been unlimited, there might have been a

greater number of responses indicating a greater number of incidents that reflected most

highly satisfying and most highly dissatisfying incidents. The researcher noted that at the

conclusion of the interviews, most of the board members stated that they had thought of

and detailed all of the incidents they could remember that were most highly satisfying

and/or most highly dissatisfying during their service as board members.

Phone interviews were the most efficient way to conduct interviews across the

United States. The interviews were not done in person, thus limiting the opportunity for

the researcher to assess body language and other possible physical details that might have

added to the data. The researcher noted that almost all of the participants stated that their

responses came "from the heart" and that they continued their commitments to their

organizations and/or similar organizations and causes.

Summary of the Key Findings

The summary of key findings for the three research questions describes the degree

to which the one or more of the ten principles of servant leadership motivated nonpaid

volunteers to serve on the boards of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations. The

importance of the key findings and conclusions were determined in the following

manner: (1) Data were taken directly from the interviews, recordings of the interviews,

131

and transcripts of the interviews; (2) Key points were abstracted while the researcher was

listening during the interview process; and (3) Findings were related to key issues about

servant leadership that were discovered during the literature review. The key findings

follow; they are organized within the context of each of the three research questions.

Research question one includes the principles of listening, empathy, healing, and

awareness. Research question two includes the principles of persuasion,

conceptualization, and foresight. Research question three includes the principles of

stewardship, commitment to growth, and building community.

Research Question One

To what degree do volunteer board members of nonprofit, philanthropic


(1) listening, (2) empathy, (3) healing, and (4) awareness as their motivations to serve?

This research question looked at incidents that presented examples of

relationship-building actions that were perceived to have occurred while each participant

(e.g., board member) was serving as a volunteer member on the board of directors of a

nonprofit, philanthropic organization.

The first principle, listening (i.e., listening receptively to what is being said and

not said—Greenleaf 1970), produced thirty-eight responses that included most highly

satisfying actions. This resulted in an average of 1.15 most highly satisfying actions per

board member.

Listening produced forty-five responses that included most highly dissatisfying

actions for an average of 1.64 responses per board member. The combined total for

132

listening was ninety-two described actions for an average of 2.79 responses per board

member.

There were twenty-five responses (i.e., the largest number of responses) that

included listening to oneself, twenty-four responses that included listening to others,

twenty responses that included listening to the board, and twenty-three responses that

included listening to the group/population served.

The second principle, empathy (i.e., seeking to understand, making positive

assumptions, having compassion—Greenleaf), produced forty-two responses that

included satisfaction, for an average of 1.27 actions per board member. Empathy

produced thirty-two responses that included dissatisfaction with an average of 0.97 (e.g.,

one) responses per board member. The combined total for empathy was seventy-four

responses with an average of 2.24 responses per board member.

There were twenty-one responses that included understanding oneself, twelve

responses that included understanding another person, thirteen responses that included

understanding the members of the board, and twenty-eight responses (e.g., the largest

number of responses) that included understanding the group/population served.

The third principle, healing (i.e., searching for wholeness; physical, mental, and

spiritual—Greenleaf), produced sixty-four responses that included satisfaction, for an

average of 1.94 actions per board member. Healing produced sixteen responses that

included dissatisfaction for an average of forty-eight (e.g., one-half) response per board

member.

133

The combined total number of responses for healing was eighty responses for an

average of 2.42 responses per board member. There were twenty-three responses (e.g.,

the largest number) that included searching for wholeness of self, sixteen responses that

included searching for wholeness of another person, nine responses that included

searching for wholeness of the board, and thirty-two responses (i.e., the largest number of

responses) that included searching for wholeness of the group/population served.

The fourth principle for research question one, awareness (i.e., making a

commitment to foster awareness—Greenleaf), produced 112 responses that included

satisfaction for an average of 3.4 actions per board member. Awareness produced

seventy-three responses that included dissatisfaction for an average of 2.2 responses per

board member. The combined total for awareness was 185 described actions for an

average of 5.6 responses per board member. There were seventy-eight responses (i.e., the

largest number of responses) that included awareness of self, twenty-eight responses that

included awareness of another person, forty-one responses that included awareness of the

board, and thirty-eight responses that included awareness of the group/population served.

The interview responses resulted in 256 incidents describing most highly

satisfying actions and 175 incidents describing most highly dissatisfying actions. The

combined total for most highly satisfying and most highly dissatisfying actions attributed

to this research question (research question one) was 431 actions. The average number of

responses per board member was 13.06.

134

Research Question Two



(5) persuasion, (6) conceptualization, and (7) foresight as their motivations to serve?

This research question looked for incidents that presented examples of future-

oriented actions when considering the future of the organization and the people it serves.

The first principle for research question two, persuasion (i.e., seeking to convince

rather than to coerce and building consensus), produced eighty-four responses that

included satisfaction, for an average of 2.6 actions per board member.

Persuasion produced fifty-seven responses that included dissatisfaction with an

average of 1.73 responses per board member. The combined total for persuasion was 141

responses with an average of 4.27 responses per board member. There were twenty-nine

responses that included persuading oneself, twenty-nine responses that included

persuading another person, fifty responses (i.e., the largest number of responses) that

included striving for board consensus (e.g., persuading the board to make a decision as

one), and thirty-three responses that included persuading the group/population served.

The second principle included in research question two, conceptualization (i.e.,

thinking beyond day-to-day realities while balancing daily focus), resulted in eighty-one

descriptions of actions that were most highly satisfying with an average of 2.5 responses

per board member.

There were sixty-five responses that included incidents of dissatisfaction with an

average of two responses per board member. The combined total number of responses for

135

the principle conceptualization was 146 responses. There were fifty-nine responses that

included concepts/ideas generated by oneself, twenty-seven responses that included

concepts/ideas generated by another person, and sixty responses (i.e., the largest number

of responses) that included concepts/ideas generated by the board.

The third principle included in research question two, foresight (i.e., intuitive

abilities to learn from the past and to see future consequences of actions), resulted in

sixty-two responses that included actions of high satisfaction for an average of 1.9

responses per board member. There was a combined total of 135 incidents that described

most highly satisfying and most highly dissatisfying actions with an average of 4.1

actions described per board member.

There were seventy-three responses that described incidents of highly

dissatisfying actions for an average of 2.2 responses per board member. There were fifty-

seven responses (i.e., the largest number of responses) that included the respondent's own

foresight, thirty-four responses that included foresight of another person, and forty-four

responses that included foresight of the board.

The total number of responses that included most highly satisfying incidents for

research question two was 227 responses. The total number of responses that included

most highly dissatisfying incidents for the same principles within research question two

was 195 responses.

The combined total for most highly satisfying and most highly dissatisfying

actions attributed to this research question (i.e., research question two) was 422 actions.

This resulted in an average of 12.8 responses per board member.

136

Research Question Three



(8) stewardship, (9) commitment to professional and/or spiritual growth, and

(10) building community as their motivations to serve?

This research question looked at community-building actions that study

participants perceived to be evident during their service on their respective boards of

directors of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations.

The first principle included in research question three was stewardship (i.e.,

holding the institution in trust for the good of society). Study participants (e.g., board

members) presented sixty-three responses that included actions perceived to be the most

highly satisfying with an average of 1.9 responses per board member.

There were also sixty-three responses that described the most highly dissatisfying

incidents of stewardship for an average of 1.9 responses per board member. The total

number of responses including most highly satisfying and most highly dissatisfying

incidents that included the principle of stewardship was 126 incidents for an average of

3.8 incident responses per board member. There were fifty-two responses (i.e., the largest

number of responses) that included the role of oneself in the act of stewardship. There

were twenty-eight responses that included the role of another person in stewardship.

There were forty-six responses that included the role of the board in stewardship.

The second principle included in research question three was commitment to

growth (i.e., personal, professional, and spiritual growth of self and others—Greenleaf).

137

There were 139 described incidents that included most highly satisfying actions for an

average of 4.2 incidents per board member.

There were 138 incidents of dissatisfaction for an average of 4.1 responses per

board member. The combined total of responses that included actions describing

commitment to growth (i.e., personal, professional, and spiritual growth of self and

others—Greenleaf) was 277 incidents for an average of 8.4 responses per board member.

There were 102 responses (i.e., the largest number of responses) that included the

growth of oneself, thirty-six responses that included the growth of another person, sixty-

two responses that included the growth of the board, and seventy-seven responses that

included the growth of the group/population served.

The third principle included in research question three and the last principle to be

discussed in this section was building community (e.g., benevolent, humane,

philanthropic, and that benefits others—Greenleaf). There were 170 responses in the

category of highly satisfying that included building community. The average number of

responses for most highly satisfying incidents of building community was 5.2 responses.

There were 169 responses in the category of most highly dissatisfying that

included Building Community. The average number of responses for most highly

dissatisfying incidents of building community was 5.1 incidents per board member. The

combined total number of responses for building community was 339 incidents with an

average of 10.3 responses per board member.

There were 132 responses (i.e., the largest number of responses), which included

the role of oneself in building community. This number of responses (i.e., 132 responses)

138

was also the largest number of responses for any principle and any category in the entire

study.

The overall combined total for most highly satisfying and most highly

dissatisfying actions attributed to this research question (research question three) was 742

actions. This was the largest total number of actions described in this study. This resulted

in an average of 22.5 actions described per board member. Again, this was the largest

number of actions described throughout the study.

Conclusions

There were 1595 incidents describing actions that included one or more of the ten

principles of servant leadership. The written works of Robert K. Greenleaf (1970, 1972,

1977), Larry Spears (1997, 2004) and Dr. Kent M. Keith (2008), along with the

observations of the researcher during the interview process, lead to the conclusion that

the thirty-three volunteer board members interviewed in the study were motivated by the

ten principles of servant leadership while serving their constituents (i.e., their fellow

board members, their organizations, and their populations served).

Most of the volunteer board members stated that they had volunteered because

they were seeking purpose and/or meaning in their lives. The idea of a "purpose-driven

life" is supported by Rick Warren (2002) in his book about the ministry. Thus some

volunteer board members volunteer due to what they believe to be a spiritual calling in

their lives.

The sense of purpose is also supported by nonsectarian writers such as Ken

Blanchard (2003, 2006), Robert K. Greenleaf (1970, 1972, 1977), Michael Josephson

139

(2002), Kent Keith (2008), and a host of other writers. The researcher concluded that all

of the volunteer board members interviewed sought a greater purpose and meaning for

their lives, and in doing so they described incidents that reflected the practice of servant

leadership. The researcher noted that many volunteer board members had experienced the

concept of volunteerism during their formative years and were thus predisposed to

volunteer during their adult lives. Thus President Obama's call to service is potentially a

good role model for our youth during these transitional times in our economy and our

democracy.

All of the volunteer board members expressed a desire to "give back" to the

community. This concept is evident in the finding that shows that the greatest number of

incidents that described actions of highest satisfaction is the principle of building

community, as seen in figure 7 in chapter IV of this study. Every participant discussed

incidents of high satisfaction during their terms as volunteer board members. Thus the

researcher observed that volunteer board members were likely to continue their service to

their boards and organizations. They perceived their service to be valuable while

achieving the goals of building and improving the community served along with

enhancing the growth of members of the community served.

If we are to achieve a civil society in which each citizen has opportunity to grow

and thrive, then the principles of servant leadership will serve to enhance the possibility

of achieving that goal. The volunteer board members cited more incidents that included

the principles of awareness, commitment to growth, and building community more than

any of the remaining principles of servant leadership. While all of the principles are

140

important, as detailed by the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership library of

publications, awareness, commitment to growth, and building community perhaps best

describe the principles necessary to achieve a civil society that is moving forward in a

positive direction during the twenty-first century.

Implications for Actions

Servant leadership is recognized as a model for effective leadership in the

nonprofit and private sectors (Keith 2008). It is also recognized as a leadership model in

the ministry as evidenced by the numerous sectarian organizations and their

representatives present within the Greenleaf Center membership and at conferences and

in publications (Warren 2002).

Servant leadership is also becoming widespread throughout nonsectarian society,

in part as a result of the "call to serve" presented by President and Mrs. Obama and the

President's administration

A week from tomorrow marks the 100th day of my administration. In those next

eight days, I ask every American to make an enduring commitment to serving

your community and your country in whatever way you can. Visit

WhiteHouse.gov to share your stories of service and success. And together, we

will measure our progress not just in number of hours served or volunteers

mobilized—but in the impact our efforts have on the life of this nation. (President

Obama, The White House, April 21, 2009)

Karin A. Lubin (2001) and Todd Bliss (2006) each explained the importance of

servant leadership within the profession of education. This study presented the concept

that servant leadership, while already evident within volunteerism and volunteer

leadership, can be taken one step further. If servant leadership were recognized as the

standard for successful volunteer leadership, its inclusion in the recruitment, selection,

141

training, and evaluation process for volunteer leaders would have a positive impact on

service and volunteerism in the United States.

One can take the concept of servant leadership a step further and consider the

implications of introducing servant leadership to all volunteers who have chosen to

answer the call to serve. When individuals have the foresight to be stewards for a better

nation and a better world, the call to serve and the concept of servant leadership will

empower those served.

One can also consider the utilitarian value of using the ten principles of servant

leadership as a guide for recruitment, retention, and assessment of volunteer leaders in all

sectors.

Recommendations for Future Research

Further research is needed to study the relationship(s) between servant leadership

and nonprofit, philanthropic volunteer board leadership. Some ideas and/or suggestions

for future studies follow.

1. A replication of this study throughout any/all types/levels of volunteerism for

nonprofit, philanthropic organizations to see if servant leadership is practiced at all levels

of organizations

2. A replication of the study that focuses on board members specifically to

determine if there is a relationship between the practice of servant leadership and

successful board outcomes

3. A survey of volunteers of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations to find out if

they perceive the board of directors as exhibiting the characteristics of servant leadership

142

4. A study of the clergy in the United States to see the degree to which they

exhibit the characteristics of servant leadership in their clerical activities and lives

5. A study of leaders of nonprofit, philanthropic organizations to see the degree to

which they exhibit the characteristics of servant leadership in their activities as leaders

6. A study of leaders in the private sector (i.e., corporations) to see the degree to

which they exhibit the characteristics of servant leadership in their activities as corporate

leaders

7. A study of school administrators to see the degree to which they exhibit the

characteristics of servant leadership in their activities as school leaders.

8. A study that looks for differences between the ten principles when considering

most highly satisfying incidents and most highly dissatisfying incidents

9. A study that seeks to discover if an individual's length of time as a volunteer

has an effect on the degree to which that individual uses one or more of the principles of

servant leadership

10. A study to find out if the individual's perceived level of commitment to the

board/organization/constituents is correlated to the number of incidents of

satisfaction/dissatisfaction described by that individual.

Concluding Remarks

The creation of a civilized society has been one of the most important goals of

society throughout history. Listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion,

conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth, and building

community (i.e., the ten principles of servant leadership) can provide the building blocks

143

to successfully build a civilized society. Civilized society begins with each person

working to be the best that they can be and at the same time making every effort to

enhance the lives of others. Perhaps the best way to observe whether or not we have

evolved to a truly civilized society is to observe our leaders. Servant leadership has

proven to be transformational in part because it enhances the lives of those served. To

find the servant leaders among us, we can consider the following model.

The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons. Do

they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more

likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least

privileged in society: will they benefit, or at least, not be further deprived?

(Greenleaf 1970, 15)

We have entered an era wherein the global community is changing at the speed of

the Internet and the facts about that change are available within a heartbeat of time. The

global community depends upon leadership that will sustain and improve the world for

generations to come. If the United States is to continue to be a country that is a leader

among nations, we need leaders that are prepared to serve on an unprecedented level, for

all to observe and learn from. The nonprofit economy in the United States has net assets

in trillions of dollars (appendix U).

Wiener et al. (2001) state, "For the 1.23 million charities, social welfare

organizations, and religious congregations in the United States, giving and volunteering

is at the heart of citizen action and central to their ability to serve their communities" (2).

The volunteer board members who serve these organizations and guide them into the

future are and will be the leaders who guide all of those who work with the organizations

144

they serve. Servant leadership can guide us into a better future for all of our organizations

and better communities for all of our citizens.

145

APPENDICES

146

APPENDIX A

MATRIX OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND TEN PRINCIPLES

OF SERVANT-LEADERSHIP

147

Research Questions and Ten Principles of Servant-Leadership

Alignment Matrix

1

. L

iste

nin

g

2.

Em

pat

hiz

ing

3.

Hea

lin

g

4.

Aw

aren

ess

5.

Per

suas

ion

6.

Co

nce

ptu

aliz

atio

n

7.

Fo

resi

gh

t

8.

Ste

war

dsh

ip

9. G

row

th

10

. B

uil

din

g

Co

mm

un

ity

#1.

X

X

X

X

#2.

X

X

X

#3.

X

X

X

R

esea

rch

Ques

tions

QU

ES

TIO

NS

E

S

T

ION

S

148

APPENDIX B

HERZBERG'S MOTIVATORS AND HYGIENE FACTORS

149

Figure A1. Herzberg's motivators and hygiene factors. Reprinted with permission.

150

APPENDIX C

USA MAP

152

APPENDIX D

INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

153

Critical Incident Technique

Interview Questions – Diane Silvers

Approved by Dr. Kemper

4/25/07

Question #1: Can you tell me about a time, or times, when you were most highly

satisfied with your volunteer work as a member of the board?

Question #2: Can you tell me about a time, or times, when you were most highly

dissatisfied with your volunteer work as a member of the board?

154

APPENDIX E

LETTER TO BOARD MEMBERS REQUESTING

INTERVIEW PARTICIPATION

155

LETTER TO BOARD MEMBERS

REQUESTING PARTICIPATION IN AN INTERVIEW FOR THE STUDY

July 1, 2007

Dear [Name of Volunteer Board Member]:

I am writing to ask you to consider being part of a leadership study. You have been

selected to participate in this study because you are a volunteer member of the board of

directors of a nonprofit, philanthropic organization. The importance of volunteer

leadership is emerging as one of the most important aspects of philanthropy in America

today.

My doctoral dissertation is being completed through the College of Education and

Organizational Leadership at the University of La Verne. I am conducting a study of

volunteer board members to determine if they exhibit characteristics of the leadership

style known as Servant Leadership. You have been nominated as a potential candidate for

this study.

Servant Leadership has been found to be extremely successful in today’s business

world. Servant leadership stresses the importance and benefits of serving the welfare of

employees, customers and communities. The Ten Principles of Servant Leadership are:

1) Listening, 2) Empathy, 3) Healing, 4) Awareness, 5) Persuasion, 6) Conceptualization,

7) Foresight, 8) Stewardship, 9) Commitment, 10) Building Community.

The interview will consist of two open-ended questions. I would like to conduct

telephone interviews. Participants will remain completely anonymous. I will be glad to

call you at the time and number that is most convenient for you.

Please take a moment to complete the enclosed stamped response card and drop it in

the mail to me. If you prefer, please respond by email or telephone. The numbers are

listed below. Thank you for considering this request. I look forward to an interview with

you!

Sincerely,

Signature on file

Diane J. Silvers

[email protected]

(xxx) xxx-xxxx

mailto:[email protected]

156

APPENDIX F

DR. TODD BLISS PERMISSION LETTER

157

Subject: Re: Dissertation permission request

Date: 9/24/2006 12:32:37 P.M. Pacific Standard Time

From: [email protected]

To: [email protected]

Dear Diane: Feel free to adapt my interview instrument for your study. It seemed to work well for me. Dr. Kemper is a fantastic chair. He will guide you safely through the process. todd

158

APPENDIX G

DR. KARIN LUBIN PERMISSION LETTER

159

Subject: Re: Request to adapt dissertation interview questions

Date: 9/24/2006 6:27:04 P.M. Pacific Standard Time

From: [email protected]

To: [email protected]

Dear Diane Silvers,

It would be my pleasure to have you use some or all of the questions from my dissertation, VISIONARY LEADER BEHAVIORS AND THEIR CONGRUENCY WITH SERVANT LEADERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS. I believe using the characteristics of servant leadership will be very valuable for volunteer leaders serving on non-profit boards. I wish you all the best. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance, any time! Sincerely, Karin Lubin

--

Karin Lubin, Ed.D xxxxx

xxxxxx, XX xxxxx

xxx-xxx-xxxx

160

APPENDIX H

FIELD-TEST INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

FEEDBACK GUIDE

161

Field-Test

Interview Questionnaire Feedback Guide

1. Was the introduction to the interview process clear and understandable?

Yes________ No__________

If not, what changes would you suggest for improvement?

2. Was the critical incident technique question regarding most highly satisfying time(s)

as a board member, clear and understandable?

Yes__________ No__________

If not, what changes would you suggest for improvement?

3. Was the critical incident technique question regarding most highly dissatisfying

time(s) as a board member, clear and understandable?

Yes__________ No__________

4. Do you believe that there are any other questions that need to be asked?

5. Do you have any other suggestions that would make the interview instrument/process

more clear and productive?

Thank you for your participation in this validation process.

162

APPENDIX I

SIX ORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS

163

Ser

van

t L

ead

ersh

ip

Org 6

Optimal

Health

Workers experience this organization as a servant-minded organization


building of community, and the providing and sharing of positive leadership.

These characteristics are evident throughout the entire organization. People

are trusted and are trustworthy throughout the organization. They are

motivated to serve the interests of each other before their own self-interest

and are open to learning from each other. Leaders and workers view each

other as partners working in a spirit of collaboration.

Org 5 Excellent

Health

Workers experience this organization as a servant-oriented organization


building of community, and the providing and sharing of positive leadership.

These characteristics are evident throughout much of the organization. People

are trusted and are trustworthy. They are motivated to serve the interests of

each other before their own self-interest and are open to learning from each

other. Leaders and workers view each other as partners working in a spirit of

collaboration.

Pate

rnali

stic

Lea

der

ship

Org

4 Moderate

Health

Workers experience this organization as a positively paternalistic (parent-led)

organization characterized by a moderate level of trust and trustworthiness

along with occasional uncertainty and fear. Creativity is encouraged as long

as it doesn’t move the organization too far beyond the status quo. Risks can

be taken but failure is sometimes feared. Goals are mostly clear, through the

overall direction of the organization is sometimes confused. Leaders often

take the role of nurturing parent while workers assume the role of the

cared-for child.

Org

3 Limited

Health

Workers experience this organization as a negatively paternalistic

(parent-led) organization characterized by minimal to moderate levels of trust

and trustworthiness along with an underlying uncertainty and fear. People feel

that they must prove themselves and that they are only as good as their last

performance. Workers are sometimes listened to but only when they speak in

line with the values and priorities of the leaders. Conformity is expected

while individual expression is discouraged. Leaders often take the role of

critical parent while workers assume the role of the cautious child.

Au

tocr

ati

c L

ead

ersh

ip

Org

2 Poor

Health

Workers experience this organization as an autocratic-led organization

characterized by low levels of trust and trustworthiness and high levels of

uncertainty and fear. People lack motivation to serve the organization because

they do not feel that it is their organization or their goals. Leadership is

autocratic in style and is imposed from the top levels of the organization. It is

an environment where risks are seldom taken, failure is often punished and

creativity is discouraged. Most workers do not feel valued and often feel used

by those in leadership. Change is needed but is very difficult to achieve.

Org

1

Toxic

Workers experience this organization as a dangerous place to work . . . a

place characterized by dishonesty and a deep lack of integrity among its

workers and leaders. Workers are devalued, used and sometimes abused.

Positive leadership is missing at all levels and power is used in ways that are

harmful to workers, and the mission of the organization. There is almost no

trust and an extremely high level of fear. This organization will find it nearly

impossible to locate, develop, and maintain healthy workers who can assist in

producing positive organizational change.

Figure A2. Six organizational health levels Source: Laub 2003. Reprinted with permission.

164

APPENDIX J

LETTER OF CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

165

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

Principles of Servant Leadership that Motivate Nonpaid Volunteers to Serve on the Boards of Nonprofit, Philanthropic Organizations.

You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by Diane Silvers, from the College of Education and Organizational Leadership at the University of La Verne. The results will contribute to the completion of my doctoral dissertation. Your participation is completely voluntary. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because you are a nonpaid, volunteer board member serving on the board of directors of a nonprofit, philanthropic organization. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of the study is to reveal the degree to which the Ten Principles of Servant Leadership motivate nonpaid volunteers to serve on the governing boards of philanthropic, nonprofit organizations. PROCEDURES

If you decide to participate in this study, we will ask you to do the following things: Participate in a telephone interview with the researcher. The researcher will ask two specific questions about your service as a volunteer board member. You may respond by discussing your experiences as a member of the Board. The interview takes approximately 45 minutes. The interview will be recorded with a digital recorder. The interviewer will take hand-written notes during the interview. The information will remain strictly confidential and no personal information will ever be divulged in writing or any other means of communication. This is a telephone interview and may be responded to from the location of your choice. POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS

There is minimal risk and/or minimal discomfort for participants in this study. However, if the individual being interviewed were to decide to retract any information, the information can be purged from the tape and notes.

166

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY A benefit to the participant(s) is that a Summary of the Study will be sent directly to the individual who is interviewed. The potential benefit(s) to the nonprofit, philanthropic organization(s) will be the information gained from the study. PAYMENT FOR PARTICIPATION

There is no payment for participation in the study. CONFIDENTIALITY

Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law. Confidentiality will be maintained by means of strict coding of the information so that no one other than the researcher will have access to information. The information will be locked in a safe in the researcher’s home office until the dissertation is completed at which time all information will be purged. The participant has the right to review his/her portion of the tape. At the conclusion of the study, the digital tape will be purged. PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL

You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so. IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Diane Silvers: Principal Investigator, and/or Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Lawrence Kemper – (xxx) xxx-xxxx, X. xxxx Diane Silvers – (xxx) xxx-xxxx

167

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a research participant, contact Paul Alvarez, PhD, ATC, University Research Chair at xxx-xxx-xxxx, extension xxxx (Institutional Review Board, 1950 Third Street, La Verne, CA 91750).

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT OR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE

I understand the procedures described above. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form. ______________________________________________________________ Printed Name of Participant _______________ _________________________________________________ Signature of Participant Date In my judgment the participant is voluntarily and knowingly giving informed consent and possesses the legal capacity to give informed consent to participate in this research study. Signature on file __ __ __ __ __ _____________________ Signature of Investigator – Diane J. Silvers Date

SIGNATURE OR INVESTIGATOR

168

APPENDIX K

URBAN INSTITUTE, NATIONAL CENTER FOR

CHARITABLE STATISTICS CHART

169

Number of Nonprofit Organizations in the United States, 1996-2006

1996 2006

Number of Orgs.

Percent of All Orgs.

Number of Orgs.

Percent of All Orgs.

Pct. Change

All Nonprofit Organizations 1,084,939 100.0% 1,478,194 100.0% 36.2%

501(c)(3) Public Charities 535,930 49.4% 904,313 61.2% 68.7%

501(c)(3) Private Foundations 58,774 5.4% 109,852 7.4% 86.9%

Other 501(c) Nonprofit Organizations 490,235 45.2% 464,029 31.4% -5.3%

Small community groups and partnerships, etc.

Unknown NA Unknown NA NA

501(c)(3) Public Charities 535,930 49.4% 904,313 61.2% 68.7%

501(c)(3) Public Charities Registered with the IRS (including registered congregations)

535,930 49.4% 904,313 61.2% 68.7%

Reporting Public Charities 224,316 20.7% 347,414 23.5% 54.9%

Operating Public Charities 192,927 17.8% 295,355 20.0% 53.1%

Supporting Public Charities 31,389 2.9% 52,059 3.5% 65.9%

Non-Reporting, or with less than $25,000 in Gross Receipts

311,614 28.7% 556,899 37.7% 78.7%

Congregations (about half are registered with IRS)*

- 0.0% 385,874 26.1% NA

501(c)(3) Private Foundations 58,774 5.4% 109,852 7.4% 86.9%

Private Grantmaking (Non-Operating) Foundations

56,377 5.2% 105,187 7.1% 86.6%

Private Operating Foundations 2,397 0.2% 4,665 0.3% 94.6%

Other 501(c) Nonprofit Organizations 490,235 45.2% 464,029 31.4% -5.3%

Civic leagues, social welfare orgs, etc. 127,567 11.8% 116,539 7.9% -8.6%

Fraternal beneficiary societies 102,592 9.5% 84,049 5.7% -18.1%

Business leagues, chambers of commerce, etc.

68,575 6.3% 72,549 4.9% 5.8%

Labor, agricultural, horticultural orgs 61,729 5.7% 56,460 3.8% -8.5%

Social and recreational clubs 57,090 5.3% 56,778 3.8% -0.5%

Post or organization of war veterans 30,578 2.8% 35,164 2.4% 15.0%

All Other Nonprofit Organizations 42,104 3.9% 42,490 2.9% 0.9%

Note: Excludes out-of-scope organizations.

Sources: IRS Business Master File 01/2007 (with modifications by the National Center for Charitable

Statistics at the Urban Institute to exclude foreign and governmental organizations).

* The number of congregations is from the website of American Church Lists

(http://list.infousa.com/acl.htm), 2004. These numbers are excluded from the totals for the state since

approximately half of the congregations are included under registered public charities.

http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/PubApps/profileDrillDown.php?state=US&rpt=PC

http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/PubApps/profileDrillDown.php?state=US&rpt=PF

http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/PubApps/profileDrillDown.php?state=US&rpt=CO

http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/PubApps/profileDrillDown.php?state=US&rpt=PC

http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/PubApps/profileDrillDown.php?state=US&rpt=RPC

http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/PubApps/profileDrillDown.php?state=US&rpt=PF

http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/PubApps/profileDrillDown.php?state=US&rpt=CO

170

APPENDIX L

INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS' GENERAL INFORMATION

AND DEMOGRAPHICS

171

Table A1

Source of Data: Interview Participants—General Information

Interview

participant Gender Position on board Name/type of org.

Years on

board

Total years

volunteer

service

NBS F President WWI 9 38

SF F Treasurer WWI 4 12

JB F VP ways & means WWI 9 25

BG M Int'l membership WWI 1 5

CC F Record. secretary WWI 15 20

LJ F VP membership WWI 9 38

LA F Convent. coord. WWI 5 50

SH F VP charity WWI 3 5

JF F Corres. secretary WWI 6 20

MS F President Breathe CA 20 26

MP F Board member PHS/SPCA,WWI 5 23

DG F Board member PARCA 2 36

TT M Past pres., bd.

member

Breathe CA 16 20

JD M Board member Breathe CA 2 10

DC F Board member Breathe CA 2 25

MM F Board member Mission Hosp./WWI 2 30

BYS F Board member PHS/SPCA 10 30

DF F Board member PHS/SPCA 10 30

SR F Board member Chaffey Coll. Found. 10 20

SS F President Chaffey Coll. Found. 20 30

LS M Board member Chaffey Coll. Found. 20 40

MF F Board member Mission Hospice-San

Mate

1 5

GC F Past pres., bd. mbr. Mission Hospice-San

Mate

1 25

SG M Asst. chairperson Vista Center. for the

Blind

15 15

JO F President Stanford Child.

Aux.-Burl.

3 20

BB1 M Board member TESOL 3 7

JA F Board member Palm Beach. County.

NTC

8 8

GL F Board member McKinley Childrens

Center

2 40

GH M Past pres., bd.mbr.,

chair

ARC, McKinley

Child. Ctr., Un.Wy

7 30

MA M Pres. elect, bd.mbr. TESOL 7 28

BB M Past pres., bd. mbr. David & Margaret

Family Services

6 30

JWH F Pres., board

member

Altrusa International,

WWI

4 10

172

Table A1 (continued)

Interview

participant Gender Position on board Name/type of org.

Years on

board

Total years

volunteer

service

AI F VP, past pres. Japanese American

Museum of SJC

20 20

Totals

33 participants

*3 Content

validity

interviews not

included on

this list

9 males

24 females

*12+

advanced

degrees

known

*12 past /present

board presidents

Types of

organizations –

10 Human welfare-

related orgs

3 Education-related

orgs

1 Animal welfare-

related orgs

Types of

organizational

interviews

20 human welfare

nonprofit orgs.

10 educational

nonprofit orgs.

3 animal welfare-

related nonprofit

orgs.

Total

board

years =

269

Average=

8.15

Total

volunteer

years = 771

Average =

23.36

173

APPENDIX M

INTERVIEW RESPONSE DATA CLASSIFICATION

CODING SYSTEM

174

Table A2. Response category codes for each of the ten principles

Interview Question # 1 (Satisfaction); Interview Question # 2 (Dissatisfaction)

Listening – receptively to what is being said (and not said)

L1 – to self

L2 – to another person

L3 – to the board

L4 – to the group/population served

Empathy – seeking to understand, making positive assumptions, compassion

E1 – understanding self

E2 – understanding another person

E3 – understanding the board

E4 – the group/population served

Healing – search for wholeness (physical, mental, spiritual)

H1 – search for wholeness of self

H2 – search for wholeness of another person

H3 – search for wholeness of the board

H4 – of the group/population served

Awareness – making a commitment to foster awareness

A1 – of self

A2 – of another person

A3 – of the board

A4 – of the group/population served

Persuasion – seeking to convince rather than to coerce, building consensus

P1 – of self

P2 – of another person

P3 – striving for board consensus

P4 – the group/population served

Conceptualization – thinking beyond day-to-day realities while balancing daily focus

C1 – concept/idea(s) generated by oneself

C2 – concept/idea generated by another person

C3 – concept/idea(s) generated by the board

Foresight - intuitive abilities to learn from past and see future consequences of actions

F1 – self

F2 – another person

F3 – the board

Stewardship – holding the institution in trust for the good of society

S1 – role of self in stewardship

S2 – role of another person in stewardship

S3 – role of the board in stewardship

Commitment to Growth – personal, professional, and spiritual of self and others

G1 – growth of self

G2 – growth of another person

G3 – growth of the board

G4 – growth of the group/population served

Building Community – benevolent, humane, philanthropic, to benefit others

B1 – role of self

B2 – role of another person

B3 – role of the board

B4 – role of the group/population served

175

APPENDIX N

FREQUENCIES OF BOARD MEMBERS' ACTIONS

178

APPENDIX O

PARTICIPANT VOLUNTEER SERVICE TOTALS

AND COMPARISONS

180

APPENDIX P

UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE INSTITUTIONAL

REVIEW BOARD STUDY APPROVAL

182

APPENDIX Q

MASLOW'S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS

183

Figure A3. Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Reprinted with permission.

184

APPENDIX R

DATA CLASSIFICATION CHARTS

185

Participant AB Q # 1 Satisfaction

Listening (to self and others –

Empathy (understanding) –

Healing (search for wholeness of self and others) –

Awareness (Self and of others) -

Persuasion (building consensus) –

Conceptualization (dreams and balance of day-to-day operations) –

Foresight (intuitive abilities to learn from past and see future consequences) –

Stewardship ( holding institution in trust for the good of society) –

Committment to Growth (Personal, Professional, and spiritual of self and others) –

Building Community – (benevolent, humane, philanthropic, to benefit others) –

186

Participant AB Q # 2 Dissatisfaction

Listening (to self and others –

Empathy (understanding) –

Healing (search for wholeness of self and others) –

Awareness (Self and of others) -

Persuasion (building consensus) –

Conceptualization (dreams and balance of day-to-day operations) –

Foresight (intuitive abilities to learn from past and see future consequences) –

Stewardship ( holding institution in trust for the good of society) –

Committment to Growth (Personal, Professional, and spiritual of self and others) –

Building Community – (benevolent, humane, philanthropic, to benefit others) –

187

APPENDIX S

NONPROFIT QUARTERLY ILLUSTRATED

NONPROFIT ECONOMY

190

Reprinted with permission.

191

REFERENCES

192

REFERENCES

Abramson, Alan J. 2006. Aspen philanthropy letter. Report 139, June. New York: Aspen

Institute.

ACSA Staff. 2006. Leadership. ACSA News.

American Association of Retired Persons. 2009. AARP history. http://www.aarp.org/

aarp/About_AARP/articles/History.html (accessed May 14, 2006).

American Red Cross. n.d. Museum: Explore our history. http://www.redcross.org/

museum/history/pre1900_a.asp (accessed May 14, 2006).

Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) Staff. 2006. Leadership. ACSA

News.

Autry, James A. 2001. The servant leader: How to build a creative team, develop morale,

and improve bottom-line performance. New York: Three Rivers Press.

Baghdady, Georgette, and Joanne M. Maddock. 2008. Marching to a different mission.

Stanford Social Innovation Review 6, no. 2 (Spring): 60-65.

Baker, J. Howard. 2001. Is servant leadership part of your worldview. weLEAD Online

Magazine (January): 1-5.

Banks, James A. 2008. Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global

age. Educational Researcher 37, no. 3 (April): 129-139.

Barbuto Jr., John E., and Richard W. Scholl. 1998. Motivation sources inventory:

development and validation of new scales to measure an integrative taxonomy of

motivation. Psychological Reports 82: 1011-1022.

Barroso, Donzelina A. 2006. Powerful and innovative ideas for grantmakers, investors,

and nonprofits. New York: Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.

Bauer, Stephen. 2006. Meeting the leadership challenge: The nonprofit sector workforce

coalition. Paper presented at conference of Association for Research on Nonprofit

Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA), Chicago, IL.

193

Behar, Howard. 2007. It's not about the coffee: Leadership principles from a life at

Starbucks. New York: Penguin Group.

Bekkers, Rene. 2004a. Giving & volunteering in the Netherlands. PhD Diss., University

of Utrecht.

———. 2004b. Giving & volunteering in the Netherlands: Social and psychological

perspectives. Translated by Rene Bekkers. Utrecht: University of Utrecht.

Bell, Jeanne. 2006. Daring to lead: A national study of nonprofit executive leadership. In

Daring to lead, ed. Richard Moyers, 36. San Francisco, CA: CompassPoint

Nonprofit Services.

Bennis, Warren, and Joan Goldsmith. 2003. Learning to lead. 3rd ed. New York: Basic

Books.

Berger, Gabriel. 1991. Factors explaining volunteering for organizations in general, and

for social welfare organizations in particular. PhD diss., Brandeis University.

Blanchard, Ken. 2003. Servant leader. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

———. 2006. Leading at a higher level: Blanchard on leadership and creating high

performing organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.

Blankenship, Michael. 2007. Biel's spiel. All Animals (Summer): 24.

Bliss, Todd W. 2006. Servant leadership in K-12 distinguished teacher's professional

practice. EdD diss., University of La Verne.

Block, Peter. 1996. Stewardship. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

BoardSource. 2005. The source: Twelve principles of governance that power exceptional

boards. Washington DC: BoardSource.

Bollier, David. 1996. Aiming higher. New York: Amacom.

Bonet, Diana. 2001. The business of listening. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Course Technology.

(Orig. pub. 1994.)

Bower, Amanda. 2006. Bill & Melinda Gates: Giving money and hope to the world.

Time, April 30, 63.

Bowman, H. Woods. 2006. Arnova abstracts. ARNOVA 28, no. 3: 1-22.

194

Boyd, Jim. 2008. A servant leader's journey. New York and Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Braden, Bill. 2002-2004. The planning imperative. Winning strategies: Lessons from the

Alford-Axelson award for nonprofit managerial excellence program 2005, no.

2005: 3.

———. 2002-2004. Visionary planning for long-term success. Winning strategies:

Lessons from the Alford-Axelson award for nonprofit managerial excellence

program: 3-6.

Brokaw, Leslie. 2006. The woman who wants to fix the future. NRTA (Spring): 6-7.

Brown, Meghan. 2004. Call to leadership: Profiles of board chairs. Nonprofit Quarterly

11, no. 4 (2004): 43-50.

Brudney, Jeffrey L. 2005. Emerging areas of volunteering. ARNOVA Occasional Paper

Series 1, no. 2: 121.

Burchard, Brendon. 2009. The student leadership guide. 4th ed. Garden City, NY:

Morgan James Publishing.

Burkhardt, John C., and Larry C. Spears. 2000. Servant-leadership and philanthropic

institutions. Vol. 4. 2nd ed. Voices of Servant-Leadership, ed. The Greenleaf

Center for Servant-Leadership. Indianapolis, IN: The Greenleaf Center for

Servant-Leadership.

Burlson, Susan W. 1998. Getting extraordinary things done: Perceptions of behaviors that

superintendents use to obtain and manage additional resources in ways that result

in improved student learning. EdD diss., University of La Verne.

Burns, James MacGregor. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

CARE. n.d. About CARE. http://www.care.org/about/index.asp (accessed December 2,

2006).

Carver, John. 1999. The unique double servant leadership role of the board chairperson.

Vol. 2. 2nd ed. Voices of Servant-Leadership Series. Indianapolis, IN: The

Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership.

———. 2006. Boards that make a difference. 3rd ed. J-B Carver Board Governance

Series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Carver, John, and Miriam Carver. 2006. Reinventing your board. Rev. ed. J-B Carver

Board Governance Series, ed. John Carver. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

195

Center for Creative Leadership. 2006. Adaptability: A leadership imperative. Leading

Effectively, 1-3, March. http://www.ccl.org/leadingeffectively (accessed March

22, 2006).

Chase, Marilyn. 2006. Melinda Gates tops the list. Wall Street Journal, November 20,

R3.

Clark, Ron. 2003. The essential 55. New York: Hyperion Books.

Clinton, Hillary Rodham. 2003. Living history. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Cohen, Rick. 2008. Volunteering by the numbers. Nonprofit Quarterly 15, no. 3: 34-41.

Collins, Jim. 2001. Good to great. New York: HarperCollins.

———. 2008. What makes powerful nonprofit leaders. Nonprofit Quarterly (Summer).

Collins, Leah. 2007. Brave new world for non-profits. Times Colonist (August 17): A19.

Conner, Alana. 2008. With love comes war: Xenophobia and altruism may have evolved

hand in hand. Stanford Social Innovation Review 6, no. 2: 14.

Connerley, Mary L., and Paul B. Pedersen. 2005. Leadership in a diverse and

multicultural environment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cooperrider, David L., and Suresh Srivastva. 1987. Appreciative inquiry in

organizational life. Organizational Change and Development 1: 129-169.

Cornelius, Maria. 2008. Ready to Lead? Next Generation Leaders Speak Out. In Ready to

Lead?, ed. Patrick Corvington, 32. Omaha, NE: CompassPoint Nonprofit

Services.

Corporation for National & Community Service. 2009. American recovery and

reinvestment act of 2009. Washington DC: U.S. Government.

http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/recovery/index.asp (accessed April 9,

2009).

Covey, Stephen R. 1991. Principle centered leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster.

———. 2003. Principle centered leadership. 3rd ed. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Covey, Stephen R., A. Roger Merrill, and Rebecca R. Merrill. 1995. First things first.

New York: Simon & Schuster.

196

Cravens, Jayne. 2007. Online volunteering enters middle age. Nonprofit Quarterly 14, no.

1: 65-68.

Davidson, G. W., M. A. Seaton, and J. Simpson. 1994. The Wordsworth concise English

dictionary. Hertfordshire, England: Wordsworth Editions.

Deal, Terrence E., and Allen A. Kennedy. 1984. Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals

of corporate life. 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

DePree, Max. 1995. Forward to Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's

theory of servant-leadership influenced today's top management thinkers, by

Larry C. Spears. New York: Wiley.

Donahue, Lynn. 2003. "Servant-leaders," once again, receive prestigious leadership

awards. Coast Guard News, no. 22: 1-5.

Dracker, Pune. 1996. "Regarding Henry": A "Bergh's-eye" view of 140 years at the

ASPCA. ASPCA Animal Watch (Spring).

Drayton, Bill. 2006. Everyone a changemaker: Social entrepreneurship's ultimate goal.

Innovations (Winter): 1-27.

Dym, Barry, and Harry Hutson. 2005. Leadership in nonprofit organizations. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Edvardsson, Bo, and Inger Roos. 2001. Critical incident techniques: Towards a

framework for analysing the criticality of critical incidents. International Journal

of Service Industry Management 12, no. 3: 251-268.

Edwards, Michael. 2008. Just another emperor? The myths and realities of

philanthrocapitalism. New York: The Young Foundation.

Edwards, Paul, and Sarah Edwards. 2007. Making criticism work for you. Costco

Connection, (June): 9.

Eisner, David, Robert T. Grimm, Shannon Maynard, and Susannah Washburn. 2009. The

new volunteer workforce. Stanford Social Innovation Review 7, no. 1 (Winter):

32-37.

Emanuel, Rahm, and Bruce Reed. 2006. Asked not: Universal citizen service. In The

Plan: Big Ideas for America, 58-68. New York: Public Affairs, Perseus Books

Group.

197

Ferch, Shann. 2005. Servant-leadership: A way of life. International Journal of Servant-

leadership: 3-8.

Ferraro, Patrick. 2008. New survey looks at tomorrow's nonprofit leaders. Philanthropic

Research. http://www.GuideStar.com (accessed June 30, 2008).

Forbes. 2008. Soros on philanthropy. Forbes Magazine, May 17. Online video.

http://www.forbes.com (accessed May 30, 2008).

Foster-Bey, John, Robert Grimm Jr., and Nathan Dietz. 2007. Keeping baby boomers

volunteering: A research brief on volunteer retention and turnover. Washington,

DC: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Fox, Justin. 2008. Employees first! TIME Magazine, July 8, 45.

Freiberg, Kevin, and Jackie Freiberg. 1998. Nuts. New York: Broadway Books.

Frick, Don M. 2009. Implementing servant leadership: Stories from the field. LaCrosse,

WI: D. B. Reinhart Institute for Ethics in Leadership, Viterbo University.

Frick, Don M., and Larry C. Spears. 1996. On becoming a servant leader: The private

writings of Robert K. Greenleaf. Indianapolis, IN: Jossey-Bass.

———. 2004. Robert K. Greenleaf: A life of servant leadership. San Francisco, CA:

Berrett-Koehler.

Fullerton, J. 2005. Review of the fifth discipline, 1-12.

http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/jfullerton/review/learning.htm.

Galaskiewicz, Joseph, and Wolfgang Bielefeld. 2000. Facts and findings: Nonprofits in

an age of uncertainty. Independent Sector 2, no. 1 (Summer): 1-4.

Gawel, Joseph E. 2006. Herzberg's theory of motivation and Maslow's Hierarchy of

needs. ERIC Digest. http://wwwericdigests.org/1999-1/needs.html.

Gervase, Bushe, R. 1998. Appreciative inquiry with teams. Organizational Development

Journal 16, no. 3: 41-50.

Gibson, Cynthia M. 2008. Nonprofits: The DNA of democracy. Nonprofit Quarterly 15,

no. 4 (Winter): 27-30.

Gibson, Melissa. 2006. Foundation report warns against "one size fits all" standards.

ARNOVA NEWS (Fall): 3-4.

198

Giving USA Foundation. 2007. U.S. charitable giving reaches $295.02 billion in 2006.

Giving USA Yearbook. Glenview, IL: Giving USA Foundation.

Glashagel, Jerry. 2009. Servant institutions in business. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center

for Servant Leadership.

Gottfredson, Mark, Steve Schaubert, and Elisabeth Babcock. 2008. Achieving

breakthrough performance. Stanford Social Innovation Review 6, no. 3: 32-40.

Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. 2006. What is servant leadership?

http://www.greenleaf.org (accessed March 30, 2006).

Greenleaf, Robert K. 1970. The servant as leader. Westfield, IN: The Greenleaf Center


———. 1972. The institution as servant. Westfield, IN: The Greenleaf Center for Servant

Leadership.

———. 1977. Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and

greatness. New York: Paulist Press.

———. 1991. The servant as leader. Westfield, IN: The Greenleaf Center for Servant

Leadership. (Orig pub. 1970.)

———. 1998. The power of servant leadership. 2nd ed., ed. Larry C. Spears. San

Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

———. 2002. Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and

greatness. 25th anniversary ed., ed. Larry C. Spears. New York: Paulist Press.

(Orig. pub. 1977.)

———. 2003. The servant-leader within: Transformative path, ed. Hamilton Beazley,

Julie Beggs, and Larry C. Spears. Indianapolis, IN: Paulist Press.

———. 2008. The servant as leader. Westfield, IN: The Greenleaf Center for Servant

Leadership. (Orig pub. 1970.)

———. 2009. The institution as servant. Westfield, IN: The Greenleaf Center for Servant

Leadership. (Orig. pub. 1972.)

Grobman, Gary M. 2006. An introduction to the nonprofit sector: Practical approach for

the twenty-first century. 2nd ed. Harrisburg, PA: White Hat Communications.

199

Guo, Chao. 2007. Government funding and community representation on nonprofit

boards: The bargain we strike. Nonprofit Quarterly 14, no. 4: 73-75.

Hall, Peter Dobkin. 2003. A history of nonprofit boards in the United States. E-Book

Series. Washington, DC: BoardSource. http://www.boardsource.org (accessed

November 6, 2006).

Halpern, Patrick R. 2006. Workforce issues in the nonprofit sector: Generational

leadership change and diversity. Report, May. Kansas City, MO: American

Humanics.

Harrison, Yvonne, and Vic Murray. 2006. The role and impact of chairs of nonprofit

organization boards of directors: An exploratory study. Paper presented at

conference of Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and

Voluntary Action (ARNOVA), Chicago, IL.

Harvey, Thomas R. 1996. The elements of research. La Verne, CA: University of La

Verne.

Harvey, Thomas R., William L. Bearley, and Sharon M. Corkrum. 2002. The practical

decision maker: A handbook for decision making and problem solving in

organizations. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Harvey, Thomas R., and Bonita Drolet. 2004. Building teams, building people:

Expanding the fifth resource. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.

Hayghe, Howard V. 1991. Volunteers in the U.S.: Who donates the time? Monthly Labor

Review: 17-23.

Heifetz, Ronald A., and Marty Linsky. 2002. Leadership on the line: Staying alive

through the dangers of leading. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Herman, Robert D. 2005. Board members of nonprofit organizations as volunteers.

Emerging Areas of Volunteering 1, no. 2: 77-91.

Herman, Robert D., and David O. Renz. 1997. Board practices of especially effective and

less effective local nonprofit organizations. Paper presented at conference of

Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action

(ARNOVA), 1-16. Indianapolis, IN: Nonprofit Sector Research Fund Grant.

Herzberg, Frederick. 1959. The motivation to work. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

200

———. 1975. One more time: How do you motivate employees? In Business classics:

Fifteen key concepts for managerial success, 13-22. Boston, MA: Harvard

Business Review. (Orig. pub. January-February, 1968.)

Herzberg, Frederick, Bernard Mausner, and Barbara Bloch Snyderman. 2010. The

motivation to work. 12th ed. New Brunswick: Transaction. (Orig. pub. 1959

1968.)

Hine, Betsy N. 2008. The Hine bibliography of selected monographic resources on

servant leadership. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.

Horsman, J. H. 2001. Perspectives of servant-leadership and spirit in organizations. PhD

diss., Gonzaga University.

House, R. J., P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, and V. Gupta, eds. 2004. Culture,

leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Hsu, Caroline. Entrepreneur for social change. US News & World Report, October 31,

2005, Special Report.

Huard, Megan. 2008. A different kind of ladder. Pepperdine Voice (Winter): 18.

Hunter, James C. 1998. The servant: A simple story about the true essence of leadership.

Roseville, CA: Crown Business.

———. 2004. The world's most powerful leadership principle: How to become a servant

leader. Roseville, CA: Crown Business.

Ihrke, Douglas M., Grant E. MacDonald, and Kristi Luzar. 2006. The nature and extent

of conflict on nonprofit boards in two counties. Paper presented at conference of


(ARNOVA), Chicago, IL.

Irving, Justin A. 2004. Servant leadership and the effectiveness of teams: Findings and

implications. In Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable,

Regent University, August.

———. 2005. Servant leadership and the effectiveness of teams. Department of

Leadership Studies (March): 77.

Isaac, Stephen, and William Michael. 1990. Handbook in research and evaluation. 2nd

ed. San Diego, CA: EdITS.

201

Isham, Jonathan, and Jane Kolodinsky. 2006. The effects of volunteering for nonprofit

organizations on social capital formation: Evidence from a statewide survey.

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 35, no. 3 (September): 367-383.

Izzo, John. 2008. The five secrets you must discover before you die. San Francisco, CA:

Berrett-Koehler.

Jensen, Bill. 2003. The simplicity survival handbook. New York: Basic Books, Perseus

Books Group.

Josephson, Michael. 2002. Making ethical decisions, ed. Wes Hanson. Los Angeles, CA:

Josephson Institute of Ethics.

Juergens, Julie M., and Bruce R. Sievers, ed. 2007. Stanford conversations in

philanthropy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

Kadlec, Daniel. 2006. The right way to volunteer. Time, September 4, 76.

Kahl, Jack, and Tom Donelan. 2004. Leading from the heart: Choosing to be a servant

leader. Westlake, OH: Kahl & Associates.

Katz, Ralph. 2003. Managing creativity and innovation. Harvard Business Essentials.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Keith, Kent M. 2008. The case for servant leadership. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center


Kennedy, Caroline. 2007. Called to action: Inspired to give back. TIME, July 2, 61-64.

Kim, Daniel. 2002. Foresight as the central ethic of leadership. Vol. 8. Voices of

servant-leadership series, ed. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.

Indianapolis, IN: Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.

Kinkade, Thomas, Robert Goodwin, and Pam Proctor. 2006. Points of light: A

celebration of the American spirit of giving. New York: Center Street Warner

Books.

Kinlaw, Dennis C. 1999. Coaching for commitment. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass/Pfeiffer.

Klug, Lisa Alcalay. 2006. Following a moral compass. Costco Connection, October, 19.

Kotter, John P. 1996. Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

202

Kouzes, James M., and Barry Z. Posner. 1995. The leadership challenge. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

———. 2009. To lead, create a shared vision. Harvard Business Review (January).

Laub, James Alan. 1999. Assessing the servant organization: Development of the servant

organizational leadership assessment (SOLA) instrument. EdD diss., Florida

Atlantic University.

———. 2003. From paternalism to the servant organization: Expanding the

organizational leadership assessment (OLA) model. In Proceedings of the Servant

Leadership Research Roundtable, Regent University, August.

———. 2005. From paternalism to the servant organization: Expanding the

organizational leadership assessment (OLA) model. International Journal of

Servant Leadership 1, no. 1: 155-186.

Lear, Robert W., and Boris Yavitz 1994. Performance in the boardroom: The best and

worst boards of 1994. Chief Executive, November 1, 1-16.

Levesque, Lynn, C. 2001. Breakthrough creativity. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Leviner, Noga, Leslie R. Crutchfield, and Diana Wells. 2006. Understanding the impact

of social entrepreneurs: Ashoka's answer to the challenge of measuring

effectiveness. Research on Social Entrepreneurship: Understanding and

Contributing to an Emerging Field 1, no. 3: 89-104.

Light, Paul C. 2002. The volunteering decision: What prompts it? What sustains it?

Brookings Review 20, no. 4: 45-47.

———. 2008. The search for social entrepreneurship. Washington DC: Brookings

Institution Press.

Little, William, H. W. Fowler, and J. Coulson. 1970. Shorter Oxford English dictionary.

3rd ed., ed. C. T. Onions. London, England: Oxford University Press, 1970. (Orig.

pub. 1934.)

Lobell, Jean R., and Paul M. Connolly. 2007. Peak performance: Nonprofit leaders rate

highest in 360-degree reviews. Nonprofit Quarterly 14, no. 4 (Winter): 12-27.

Loehr, Jim, and Tony Schwartz. 2003. The power of full engagement: Managing energy,

not time, is the key to high performance and personal renewal. New York: Free

Press.

203

Lubin, Karin A. 2001. Visionary leader behaviors and their congruency with servant

leadership characteristics. EdD diss., University of La Verne.

Luthans, Fred. 1977. Organizational behavior. Mcgraw-Hill Series in Management, ed.

Keith Davis and Fred Luthans. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Matteson, Jeffrey A., and Justin A. Irving. 2006. Exploring servant versus self-sacrificial

leadership: A research proposal for assessing the commonalities and distinctions

of two follower-oriented leadership theories. American Society of Business and

Behavioral Sciences 13, no. 1: 1305-1319.

Maxwell, John C. 2007. The "big 5" challenges in life. Leadership Wired 10, no. 10: 1-2.

McCambridge, Ruth. 2008. the shifting tides of nonprofit governance: An interview with

Paul Light. Nonprofit Quarterly 15, no. 2 (Summer): 50-53.

McCambridge, Ruth, and Andrew Crosby. 2007. Doing the right thing: The nonprofit

ethicist. Nonprofit Quarterly 13, no. 3: 1-34.

McCauley, Cynthia D. 2006. Learn, grow, lead . . . without changing your job,

developmental assignments: How to grow as a leader. CCL e-Newsletter: 1-2.

McGee-Cooper, Ann, and Gary Looper. 2001. The essentials of servant-leadership:

Principles in practice. Innovations in management series, ed. Kelly Wardman

O'Reilly, 1-15. Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communications.

McGee-Cooper, Ann, and Duane Trammell. 1999. From hero as leader to servant as

leader. Systems Thinker 10, no. 3: 1-9.

McIvor, Olivia. 2008. Four generations, one workplace. Greenleaf Newsletter, May.

Michelli, Joseph A. 2007. The Starbucks experience. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Millesen, Judity I., and Bradley E. Wright. 2006. Understanding the motive to serve on a

nonprofit board of directors: Does service field matter? Paper presented at

conference of Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and

Voluntary Action (ARNOVA), Chicago, IL.

Minkler, Meredith, and Marty Martinson. 2007. Charity work isn't the solution for all

older Americans. Chronicle of Philanthropy, May 17, 33.

Mintzberg, Henry. 1989. Mintzberg on management. New York: Free Press.

204

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

zine.com/Career-Development/Leadership-Skill/Transactional-Leadership/

(accessed April 23, 2006).

Morris, Peter S. 2005. Servant inspirational management leadership theory (SIM): A

study of SIM, a full-range leadership model. PhD diss., Rowan University.

Mosher-Williams, Rachel. 2006. Research on social entrepreneurship: Understanding and

contributing to an emerging field. ARNOVA Occasional Paper Series 1, no. 3:

149.

Myer, Brad W., Katherine Fraccastoro, and Lisa D. McNary. 2007. The relationship

among organizational-based self-esteem and various factors motivating

volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 36, no. 2: 327-340.

Nakai, Paul. 2005. The crucial role of coaching in servant-leadership development.

International Journal of Servant Leadership 1, no. 1: 213-228.

National Philanthropic Trust. 2008. Chronological history of philanthropy in the United

States. http://www.nptrust.org/philanthropy_top_five.

Nemenoff, Erin, and Teresa Kwon. 2008. The U.S. national nonprofit infrastrcuture, map

1 and map 2. In Nonprofit Quarterly, ed. Ruth McCambridge, Infrastructure Maps

of U.S. Organizations. Boston, MA: Nonprofit Information Networking

Association.

Newcomb, Amelia. 2004. Heifetz on public leadership. School Administrator

(November): 20-25.

Nonprofit Academic Centers Council. 2006. Indicators of high quality service.

Cleveland, OH: Nonprofit Academic Centers Council.

Norsman, Annette. 2006. Your acts of kindness. NRTA 5, no. 1: 3.

Northouse, Peter G. 2006. Leadership: Theory and practice. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Ott, J. Steven. 2001. The nature of the nonprofit sector. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Patterson, Kerry, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler. 2002. Crucial

conversations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

———. 2005. Crucial confrontations. 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

http://www.money-zine.com/Career-Development/Leadership-Skill/Transactional-Leadership/

http://www.money-zine.com/Career-Development/Leadership-Skill/Transactional-Leadership/

205

Pellicer, Leonard O. 2003. Caring enough to lead. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press.

Perry, Suzanne. 2009. Charities get ready to put millions of federal volunteers to work.

Chronicle of Philanthropy 21, no. 12 (April 9): 18.

Phills Jr., James A., Kriss Deiglmeier, and Dale T. Miller. 2008. Rediscovering social

innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review 6, no. 4 (Fall): 34-44.

Pitino, Rick. 2000. Lead to succeed. New York: Broadway Books.

PolicyGovernance.com. 2009. http://www.policygovernance.com/

Pollard, C. William. 1996. The soul of the firm. Grand Rapids, MI: HarperBusiness and

Zondervan.

Pollard-Terry, Gayle. 2008. University receives presidential recognition for its service to

the community. Northridge Magazine (Spring): 5.

Powers, Joshua B., and John W. Moore. 2004. Servant-leadership and the art of teaching.

Vol. 11. Voices of Servant-Leadership Series, ed. Greenleaf Center for Servant-

Leadership. Indianapolis, IN: Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership.

Purcell, Philip M. 2001. Issues and opportunities in endowment fundraising.

Indianapolis, IN: Planned Giving Resource Center for the Central Indiana

Community Foundation.

Roberts, Brenda. 2006. Dedicated volunteers saluted at university's annual tribute. CSUN

@Community (November): 1-2.

Roberts, Carol M. 2004. The dissertation journey. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Rogers, Pier C., ed. 2001. Philanthropy in communities of color: Traditions and

challenges. ARNOVA occasional papers series. Indianapolis, IN: Association for

Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action.

Rothschild, William E. 1976. Putting it all together: A guide to strategic thinking. 6th ed.

New York: AMACOM.

Rose, Alexander. 2002. Kings in the north: The house of Percy in British history. 1st ed.

London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.

206

San Juan, Karel. 2005. Re-imagining power in leadership: Reflection, integration, and

servant-leadership. International Journal of Servant Leadership 1, no. 1: 187-209.

Sapper, Jon G. 2003. A research study measuring the effects of a frequency-of-

communication norm and project completion on group trust levels in temporary

virtual school work groups. EdD diss., University of La Verne.

Schervish, Paul G., and John J. Havens. 2006. New findings and trends on the

relationship of wealth, income, and philanthropy. Paper presented at conference

of Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action

(ARNOVA). Chicago, IL.

Schmitz, Paul. 2008. In a successful campaign: Lessons for nonprofits. Nonprofit

Quarterly 15, no. 4: 1-3.

Seel, Keith. 2006. New learnings about governance. Paper presented at conference of


(ARNOVA). Chicago, IL.

Seidman, Irving. 2006. Interviewing as qualitative research. New York: Teachers

College Press.

Senge, Peter. 1990. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning

organization. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell.

———. 1995. Robert Greenleaf's legacy: A new foundation for twenty-first century

institutions. In Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's theory of

servant-leadership influenced today's top management thinkers, ed. Larry C.

Spears, 217-240. New York: Wiley.

Senge, Peter, Art Kleiner, Charlotte Roberts, Richard Ross, and Bryan Smith. 1994. The

fifth discipline fieldbook. New York: Doubleday.

Sergiovanni, Thomas J. 2007. Rethinking leadership: A collection of articles. 2nd ed.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press/Sage.

Shoaf, Robb W. 2006. Isomorphic metaphor as a tool in identifying social goals and the

quest for wholeness. Paper presented at conference of Association for Research

on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA). Chicago, IL.

Sipe, James W., and Don M. Frick. 2009. Seven pillars of servant leadership. New York

and Manwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Smart, Maya Payne. 2009. How to set up your board.

207

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

servant-leadership influenced today's top management thinkers. New York:

Wiley.

———, ed. 1997. Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant

leadership. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

———. 2001. Focus on leadership: Servant-leadership for the 21st century, ed. Michele

Lawrence and Ken Blanchard. 3rd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.

———. 2004. Practicing servant-leadership. Leader to Leader Institute 1, no. 34: 7-11.

———. 2005. The understanding and practice of servant-leadership. In Proceedings of

the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, Regent University, August.

Spears, Larry C., and Michele Lawrence. 2004. Practicing servant-leadership:

Succeeding through trust, bravery, and forgiveness. New York: Jossey-Bass.

Steiner, George A., and John B. Miner. 1977. Management Policy and Strategy: Text,

Readings, and Cases. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Stengel, Richard. 2007a. The case for national service. TIME.

———. 2007b. A time to serve. TIME, August 30, 1-7.

———. 2008. The service agenda. TIME, July 28, 4.

Stoesz, Edgar, and Chester Raber. 1997. Doing good better!: How to be an effective

board member of a nonprofit organization. Intercourse, PA: Good Books. (Orig.

pub. 1994.)

Stone, A. Gregory, Russell F. Russell, and Kathleen Patterson. 2004. Transformational

versus servant leadership: A difference in leader focus. Leadership &

Organization Development Journal 25, no. 4: 349-361.

Talnack, Alice S. 2000. A case study: The impact of the Santa Cruz County Educational

Leadership Consortium Academy on the skill development and practices of

school principles. EdD diss., University of La Verne.

Taub, Eric. 2007. Where have all the leaders gone? Lee Iacocca pulls no punches in his

new book. Costco Connection, June, 17.

Thomas, Kenneth W. 2000. Intrinsic motivation at work: Building energy & commitment.

1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

208

Thompson, Jim. 1998. Shooting in the dark. Portola Valley, CA: Warde.

Tichy, Noel M., and Warren G. Bennis. 2007. Judgment: How winning leaders make

great calls. New York: Penguin Group.

Tosi, Henry L., Neal P. Mero, and John R. Rizzo. 2005. Managing organizational

behavior. 4th ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Traynor, Bill. 2008. The bright future of community building. Nonprofit Quarterly 15,

no. 1 (Spring): 24-29.

Tregaskis, Sharon R. 2006. Autism speaks. NYU (Spring): 21-23.

Tuckman, Bruce W. 1999. Conducting educational research. 5th ed. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning.

Warren, Rick. 2002. The purpose driven life. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Watkins, Jane Magruder, and Bernard J. Mohr. 2001. Appreciative Inquiry. Practicing

Organization Development: The Change Agent Series for Groups and

Organizations, ed. William J. Rothwell. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

West, Diana. 2006. American Red Cross: Volunteers power the nation's largest relief

organization. American Profile (May 14-20).

Wheatley, Margaret. 2002. The servant-leader: From hero to host. An interview with

Margaret Wheatley. Indianapolis, IN: Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.

White, Patricia, Thomas R. Harvey, and Lawrence Kemper. 2007. The politically

intelligent leader: Dealing with the dilemmas of a high-stakes educational

environment. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Wiener, Susan, Chris Toppe, Nadine Jalandoni, Arthur D. Kirsch, and Murray S.

Weitzman. 2001. Giving and volunteering in the United States. Washington, DC:

Independent Sector.

Wolf, Kevin. 1994. The makings of a good meeting, 1-30. http://members.dcn.org/kjwolf.

Wolfe, Rebecca E. 2006. Community foundations' community leadership: Traditional,

change agent, or nonexistent? In ARNOVA. Chicago, IL: Stanford University

School of Education.

Wright, Robert Grandford. 1977. The nature of organizations. Encino, CA: Dickenson.

209

Wymer, Walter W., Jr., and Becky J. Starnes. 2001. Conceptual foundations and practical

guidelines for recruiting volunteers to serve in local nonprofit organizations, Part

I. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 9, no. 1: 63-96.

Principles of Servant Leadership That Motivate Nonpaid Volunteers to Serve on Boards of Nonprofit,

Documents

Transcript of Principles of Servant Leadership That Motivate Nonpaid Volunteers to Serve on Boards of Nonprofit,