The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.

htm

LODJ 27,8

Individual differences in servant leadership: the roles of values and personality

Rynetta R. Washington, Charlotte D. Sutton and Hubert S. Feild
Department of Management, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA
Abstract
Purpose The paper seeks to address the lack of empirical research on servant leadership by investigating relationships between servant leadership and four individual differences values of empathy, integrity, and competence and the ve-factor models personality factor of agreeableness. Design/methodology/approach Dennis and Winstons servant leadership scale (a revision of Page and Wongs servant leadership instrument), Braithwaite and Laws Goal and Mode Values Inventories, Mayer and Davis integrity scale, and Costa and McCraes NEO Five-Factor Inventory were used with 288 followers and 126 leaders in three organizations in order to measure relationships between followers ratings of leaders servant leadership, followers ratings of leaders values of empathy, integrity, and competence and leaders ratings of their own agreeableness. Findings Followers ratings of leaders servant leadership were positively related to followers ratings of leaders values of empathy, integrity, and competence. Followers ratings of leaders servant leadership were also positively related to leaders ratings of their own agreeableness. Research limitations/implications Common method bias is a potential limitation due to respondents tendency toward consistency in responses. Practical implications Organizations embracing servant leadership may benet from selecting leaders partly on the basis of certain personal attributes such as those investigated in the present study. Furthermore, in order to maintain a servant leadership culture and to retain leaders in a servant leadership organization, recruiters and trainers in servant leadership organizations would likely benet from communicating accurate information about attributes valued in a servant leadership culture e.g. attributes explored in the present research. Originality/value The study extends our understanding of servant leadership research by offering support for individual attributes related to the practice of servant leadership. Keywords Leadership, Leaders, Personality, Personality measurement Paper type Research paper

700
Received July 2005 Revised January 2006 Accepted February 2006

Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 27 No. 8, 2006 pp. 700-716 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0143-7739 DOI 10.1108/01437730610709309

The notion of servant leadership is not new (Sendjaya and Sarros, 2002) but has been practiced for centuries in virtually all cultures (Nyabadza, 2003). Laub (1999) dened a servant leader as one who emphasizes the good of followers over the self-interest of the leader. That is, according to Laub, servant leadership promotes development of people through: . the sharing of power; . community building;
The authors thank the organizations in which the project took place. They also gratefully appreciate the help and nancial support of James Buford of Ellis-Harper Management.

. .

the practice of authenticity in leadership; and the provision of leadership for the good of followers, the total organization, and clients or customers of the organization.

Servant leadership and personality 701

Greenleaf (1977) introduced the concept of servant leadership in his essay The Servant as Leader. Greenleaf envisioned a servant leader as one who facilitates achievement of a shared vision via the personal development and empowerment of followers. This concept of servant leadership emphasized the interests, development, and empowerment of followers in order to achieve a shared vision (Greenleaf, 1977; Smith et al., 2004; Spears, 1998). Moreover, Greenleaf suggested a rst-among-equals approach to leadership as key to [a servant leaders] greatness (p. 21). Greenleaf further explained:
The servant leader is servant rst [. . .] It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve [. . .] rst. Then, conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead [. . .] The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant rst to make sure that other peoples highest-priority needs are being served. The best test and the most difcult to administer is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, [and] more likely themselves to become servants? And what is the effect on the least privileged in society[?] [W]ill they benet or, at least, not be further deprived? (pp. 13-14).

The notion of servant leadership has received growing attention and recognition in recent years (Sendjaya and Sarros, 2002). Various researchers have espoused servant leadership as a valid theory of organizational leadership (Russell and Stone, 2002) with great promise for theoretical and practical development (Bass, 2000). In fact, servant leadership has been advocated and practiced in some of Americas most successful companies (Levering and Moskowitz, 2000). For instance, Southwest Airlines, TDIndustries, and Synovus, companies all listed in Fortunes January 2000 Top 100 Best Companies to Work for in America, reported emphasis on servant leadership practices with the same three companies subsequently ranked among Fortunes 2001 Top Ten Employers. Since 2001, servant leadership-focused companies such as AFLAC, TDIndustries, and Synovus have been listed in Fortunes 2001-2005 Top 100 Best Companies to Work for in America. Yet, support for servant leadership is primarily anecdotal, with little empirical evidence existing in the literature to theoretically validate servant leadership. Empirical support is particularly lacking for the roles of individual attributes in servant leadership, though a leaders attributes signicantly affect followers and organizational performance (Russell, 2001). Therefore, the present research examined individual differences related to servant leadership by investigating relationships between servant leadership and three attributes values of empathy, integrity, and competence. The primary motivation for servant leadership is the desire to effectively serve followers in order to accomplish shared goals (Greenleaf, 1977; Russell and Stone, 2002). As a result, leaders values of their care for followers, integrity, and competence are all necessary to foster interpersonal trust an essential ingredient in servant leadership (Batten, 1997; Greenleaf, 1977; Kouzes and Posner, 1995, 1993; Pollard, 1996; Russell, 2001; Russell and Stone, 2002). The current research is among the rst to study the dispositional basis of servant leadership by examining the relationship between servant leadership and personality

LODJ 27,8

particularly the relationship between servant leadership and agreeableness. Research suggests that out of Costa and McCraes (1998) ve personality factors, the agreeableness trait is consistent with characteristics inherent to servant leadership. An agreeable leader is described as fundamentally altruistic, generous, and sympathetic (Costa and McCrae, 1985) all qualities similar to servant leaderships hallmarks of stewardship, service, and the growth of followers (Spears, 1998, 1995). Values and servant leadership Values essentially serve as prescriptive, enduring standards (Rokeach, 1973) and foundational blueprints for making decisions and solving problems (Russell, 2001). Values result in attitudes that in turn affect behavior (Malphurs, 1996; Rokeach, 1968). According to England and Lee (1974), values can affect leaders in several ways, including effects on: . leaders perceptions of situations, individual and organizational successes, and ethical and unethical behavior; . solutions leaders generate to solve problems; . leaders interpersonal relationships; . the extent to which leaders accept or reject organizational goals and pressures; and . leadership performance. Anecdotal evidence has suggested primary values of servant leaders include values of empathy (Spears, 1998), integrity (Russell, 2001), and the ability to lead with competence (De Pree, 1997; Greenleaf, 1977; Russell and Stone, 2002). The ability to visibly appreciate, consider, and care for followers is thought to be a valuable attribute of servant leaders (Batten, 1997; Greenleaf, 1977; Kouzes and Posner, 1995, 1993; Pollard, 1996; Russell, 2001). Likewise, researchers have suggested servant leaders also value integrity and competence in order to foster interpersonal trust an essential ingredient in servant leadership (Russell, 2001; Russell and Stone, 2002). Value of empathy Greenleafs (1977) concept of servant leadership places the leader in a non-focal position such that unlike traditional leaders who are primarily motivated by aspirations to lead, servant leaders are primarily motivated more by a desire to serve than to lead. One way in which servant leaders transcend their personal self-interests in order to fulll the needs of followers is to empathize with followers (Spears, 1998). Servant leaders reinforce their communication and decision making with a deep commitment to listening intently to others. Through listening servant leaders seek to understand and empathize with others in order to identify and clarify the will of their group, as well as to seek insight from followers having signicant insight into an issue. According to Spears, successful servant leaders are those who are skilled empathetic listeners who recognize others for their special and unique qualities. Servant leaders visibly appreciate, encourage, value, and care for their followers (Batten, 1997; Greenleaf, 1977; Kouzes and Posner, 1995, 1993; Pollard, 1996; Russell, 2001; Russell and Stone, 2002). They inspire courage and hope in their followers by living out convictions, giving encouragement, and facilitating a positive outlook

702

(Kouzes and Posner, 1993). Such actions build relationships and reect appropriate and unconditional care in the workplace (Batten, 1997). Russell and Stone (2002) suggested a servant leaders empathy reects fundamental personal values that appreciate, honor, and esteem people. According to Autry (2001), leadership is not about controlling people but is, instead, about caring for people and being useful resources for people. Showing concern for followers and making their interests and needs a priority demonstrates empathy and elicits trust (Greenleaf, 1977) an essential ingredient in servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977; Russell, 2001; Russell and Stone, 2002). H1. Followers perceptions of their leaders value of empathy will be positively related to followers perceptions of their leaders servant leadership. Value of integrity According to the leadership literature, integrity is an essential value of good leaders (Russell, 2001) and is prominent in servant leadership (Smith et al., 2004). Integrity is imperative in building interpersonal and organizational trust (De Pree, 1989; Fairholm, 1994; Kouzes and Posner, 1993; Russell and Stone, 2002) such that trust and credibility are best maintained through leaders actions that are consistent with the leaders espoused values (Kouzes and Posner, 1992, 1993; Kramer, 1996). In a study of leader credibility, Kouzes and Posner (1993) asked participants to dene behaviors the participants used to assess a leaders credibility. Frequent responses included, [T]hey do what they say they will do, they practice what they preach, they walk the talk, and [t]heir actions are consistent with their words (p. 47). Thus, characteristics such as trust and credibility are strongly inuenced by perceived patterns of behavioral integrity that is, the perceived degree of congruence between values espoused by words and values expressed in action (Simons, 1999). Covey (1989) further observed that integrity includes but exceeds honesty. That is, while honesty involves one telling the truth (conforming ones words to reality), integrity involves conforming ones reality to ones words. According to Kouzes and Posner (1990):
If we are to willingly follow someone, whether it be into battle or into the boardroom, we rst must assure ourselves that the person merits our trust. We want to be certain that he or she is being truthful, ethical, and principled. [. . .] Leaders are considered honest by their constituents when the leaders do what they say they are going to do. Agreements not followed through, cover-ups, [or] inconsistency between word and deed are indicators of a lack of honesty. On the other hand, if a leader behaves in ways consistent with his or her stated values or beliefs, then we believe we can entrust to that person our careers, our security, [and] even our lives (p. 2).

Servant leadership and personality 703

In the absence of trust, fear dominates organizations and inhibits productivity (Davis et al., 2000; Dirks, 2000; Dirks and Ferrin, 2001). Incidentally, the lack of trust that often results from poor integrity in a work environment can lead to decreased employee satisfaction (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001; Rich, 1997) and can impede the success of leader-initiated changes (Heckscher et al., 1994). Hence, the servant leader attempts to exhibit genuine integrity in order to prevent undesirable work attitudes and to build followers trust (Shaw, 1997) and condence in the leaders credibility (Fairholm, 1994; Kouzes and Posner, 1993; Russell and Stone, 2002). H2. Followers perceptions of their leaders value of integrity will be positively related to followers perceptions of their leaders servant leadership.

LODJ 27,8

704

Value of competence In addition to the values of empathy and integrity, a servant leaders value of competence should help to foster followers trust (Russell and Stone, 2002), which again is essential to servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977; Russell, 2001; Russell and Stone, 2002). Greenleaf suggested leaders that cannot elicit the trust of followers unless the followers have condence in the leaders competence. As with other forms of leadership, servant leadership is thought to require leaders to possess appropriate skills, knowledge, and abilities that give them task competence among followers (Bass, 1990; Fairholm, 1997). Kouzes and Posner (1990) explained that a leaders followers must believe their leader is capable and effective before the followers enlist in the leaders cause. According to Kouzes and Posner, a leader must demonstrate both technical competence (i.e. the ability to complete tasks for a business unit) and leadership competence (i.e. the ability to challenge, inspire, and enable followers) in order to be perceived as capable, credible, and trustworthy. As a result, servant leaders attempt to exemplify competence in order to build and maintain the trust of their followers (De Pree, 1989). H3. Followers perceptions of their leaders value of competence will be positively related to followers perceptions of their leaders servant leadership.

Personality and servant leadership The ve-factor model of personality (i.e. Big Five) neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness has been widely used to describe various aspects of personality (Costa and McCrae, 1998; Goldberg, 1990). While no studies have investigated the relationship between servant leadership and personality, research has suggested that servant leaders hold attributes congruent with the Big Five personality factor of agreeableness. Both the agreeable individual and servant leader emphasize altruism (Costa and McCrae, 1998; Joseph and Winston, 2005). An agreeable leader is described as a fundamentally altruistic individual who is sympathetic, generous, and eager to help others (Costa and McCrae, 1985). According to Wiggins (1996), agreeable individuals are motivated primarily by an altruistic orientation that is, a concern-with-others interest and empathy for their condition (Judge and Bono, 2000, p. 754). Such descriptions of agreeableness are akin to servant leaderships hallmarks of stewardship, service, and the growth of followers (Spears, 1995, 1998). Given servant leaderships conceptual similarity to transformational leadership (Burns, 1978), one may perceive servant leadership to positively relate to agreeableness as does transformational leadership (Judge and Bono, 2000). In their study of transformational leadership and the Big Five personality traits, Judge and Bono found agreeableness to consistently predict transformational leadership. The researchers suggested such a strong association may be explained by transformational leaderships emphasis on agreeable characteristics such as compassion, empathy, and trust (Burns, 1978) all characteristics of servant leaders (Spears, 1998). H4. Leaders perceptions of their own agreeableness will be positively related to their followers perceptions of the leaders servant leadership.

Overview of study Figure 1 illustrates the hypotheses explored in the current study. Followers perceptions of leaders values of empathy, integrity, and competence are posited to positively relate to followers perceptions of leaders servant leadership. Leaders perceptions of their own agreeableness are also hypothesized to positively relate to followers perceptions of leaders servant leadership.

Servant leadership and personality 705

Method Sample and setting Participants were 126 supervisors and 283 employees who reported directly to the supervisors. For this study, a leader was dened by formal position, and employees who were supervised by these leaders are referred to as followers. Three different organizations were sampled in the study in order to provide a diverse basis upon which to examine the relationship between servant leadership and leaders values and personality. The organizations included a mid-sized community development agency, a small municipal agency serving as a clearinghouse for governmental funds to the local community, and a municipal government. Table I summarizes the sample sizes, response rates, and demographic information for each organization. Each of the three organizations identied supervisors for participation in the study (such as all supervisors in the organization or all supervisors in a particular department). Overall, the supervisors had 2-19 employees; the mode was three employees per supervisor. On average, supervisors had worked in their current jobs for 11.6 years and worked in their current organizations 14.8 years. Fifty-one percent were male, 42 percent were white, and 58 percent were African American; the average age was 50. Of the 155 supervisors invited to participate in the study, 126 (81 percent) completed both time 1 and time 2 questionnaires. Of the 478 employees asked to participate in the study, 283 (59 percent) completed both time 1 and time 2 questionnaires. In order to determine if there were any mean differences among the three organizations for the studys independent and dependent variables, we computed a series of one-way analyses of variance. Because there were no signicant (p . 0:05)

Figure 1. Hypothesized relationships between dependent and independent variables

LODJ 27,8

Variable Organization Percentage response rate from managers with at least one rater n Percentage female Percentage white Percentage African American Mean age (in years) Mean job/position tenure Mean organization tenure Type of rater n Mean number of raters per manager Percentage response rate Percentage female Percentage white Percentage African American Mean age (years) Mean job/position tenure (in years) Mean organization tenure (in years)

Sample 1 Community agency 72 62 87 7 93 53 (2.14) 18.49 (13.20) 24.64 (13.20) 100 10.50 (9.40) 43 93 7 93 48 (2.49) 10.02 (10.35) 16.21 (13.65)

Sample 2 Municipal clearinghouse 100 4 80 75 25 48 (2.45) 6.83 (2.48) 7.96 (2.62) 14 5.50 (3.50) 78 89 86 14 38 (1.89) 3.73 (2.47) 4.08 (2.90)

Sample 3 Municipal government 91 60 9 78 22 48 (1.78) 9.55 (7.81) 11.86 (11.98) 169 10.00 (9.75) 76 29 64 36 43 (2.09) 4.80 (4.82) 11.86 (11.98)

706

Table I. Demographic information by sample

Note: Standard deviations are shown in parentheses

differences among the three samples for these variables, the samples were combined. Thus, all analyses in the study are based on the combined samples. Procedure The study was conducted in two phases. To capture perceptions of supervisors values of empathy, integrity, and competence at time 1, employees completed a 32-item questionnaire measuring their perceptions of their supervisors values of empathy, integrity, and competence. Approximately one month later at time 2, employees completed a second questionnaire measuring the employees perceptions of their supervisors servant leadership. Also at time 2, supervisors completed a personality scale assessing their agreeableness (Hough et al., 2001; Van Iddekinge et al., 2005). Data were collected in three organizations. In one organization, questionnaires were mailed to the homes of supervisors and employees; the completed questionnaires were returned by mail to an investigator. In the other two organizations, supervisors were asked to complete questionnaires themselves and to distribute questionnaires to their employees. Questionnaires completed by participants in the latter two organizations were placed in sealed boxes at central locations. The questionnaires were then collected by an investigator. Given the likely inuence of social desirability and related method variance produced by self-reports of personally sensitive issues, leaders values and leadership were rated by followers instead of leaders. Moreover, leaders values and leadership were rated by followers at multiple points in time in order to minimize common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003), which is a common concern when using self-reports in organizational research (see Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Construct

ratings generated from single sources can result in effect sizes being overestimated because of respondents tendency toward consistency in responses (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Therefore, a one-month time delay was adopted between data collection points for different constructs from the same sources in order to reduce the potential for inated relationships (Avolio et al., 1991). Respondents were told that their responses would be anonymous; no personally identifying information was collected. In order to match responses across the data collection periods, an identication number was assigned to each leader and followers questionnaire. The identication number consisted of a department identier and a randomly assigned participant number. Measures Servant leadership. Employees perceptions of servant leadership were measured using Dennis and Winstons (2003) 23-item servant leadership scale, which is a revision of Page and Wongs (2000) original servant leadership instrument. The scale measures three servant leadership attributes, i.e. vision, empowerment, and service. Respondents rated agreement with each of the 23 items on a seven-point scale (1 strongly disagree; 7 strongly agree). The items were slightly altered to t the specic context of this study. An example vision item is, My immediate supervisor actively seeks ways to utilize peoples differences as a contribution to the group. An example empowerment item is, My immediate supervisor is willing to share his or her power and authority with others. An example service item is, My immediate supervisor does not seek recognition or rewards in serving others. In accordance with prior research (Dennis and Winston, 2003), the score for each leader represented the average response across all followers who rated the leader. Inter-rater reliability was estimated using the intra-class correlation coefcient, which was 0.61. Cronbachs alpha was 0.97. (Cronbachs alpha in Dennis and Winstons study was 0.93.) Value of empathy. Empathy was measured using a 13-item Positive Orientation to Others subscale of Braithwaite and Laws (1985) Goal and Mode Values Inventories. The inventories were derived from the Rokeach Value Survey (1973), a dated yet still widely used measure of values (Begue, 2001; Cileli, 2000; Connor and Becker, 2003). Each item was a behavior which respondents indicated the extent to which their supervisors accepted or rejected using a seven-point rating scale, with 1 My immediate supervisor rejects this to 7 My immediate supervisor accepts this as of the greatest importance. Example items are Being helpful (always ready to assist others), Being forgiving (willing to pardon others), Being considerate (being thoughtful of other peoples feelings), and Being understanding (able to share anothers feelings). To analyze the relationship between servant leadership and employees ratings of their supervisors value of empathy, the score for each supervisor represented the average response across all employees who rated the supervisor. The intra-class correlation was 0.69, and Cronbachs alpha was 0.97. (Cronbachs alpha in Braithwaite and Laws study was 0.89.) Value of integrity. Integrity was assessed by a six-item scale used by Mayer and Davis (1999). Respondents rated agreement with each item using a seven-point scale with 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. An example item is, I never have to wonder whether my immediate supervisor will stick to his or her word. The score for each supervisor represented the average response across all employees who

Servant leadership and personality 707

LODJ 27,8

708

rated the supervisor. The intraclass correlation was 0.64, and Cronbachs alpha was 0.91. (Cronbachs alpha in Mayer and Daviss study was 0.82.) Value of competence. Competence was measured using a 13-item Competence and Effectiveness subscale of Braithwaite and Laws (1985) Goal and Mode Values Inventories. Each item was a behavior that respondents indicated the extent to which their supervisors accepted or rejected using a seven-point scale, with 1 My immediate supervisor rejects this to 7 My immediate supervisor accepts this as of the greatest importance, Example items are Being competent (being capable), Being resourceful (being clever at nding ways to achieve a goal), Being knowledgeable (being well informed), and Showing foresight (thinking and seeing ahead). The score for each supervisor represented the average response across all employees who rated the supervisor. The intra-class correlation was 0.69, and Cronbachs alpha was 0.97. (Cronbachs alpha in Braithwaite and Laws study was 0.89.) Agreeableness. Supervisors reported their own personal agreeableness using 12 items from Costa and McCraes (1998) widely used NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Each item was a statement that respondents indicated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed using a sex-point scale with 1 strongly disagree and 6 strongly agree. A sample item is I try to be courteous to everyone I meet. Cronbachs alpha was 0.75. Control variable. The length of time employees had reported to their current supervisors was controlled in the present study. Research suggests employees job tenure can inuence the perceived quality of the relationship between the employees and their supervisors (Tsui and OReilly, 1989). Therefore, employees were asked to indicate the specic amount of time they had worked under their current immediate supervisor. Results Hierarchical regression analysis was used to estimate the relationships between the dependent variable (i.e. employees perceptions of their leaders servant leadership) and the independent variables (i.e. employees perceptions of their leaders values of empathy, integrity, and competence and leaders reports of their own personal agreeableness). Table II reports the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for the study variables, and Table III reports the regression results for empathy, integrity, and competence values and agreeableness for servant leadership. As shown in Table III, the overall model comprising empathy, integrity, competence, and agreeableness was signicant, explaining 48% of the variance in the servant leadership ratings, F4; 121 27:64, p , 0:01. H1-H3 predicted leaders perceived values of empathy (H1), integrity (H2), and competence (H3) will be positively related to leaders perceived servant leadership. Results showed servant leadership to be positively related to leaders perceived values of empathy (r 0:48, p , 0:01), integrity (r 0:58, p , 0:01), and competence (r 0:57, p , 0:01). In addition, H4 predicted leaders reports of their own agreeableness will be positively related to leaders perceived servant leadership. Leaders agreeableness was positively related to their perceived servant leadership (r 0:38, p , 0:01). Thus, H1-H4 were all supported. Analyses of variance revealed that reported servant leadership,

Variable

SD

10

11

12

13

14

15

Leaders personality rating 1. Agreeableness 5.43 (0.75) 0.12 2 0.06 2 0.11 20.07 0.16 0.08 0.11 0.38 * * 2 0.14 0.19 * 2 0.14 2 0.21 * 0.09

33.07

0.05

Followers ratings 2. Empathy 3. Integrity 4. Competence 5. Servant leadership (0.97) 0.09 2 0.06 0.11 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.44 * * 0.12 0.87 * * (0.92) 0.81 * * 0.86 * * (0.97) 0.48 * * 2 0.05 0.58 * * 2 .08 0.57 * * 2 0.17 (0.97) 2 0.06 0.39 * * 2 0.00 0.04 0.31 * * 0.09 0.09 0.23 * * 0.07 0.02 0.36 * * 0.07 2 0.13 2 0.09 0.06 2 0.03 0.05 2 0.10 20.02 2 0.09 20.10

69.13 4.06 33.46 5.79 71.66 12.53 127.32 21.95

0.09 0.08 0.12 2 0.08

0.08 0.10 0.11 0.16

Control variable 6. Followers job tenure 4.81 4.72 2 0.03 2 0.13 2 0.01 2 0.03 0.10

0.02

0.18 * * 2 0.03

0.32 * *

Leaders demographics 7. Gender 8. Age 9. Ethnicity 10. Job tenure 11. Company tenure 2 0.07 0.22 * 2 0.14

1.26 0.44 49.67 6.37 1.21 0.41 8.45 6.51 14.53 10.53

0.12 2 0.01 0.16 0.25 * * 2 0.00 2 0.17 0.53 * *

2 0.10 20.02 2 0.03 0.04 2 0.12 20.03 2 0.06 0.20 * 0.06 0.21 *

2 0.08 0.17 0.02 0.00 2 0.03 2 0.02 0.12 0.15 0.03 0.11

Followers demographics 12. Gender 13. Age 14. Ethnicity 15. Company tenure 1.35 0.48 5.40 2.09 1.50 1.04 1.17 12.27

20.02

0.08 2 0.13 * 0.06 0.27 * * 2 0.11

Note: For followers ratings, the control variable, and followers demographics, n 283. For leaders ratings and demographics, n 126. Alpha coefcients are in parentheses along the diagonal. *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01

Servant leadership and personality 709

Table II. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables

LODJ 27,8

agreeableness, and values of empathy, integrity, and competence did not differ (p . 0:05) among the three organizations. Discussion The purpose of this study was to help provide a basis for a model of servant leadership that offers a structural foundation for research regarding servant leadership theory and application in management practice. The study specically examined the relationship between servant leadership and agreeableness and between servant leadership and the values of empathy, integrity, and competence. Based on prior research, it was hypothesized that leaders who were perceived by followers to value empathy, integrity, and competence and who reported themselves (leaders) as agreeable would be perceived by followers as demonstrating more servant leadership than leaders who were not perceived by followers to value empathy, integrity, and competence and who did not report themselves (leaders) as agreeable. All presented hypotheses were supported in the present study. As shown in Table III, supervisors agreeableness and perceived values of empathy, integrity, and competence collectively accounted for 48 percent (DR 2) of the variance in servant leadership after controlling for employees job tenure. This nding offers several contributions. First, the relationship between perceived value of empathy and servant leadership empirically supported anecdotal evidence of servant leaders focus on followers. According to Patterson (2003), the focus of servant leaders fosters attitudes and behaviors in the leader that are congruent with a follower-focus. Given the correlation between perceived value of empathy and servant leadership in the current study, one can conclude servant leaders tends to demonstrate attitudes and behaviors congruent with a follower-focus, i.e. a value of empathy resulting in the demonstration of genuine concern for the needs and interests of others (Russell, 2001). Second, the relationship between the leaders perceived value of integrity and servant leadership supported the belief that integrity and honesty are critical components of servant leadership. Honesty and integrity build trust, which is an essential component of servant leadership and is critical in establishing the credibility of servant leaders (Kouzes and Posner, 1993; Yukl, 1998). Trust resulting from leaders value of integrity provides a basis for followers to support their leader with enthusiasm and condence (Russell, 2001). As suggested by Fairholm (1998), trust in servant
Variable Step 1: control variable Follower job tenure Step 2: leader ratings Leader empathy Leader integrity Leader competence Leader agreeableness
a

710

ba
2 0.07 0.30 * 0.58 * * 0.28 * 0.35 * *

Overall R 2 0.06

DR 2 0.00

Table III. Hierarchical regression results for leader empathy, integrity, and competence values and agreeableness on servant leadership

0.69 * *

0.48 * *

Notes: n 126 (leaders). Standardized regression coefcients are for the full model. *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01

leaders results when followers see their leaders demonstrate the leaders own personal integrity. [Servant] leaders with integrity inspire condence in others because they can be trusted to do what they say they are going to do (Northhouse, 1997, p. 18). Third, the results provided evidence of servant leaderships suggested reliance on values of competence and effectiveness. In addition to values of honesty and integrity, researchers have posited servant leaders value of competence is critical to the establishment of credibility and trust with followers (Fairholm, 1997). Leaders are only able to practise genuine servant leadership when they elicit the trust of followers by forging followers condence in the leaders knowledge, skills, and abilities (Greenleaf, 1977). Fourth, the positive relationship between leaders agreeableness and perceived servant leadership offered empirical support for the notion that servant leaders visibly value and care for their constituents (e.g. Batten, 1997). Servant leaders demonstrate agreeableness through altruism (Costa and McCrae, 1998; Joseph and Winston, 2005) and sympathetic and generous behaviors (Costa and McCrae, 1985). Such eagerness to help others fosters servant leaders commitment to the growth of followers a critical characteristic of servant leadership (Spears, 1998). Implications Management practice The general nding that certain individual differences are related to servant leadership offers practical implications. First, organizations embracing servant leadership may benet from selecting leaders partly on the basis of certain personal attributes such as those investigated in the present study. If recruiters promote the needs for agreeableness and values of empathy, integrity, and competence in managerial positions, recruiters would likely attract and hire managers predisposed to practice servant leadership. Messages of servant leaderships attributes that are sent to applicants during the recruitment process (e.g. through a recruitment website or other media) may allow candidates to self-select into or out of the applicant pool based on their perceptions of t with the organization. In addition, such messages that communicate the values of the organization may allow newcomers to presocialize before beginning the new job. Companies that seek specic personality attributes and values and make those attributes and values known to job candidates may engender a more cohesive workplace as well as potentially reduce future turnover. Second, in order to both retain new organizational leaders and maintain a servant leadership culture, recruiters and trainers in servant leadership organizations would likely benet from communicating accurate information about attributes valued in a servant leadership culture. When organizational members, with accurate beliefs about the organizations culture, enter into or advance within an organization, their work behaviors typically foster successful job performance (Schein, 1990). On the other hand, when new members are hired or promoted on the basis of inaccurate beliefs about the organizational culture, their expectations are often unmet and are likely to result in dissatisfaction and turnover (Cable and Judge, 1996). Therefore, administrators of servant leadership organizations should work to minimize undesirable employee outcomes in part by accurately communicating attributes embraced in a servant leadership culture.

Servant leadership and personality 711

LODJ 27,8

712

Limitations and directions for future research Common method bias is a potential limitation in the current study due to respondents tendency toward consistency in responses. Such a tendency in single-source reporting can result in construct ratings and effect sizes being overestimated (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Thus, to minimize any possible effect of common method bias in the current study, values data were gathered from employees at multiple points in time (Avolio et al., 1991). Admittedly, however, common method bias may not have been completely removed in the present study. Despite the potential for common method bias in the current research, the study extends our understanding of servant leadership research by offering support for individual attributes related to the practice of servant leadership. Future research should investigate the relationship between servant leadership and other individual attributes such as demographics of servant leaders. For example, Table II shows servant leadership as related to leaders ethnicity (r 0:36, p , 0:01). That is, African American leaders were reported by followers as demonstrating more servant leadership than white leaders. This nding may be explained in part by empirically supported differences in African American and white cultures. According to Houston (1990), African American culture is often characterized by a deep sense of kinship extending beyond ones own biological family to the entire African American community. Thus, in contrast to the dominant American individualistic society, the African American community typically exhibits strong interconnectedness and close interpersonal ties with other African Americans (Collins and Gleaves, 1998). As a result, African Americans develop dominant characteristics of cooperation and interdependence both hallmarks of the agreeable personality found to positively relate to servant leadership in the current study. These ndings suggest that future researchers should investigate potential racial predispositions toward servant leadership. In addition, ethnicity positively related to agreeableness and to values of empathy, integrity, and competence. Specically, African American leaders reported themselves as being more agreeable and possessing the values of empathy, integrity, and competence more than the White leaders did. This nding is consistent with the ethnicity-servant leadership effect. That is, if African Americans are predisposed to servant leadership as suggested in the current study, then African Americans would likely be predisposed to values associated with servant leadership. Future researchers should further explore potential racial predispositions toward values and other attributes related to servant leadership. Although not hypothesized, servant leadership was also positively related to leaders gender (r 0:44, p , 0:01). That is, female leaders were reported by followers as demonstrating more servant leadership than male leaders. According to Van Engen et al. (2001), women tend to be slightly more interpersonal in their leadership than men. However, effect sizes have been relatively negligible. Likewise, evidence that men and women actually engage in distinct leadership styles is weak and mixed (Buttereld and Grinnell, 1999; Dobbins and Platz, 1986; Eagly and Johnson, 1990). For example, Eagly and Johnson (1990) found female managers to be more democratic than male managers. Yet, subsequent studies showed hardly any stereotypic gender difference in democratic and autocratic leadership styles. For example, Eagly and Johnson (1990) found that female managers were more democratic than male managers. Yet, subsequent studies showed hardly any stereotypic gender difference in democratic and autocratic leadership

styles. Given the conicting ndings regarding gender differences in leadership styles, future researchers should work to clarify the relationship between gender and servant leadership. Conclusion Bass (2000) stated that servant leaderships profound philosophical foundation offers great opportunity for its theoretical development. Therefore, for servant leadership theory to be valid, it must be able to, among other things, describe why servant leaders behave as they do (Sendjaya and Sarros, 2002). Accordingly, the current study attempted to advance the theoretical and practical development of servant leadership by offering evidence of individual attributes characteristic of persons perceived as servant leaders.
References Autry, J. (2001), The Servant Leader, Prima Publishing, Roseville, CA. Avolio, B.J., Yammarino, F.J. and Bass, B.M. (1991), Identifying common methods variance with data collected from a single source: an unresolved sticky issue, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp. 571-87. Bass, B. (1990), Bass and Stogdills Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, Free Press, New York, NY. Bass, B. (2000), The future of leadership in learning organizations, Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 18-40. Batten, J. (1997), Servant-leadership: a passion to serve, in Spears, L.C. (Ed.), Insights on Leadership: Service, Stewardship, Spirit, and Servant-Leadership, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 38-53. Begue, L. (2001), Value hierarchies of French Catholics committed to the ght against AIDS, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 141 No. 1, pp. 139-41. Braithwaite, V.A. and Law, H.G. (1985), Structure of human values: testing the adequacy of the Rokeach Value Survey, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 250-63. Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Buttereld, D.A. and Grinnell, J.P. (1999), Reviewing gender, leadership and managerial behavior: do three decades of research tell us anything, in Powell, G.N. (Ed.), Handbook of Gender and Work, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Cable, D. and Judge, T.A. (1996), Person-organization t, job choice decisions, and organizational entry, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 67, pp. 294-311. Cileli, M. (2000), Change in value orientations of Turkish youth from 1989 to 1995, Journal of Psychology, Vol. 134 No. 3, pp. 297-306. Collins, J.M. and Gleaves, D.H. (1998), Race, job applicants, and the ve-factor model of personality: implications for black psychology, industrial/organizational psychology, and the ve-factor theory, Journal of Applied Psychologys, Vol. 83, pp. 531-44. Connor, P.E. and Becker, B.W. (2003), Personal value systems and decision-making styles of public managers, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 155-81. Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1985), The NEO Personality Inventory Manual, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.

Servant leadership and personality 713

LODJ 27,8

714

Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1998), Personality in adulthood: a six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 853-63. Covey, S.R. (1989), The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Simon & Schuster Fireside, New York, NY. Davis, J.F., Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R. and Tan, H. (2000), Trusted unit manager and business unit performance: Empirical evidence of a competitive advantage, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 563-76. De Pree (1989), Leadership Is an Art, Doubleday, New York, NY. Dennis, R. and Winston, B.E. (2003), A factor analysis of Page and Wongs servant leadership instrument, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 455-9. Dirks, K.T. (2000), Trust in leadership and team performance: evidence from NCAA Basketball, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 1004-12. Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2001), The role of trust in organizational settings, Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 450-67. Dobbins, G.H. and Platz, S.J. (1986), Sex differences in leadership: how real are they?, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 118-27. Eagly, A.H. and Johnson, B. (1990), Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108, pp. 233-56. England, G.W. and Lee, R. (1974), The relationship between managerial values and managerial success in the United States, Japan, India, and Australia, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 411-9. Fairholm, G.W. (1997), Capturing the Heart of Leadership: Spirituality and Community in the New American Workplace, Praeger, Westport, CT. Fairholm, G.W. (1998), Perspectives on Leadership: From the Science of Management to Its Spiritual Heart, Quorum Books, Westport, CT. Fairholm, G.W. (1994), Leadership and a Culture of Trust, Praeger, New York, NY. Goldberg, L.R. (1990), An alternative description of personality: The Big-Five factor structure, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 1216-29. Greenleaf, R.K. (1977), Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness, Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ. Heckscher, C., Eisenstat, R.A. and Rice, T.J. (1994), Transformational process, in Heckscher, C. and Donnellon, A. (Eds), The Post-Bureaucratic Organization: New Perspectives on Organizational Change, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Hough, L.M., Oswald, F.L. and Ployhart, R.E. (2001), Determinants, detection, and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence, and lessons learned, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 9, pp. 152-94. Houston, L.N. (1990), Psychological Principles and the Black Experience, University Press of America, Lanham, MD. Joseph, E.E. and Winston, B.E. (2005), A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and organizational trust, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 6-22. Judge, T.A. and Bono, J.E. (2000), Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 5, pp. 751-65. Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1990), The credibility factor: what followers expect from their leaders, Management Review, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 29-33.

Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1992), Ethical leaders: an essay about being in love, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 479-84. Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1993), Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1995), The Leadership Challenge, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Kramer, R.M. (1996), Divergent realities and convergent disappointments in the hierarchic relation: trust and the intuitive auditor at work, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Laub, J.A. (1999), Assessing the servant organization: development of the Servant Organizational Leadership Assessment (SOLA) instrument, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL. Levering, R. and Moskowitz, M. (2000), The 100 best companies to work for in America, Fortune, Vol. 141 No. 1, pp. 82-110. Malphurs, A. (1996), Values-Driven Leadership: Discovering and Developing Your Core Values for Ministry, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI. Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (1999), The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: a eld quasi-experiment, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 123-36. Northhouse, P.G. (1997), Leadership: Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Nyabadza, G.W. (2003), Leadership at the peak the 10th trait of effect leaders: servant Leadership, Zimbabwe Independent-AAGM, February 7. Page, D. and Wong, T.P. (2000), A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership, in Adjibolosoo, S. (Ed.), The Human Factor in Shaping the Course of History and Development, University Press of America, Lanham, MD. Patterson, K. (2003), Servant Leadership: A Theoretical Model, Servant Leadership Roundtable, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903. Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), Self-reports in organization research: problems and prospects, Journal of Management, Vol. 12, pp. 531-44. Pollard, C.W. (1996), The leader who serves, in Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M. and Beckhard, R. (Eds), The Leader of the Future: New Visions, Strategies, and Practices for the Next Era, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Rich, G. (1997), The sales manager as a role model: effects on trust, job satisfaction and performance of salespeople, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25, pp. 319-28. Rokeach, M. (1968), Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Rokeach, M. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, Free Press, New York, NY. Russell, R.F. (2001), The role of values in servant leadership, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 76-85. Russell, R.F. and Stone, A.G. (2002), A review of servant leadership: developing a practical model, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23 Nos 3/4, pp. 145-57.

Servant leadership and personality 715

LODJ 27,8

716

Sendjaya, S. and Sarros, J.C. (2002), Servant leadership: its origin, development, and application in organizations, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 57-64. Shaw, R.B. (1997), Trust in the Balance: Building Successful Organizations on Results, Integrity, and Concern, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Schein, E.H. (1990), Organizational culture, American Psychologist, Vol. 45, pp. 109-19. Simons, T.L. (1999), Behavioral integrity as a critical ingredient for transformational leadership, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 89-104. Smith, B.N., Montagno, R.V. and Kuzmenko, T.N. (2004), Transformational and servant leadership: content and contextual comparisons, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 80-91. Spears, L.C. (Ed.) (1995), Reections on Leadership: How Robert K. Greenleafs Theory of Servant-Leadership Inuenced Todays Management Thinkers, Wiley, New York, NY. Spears, L.C. (Ed.) (1998), Insights on Leadership: Service, Stewardship, Spirit, and Servant Leadership, Wiley, New York, NY. Tsui, A.S. and OReilly, C.A. III (1989), Beyond simple demographic effects: the importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 402-23. Van Engen, M.L., Van der Leeden, R. and Willemsen, T.M. (2001), Gender, context, and leadership styles: a eld study, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 581-99. Van Iddekinge, C.H., Raymark, P.H. and Roth, P.L. (2005), Assessing personality with a structured employment interview: construct-related validity and susceptibility to response ination, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 3, pp. 536-52. Wiggins, J.S. (Ed.) (1996), The Five-Factor Model of Personality: Theoretical Perspectives, Guilford Press, New York, NY. Yukl, G. (1998), Leadership in Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Corresponding author Rynetta R. Washington is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: washirr@auburn.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints