2004 dissertation-servant-leadership and job satisfaction

SERVANT-LEADERSHIP AND JOB SATISFACTION: A CORRELATIONAL
STUDY IN TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY REGION X PUBLIC SCHOOLS
by
LARRY D. MIEARS
Submitted to the Faculty o f the Graduate School
of Texas A&M University-Commerce
in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May, 2004
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

UMI Number: 3148083
Copyright 2004 by
Miears, Larry D.
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3148083
Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Approved:
Adviser
Dean ofthe College
Jean of Graduate Studies and Research

Copyright © 2004
Larry D. Miears
iii
Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

ABSTRACT
Larry D. Miears, Ed. D.
Texas A&M University - Commerce, 2004
Adviser: Edward Seifert, Ed. D.
Purpose: The purpose ofthis study was twofold. The first was to establish that the
Organizational Leadership Assessment - Educational Version (Laub, 1999) survey
instrument is a useful tool for measuring the level of servant-leadership and job
satisfaction in a public school organization. The second was to examine the link between
the level of servant-leadership perceived and the level ofjob satisfaction felt in the public
school organization.
Procedure: This was a correlational study using two variables of interest: the level of
servant-leadership present within a public school organization, and the level ofjob
satisfaction felt by the teaching professionals within a public school organization. A
random sample ofteaching professionals in Texas Education Agency Region X public
schools was invited to participate by completing the survey instrument on-line.
iv

V
Results: The internal reliability ofthe research instrument using the Cronbach’s Alpha
was .98 indicating that it is highly probable that differences in responses were due to
differences in individual respondents opinions rather than hard to interpret or vague
questions. The Pearson correlation statistic revealed that a strong positive correlation, r =
.723 (p<01, two tailed), exists between servant-leadership and job satisfaction, which
means that respondents who perceived a high level of servant-leadership in their school
organization indicated more satisfaction with theirjob. The ANOVA test and regression
models used to examine the data more closely verified this finding.
Conclusions: The Organization Leadership Assessment - Education Version (Laub,
1999) shows the same strong internal reliability as the original version ofthe survey
instrument. Researchers can use this instrument with confidence that it will accurately
measure the level of servant-leadership within a school organization as well as the job
satisfaction felt by those in the organization. While not in the scope ofthis study, the
OLA could be used by school leaders to assess their entire organization. Evidence
suggests that teaching professionals respond well to the style of leadership characterized
as servant-leadership. The finding that teaching professionals are more satisfied with their
jobs when they perceive a high level of servant-leadership has implications concerning
teacher retention.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Heart-felt appreciation is extended to the following who supported this study with
their time, expertise, and resources: Dr. Edward Seifert for his patient mentoring and
quite leadership, Dr. James Vomberg and Dr. J. K. Crain for their willingness to serve on
my committee, and Dr. James Laub for allowing me to use his research instrument. A
special thanks is extended to Dr. Gwen Schroth who was instrumental in starting me
along this path and who graciously helped me, through her unpaid efforts in editing my
work, complete the process even after her retirement.
I would also like to express my gratitude to those who supported me on a more
personal level, and who are in feet the impetus behind this study. To my parents, L. J. and
Billie Ruth Miears (deceased) who through their sacrifice over the years have been the
epitome of servant-leadership. To Dr. James Cowley, a fellow cohort member, who has
been a cheerleader and encourager throughout this process. To Dr. Ron Peron who has
been a trusted friend with a gift for knowing when a long lunch is needed. And finally to
my dear wife Marilyn who can never be adequately repaid for thirty-plus years of
unwavering support, unshakable trust, and undying love.
vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xi
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Statement ofProblem 4
Purpose of Study 6
Research Question 7
Significance ofthe Study 7
Definition of Terms 8
Limitations ofthe Study 9
Delimitations ofthe Study 10
Assumption ofthe Study 10
Organization ofRemaining Chapters 10
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 12
Categories ofLeadership 12
Positional Power - The Dominator 15
Personal Power - The Natural Leader 17
Blended Power - The Servant-leader 19
Current Trends in Leadership 21
Sergiovanni 22
Senge 26
Greenleaf 31
Significance ofLeadership 36

viii
Summary 37
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY 39
Research Design 39
Research Participants 40
Population 40
Sample Selection 42
Research Instrument 43
Web Site Design 45
Research Data Collection and Analysis 47
Cronbach’s Alpha 52
Pearson Correlation 53
One-way ANOVA 54
Chapter 4: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA 56
Descriptive Statistics 57
Research Questions 65
Summary 75
Chapter 5: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 76
Problem and Purpose 76
Review ofMethodology 78
Summary ofFindings 80
Discussion of Findings 83
Conclusions 83
Relationship to Previous Research 86

Recommendations for Educators
Recommendations for Further Research
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
A. BREAKDOWN OF THE OLA PER SURVEY ITEMS
B. SURVEY INSTRUMENT
C. E-MAILS SENT TO POTENTIAL RESPONDENTS
VITA

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Response Rate by Subgroups 48
2. Number ofRespondents by Gender 57
3. Number ofRespondents by Certification 58
4. Number ofRespondents by Years of Teaching Experience 58
5. Number ofRespondents by Years in Current District 59
6. Number ofRespondents by School Size 59
7. Population Distribution by Demographic Variables 60
8. Reliability Scores for the OLA by Constructs of
Servant-leadership 66
9. Reliability Scores for the OLA 66
10. Reliability Scores for the OLA Using the Split-halves Model 67
11. Correlation Matrix 68
12. OLA Means and Standard Deviation by Gender 70
13. OLA Means and Standard Deviation by Certification 71
14. OLA Means and Standard Deviation by Years of
Teaching Experience 72
15. OLA Means and Standard Deviation by Years in
Current District 73
16. OLA Means and Standard Deviation by School Size 75
x

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Sample Selection Process 41
2. Servant-leadership and theServant Organization Model 44
3. Comparison of ParticipantAgreement by Survey Construct 62
xi

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Typically people define leadership in terms ofposition. The mayor and city
council represent the leadership of a city, the leadership of a school is said to be those
who hold administrative positions. This definition is too narrow, however, to convey the
full meaning of leadership. The capacity of one to lead must also be considered. Even the
most casual of observers can find examples ofthose who have the capacity to lead yet
hold no formal leadership position. The difficulty in defining leadership is one ofthree
major flaws that have historically hampered the study of leadership (Rost, 1993).
Pigors (1935) defined leadership as the process that controls human energy in the
pursuit of a common cause. According to Pigors, a leader directs and controls others in
the pursuit of a common cause, with the emphasis being on directing and common cause.
The ideas of directing or influencing action and seeking a common cause are themes
heard today by one ofthe most important scholars in the field of leadership. Rost says
that “leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real
changes that reflect their mutual purposes” (1993, p. 102). Pigors observed that two types
or categories of leaders exists. Those who dominate and tend to assert their superiority
over others, tending to sway others rather than lead, and those who are natural leaders. In
the case ofthe dominator, the power to lead depends on the ability to compel obedience,
while in the case ofthe natural leader, the power to lead is given by those who want to
follow. There seems to be a consensus today that leadership can be categorized as either
leadership from positional power or leadership from personal power (Sergiovanni, 1995;
l

2
Morgan, 1997), a view that almost identically mirrors what Pigors observed in 1935.
These two categories of leadership encompass most of the leadership styles identified
through research. Weber (1946/1997) taught that leadership is founded in a position and
this position ofauthority was legitimized through rules, laws and administrative
regulations. However, as the basic needs ofthe work force are met, leadership that is
rooted only in position becomes less effective and must change (McGregor, 1957/1997).
The capacity to lead by personal power arises from the personal skill and knowledge of
the leader, and depends on the ability to persuade others to do his or her will (Gautschi,
1999). “Leadership is the process of persuasion or example by which an individual (or
leadership team) induces a group to pursue objectives held by the leader or shared by the
leader and his or her followers” (Gardner, 1990, p. 1).
Though still not widely accepted, there is a third category of leadership; that of
servant-leadership as espoused by Greenleaf. Greenleaf, who coined the phrase servant-
leader and wrote prolifically on the subject of servant-leadership, said, “The servant-
leader is servant first” (Greenleaf, 1970, p. 7). The measure ofthis servant-leader was the
questions that Greenleafasked: are those being served becoming healthier, wiser, freer,
more autonomous, and more likely to become servant-leaders themselves? Diverse
cultural beliefs have long held that servant-leadership is desirable for those in positions of
authority. The epitome of servant-leadership for Christians is of course found in the
person ofJesus. As an example, the Bible gives an account of Jesus washing the feet of
his disciples, then giving them instructions to do as He did (New American Standard
Bible, 1985). Christianity consistently presents a picture of leadership that places the
needs of others before self-interests. The concept of servant-leadership is not only found

in the person ofJesus, but is also central to the leadership position of deacon. The
position of deacon is often misconstrued as being a powerful member of the church body;
however, the word deacon comes from the Greek word diakonos, and carries the meaning
of one who waits tables or does other menial tasks for others (Strong, 1984). Jesus
instructed His disciples by saying:
You know that the rulers ofthe Gentiles lord it over them and their great men
exercise authority over them. It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to
become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first
among you shall be your slave; just as the Son ofMan did not come to be served,
but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:25-28, New
American Standard Bible, 1985)
In his book Run SchoolRun (1980), Barth quotes the Lao Tzu, the Father of
Taoism, concerning leadership:
A leader is best when people barely know that he exists, not so good when
people obey and acclaim him, worst when they despise him. Fail to honor
people and they fail to honor you; but of a good leader, who talks little, when
his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will all say, “We did this ourselves.”
(p. 194)
Pictured here is a leader who is more concerned with the individual finding their own
path to success rather than exercising control over others. Lao Tzu, a sixth century BC
philosopher, wrote, “The Tao abides in non-action, yet nothing is left undone” (Majka,
2001, Section 1, If 21).

4
The secular world does not often use the terminology of servant-leader, but the
concept is present nonetheless. Educational terminology that indicates this type of
leadership style includes words such as “collaboration” and “empowerment.” Advice
from the market place encourages leaders to do the work with employees, and to talk with
employees, rather than “at” them (Leatherman, 1992). References to the virtues of shared
decision making utilizing decision-making teams are found frequently in education
literature (Barth, 1980; Heath and Vik, 1996; McCarthy and Riner, 1996; Sergiovanni,
1999). Over a wide spectrum ofviewpoints, leaders are encouraged to use a blend of
personal power and positional power to lead rather than rely primarily on positional
power (Blank, 1995; Ebmeier and Nicklaus, 1999; Goldman, 1998; Zemke, 1999).
Statement ofthe Problem
Today servant-leadership is being freshly examined and is a key issue in
leadership studies in various arenas. Servant-leadership has been written about and
studied in the corporate setting (Greenleaf, 1996; Spears, 1995; Laub, 1999). Servant-
leadership is also an emerging topic in higher education. Information from the Greenleaf
Center for Servant-leadership lists several universities such as Arizona State University,
Abilene Christian University, Ball State University, and Baylor University that include
the study of servant-leadership as a substantial part oftheir educational leadership
programs.
Laub (1999), of Indiana Wesleyan University, developed the Organizational
Leadership Assessment (OLA) survey instrument for the purpose of measuring the level
of servant-leadership in an organization. A three part Delphi survey with a panel of

5
fourteen recognized experts in the field of servant-leadership was utilized to accomplish
this task. This process yielded a consensus that servant-leadership was best described
using six specific constructs and from these constructs, the sixty items ofthe OLA were
developed. Laub added six survey items to the OLA to measurejob satisfaction in order
to perform a correlational study. Laub’s study, conducted in the corporate realm, found a
strong correlation between servant-leadership and job satisfaction. The six questions
addressing job satisfaction were developed based on Laub’s understanding ofthe relevant
literature. Research conducted by Thompson (2002) indicates that the job satisfaction
portion of the OLA has validity for use as a measurement forjob satisfaction. In his
research, Thompson used the OLA in conjunction with the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire, a validated job satisfaction instrument, and found that there was a
significant positive correlation. Laub made minor wording changes to the OLA, an
educational version, in order to expand the study of servant-leadership to educational
organizations. As of yet, this education version ofthe OLA has not been utilized in a
study of servant-leadership in public schools. Indeed, woefully little research exists
dealing with the presence and impact of servant-leadership in the public school setting.
Evidence points to the feet that school leaders today face low teacher morale, high
attrition of classroom teachers in virtually every field, and a reduction of public
confidence. School leaders also face the challenges of improving student performance in
a high-stake testing environment and issue concerning student safety. In 1983 the
National Commission on Excellence in Education predicted a major shortage ofteachers
(Ingersoll, 2001), and in 1996, the National Commission on Teaching predicted a major
shortage of qualified classroom teachers over the next ten year period (Hope, 1999). The

6
graying of the teachers at the time ofthe study and a predicted increase in student
enrollment were cited as the primary factors for the future teacher shortage; however,
current research, while documenting a shortage in almost every teaching field, points to
different causes for the shortage. Empirical evidence establishes a link between teacher
retention and the teacher’s perception ofthe leadership they work under (Hope, 1999;
Ingersoll, 2001). Further empirical studies (Baughman, 1996) reveal a strong correlation
between teacher retention andjob satisfaction. A current trend in education seminars,
such as the Superintendent’s Academy provided by the Educational Service Center
Region X of Texas, considers the possibility that servant-leadership may provide the type
of leadership that can nurture new teachers, increase teacher’sjob satisfaction, and
decrease teacher attrition. However, there is a great need for more empirical research to
be conducted in order to establish such a link. The research described here was conducted
to examine the link between servant-leadership andjob satisfaction in Educational
Service Center Region X public schools.
Purpose ofthe Study
The purpose ofthis study was twofold. The first was to establish that the
instrument is a reliable tool for measuring the level of servant-leadership and job

7
Research Questions
The following research questions were posed for this study:
1. Can internal reliability ofthe Organizational Leadership Assessment -
Educational Version (Laub, 1999) be clearly documented in a public school
setting?
2. Does a correlation exist between the level of servant-leadership perceived by
teachers in public schools served by the Educational Service Center Region X,
and the level ofjob satisfaction felt by those same teachers?
In an effort to address possible alternative explanations for any correlation found,
the following secondary questions will be addressed.
3. Does gender ofthe respondent account for any significant difference in
responses given?
4. Does holding a valid teaching certificate account for any significant difference
in responses given?
5. Do years ofteaching experience ofthe respondent account for any significant
difference in responses given?
6. Do years ofteaching in a particular school district account for any significant
7. Does school size account for any significant difference in responses given?
Significance ofthe Study
Ifthe Organizational Leadership Assessment - Educational Version (Laub, 1999)
survey instrument proved to be a reliable tool for educational research, studies dealing

8
with the presence and impact of servant-leadership could be enhanced, adding to the
growing knowledge base and dialog concerning servant-leadership. The findings should
prove helpful to school leaders at the campus or district level, particularly in the area of
teacher retention. The hope was that this research would also enhance and encourage
further empirical studies concerning servant-leadership in the public school setting.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions should prove useful to the reader. These definitions are
generally broad in their scope, as opposed to a dogmatic definition, and must be
understood in the context ofthis research.
Servant-leadership: “The servant-leader is servant first” (Greenleaf, 1970, p.7).
The test for servant-leadership lies in the following questions: “... do those served grow
as persons; do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more
autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants?” (p.7)
Leader: The leader is one who by a variety of means directs and controls human
energy in the pursuit of a common cause (Pigors, 1935).
School leader: The school leader is any person who sets the educational agenda
for the public school. For the purpose ofthis research, school leaders include the
superintendents, assistant superintendents, principals, and assistant principals.
Teaching professional: The person, whether certified or not, who is responsible
for the learning outcomes ofthe students in the public school organization.

9
Internal reliability: In research, reliability is the estimation of consistency
(Trochim, 2002). A measure is reliable if it yields consistent results over multiple
administrations.
Mixed methodology: For most in the research community this term applies to the
use of quantitative and qualitative methods in a single study. In this research, the term
applies to the use of mixed modes of survey delivery (Dillman, 2000) such as giving a
survey through e-mail and through traditional mail in an effort to eliminate sampling
errors.
Limitations ofthe Study
1. No effort was made in this study to assess the effect that the time of year the survey
was given might have on the responses to survey items. The researcher conceded that
teacher’s attitudes toward their employment and leaders may well be different at the
end of the school year as opposed to the beginning of the school year. Attitudes might
be negatively affected due to a number of reasons including stress or fatigue.
Conversely, attitudes might be positively affected due to excitement about the
approaching summer, or reliefthat the state assessment test was completed. The
choice to conduct the study at the end ofthe school year was made in the hope that a
broader base ofparticipants would have relevant feelings about the leadership in their
workplace.
2. No effort was made in this study to exclude teaching professionals that did not hold a
valid teaching certificate. Teacher shortages have created a need for more schools to
use non-certified teachers in the classroom. Non-certified teachers would nonetheless

10
have opinions about the level of servant-leadership felt in the organization and the
level ofjob satisfaction felt.
Delimitations ofthe Study
1. This research was limited to school districts the Educational Service Center Region X
ofTexas. Region X is known to encourage and promote servant-leadership by
providing training in the subject matter.
2. This research was limited to looking at only those public high schools served by the
Educational Service Center Region X.
3. This research was limited to teaching professionals only. No support staffpersonnel
were invited to participate.
Assumptions of the Study
1. The respondents will answer the survey thoughtfully and honestly.
2. The respondents did not give their pin number to an unauthorized individual.
3. Electronic data was transmitted over the internet without error or changes to the
responses given by participants.
Organization ofthe Remainder of the Study
A review ofthe literature relevant to the discussion of servant-leadership and job
satisfaction is found in Chapter 2 ofthe study. The material will begin with a broad
discussion about leadership in general and the forces that create change in leadership
style. Current trends in leadership style will be examined including the discussion

11
concerning the role of school leaders and the results of pressure and stress on teachers.
The chapter will conclude by making an argument for linking the leadership style of the
school leadership to the job satisfaction felt by teachers. The methodology ofthe research
will be contained in Chapter 3. Methodology discussion will include the research design,
survey instrument, and sampling procedure. Collection of data and the type of analysis to
be used will also be discussed in Chapter 3. Data presentation and analysis along with the
findings ofthe research will be presented in Chapter 4. Briefexplanations ofthe
statistical test to be used and interpretation of the statistics calculated will also be in
Chapter 4. The summary and discussion portion of the research will be found in Chapter
5. The discussion portion will include conclusions about the findings, relationship of the
findings to past research, recommendations to educators, and recommendations for
further research.

Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Categories ofLeadership
Historically, the study of leadership has been hampered by three major flaws
(Rost, 1993). According to Rost, the first flaw was where the emphasis for leadership
study was placed. He felt that too much focus was placed on the “periphery and content”
of leadership rather than the core ofwhat leadership is. Peripheries are the traits that
leaders demonstrate and content is the knowledge leaders must possess in order to
influence others. The second flaw is the difficulty of defining leadership. Rost (1993)
outlined the difficulty of researchers over a sixty year span. Through the 1980’s,
leadership studies focused primarily on the leader while the role of follower and the
interaction between leader and follower was largely ignored. Over the years, leadership
has been defined as a political process, influence, attributes and an exchange based on
power. In all, Rost identified 221 definitions for leadership from 587 books. Rost defines
leadership as “an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real
changes that reflect their mutual purposes” (1993, p. 102).
For leadership to occur, four essential elements must be present (Rost, 1993).
These elements are: a) relationships based on influence, which are multidirectional and
non-coercive; b) active relationships between leaders and followers, which are unequal
because influence patterns are unequal; c) leaders and followers intend real change; and
d) leaders and followers develop mutual purposes. The third, and most critical, ofthe
flaws is that no clearly articulated “school of leadership” existed. Rost acknowledged that
12

13
an industrial paradigm did in fact exist, and he gives credit to Bums for making headway
in the attempt to develop a new paradigm. Establishing a new school of leadership was
the primary goal ofRost. The lacking of a well-articulated and post-industrial paradigm
“is a problem that must be solved in the 1990’s as the people in our organizations and
societies prepare for the twenty-first century” (1993, p. 11).
Though not expressing it in the same terms, Pigors (1935) touched on this new
paradigm when he defined leadership as the process that controls human energy in the
pursuit of a common cause. According to Pigors, a leader directs and controls others in
the pursuit of a common cause, with the emphasis being on directing and common cause.
Gardner (1990) agreed when he defined leadership as a process of persuasion. Making no
case for which is more effective, Pigors observed that two types or categories of leaders
exists. Those who dominate and tend to assert their superiority over others, tending to
sway others rather than lead, and those who are natural leaders. In the case of the
dominator, the power to lead depends on the ability to compel obedience, while in the
case ofthe natural leader, the power to lead is given by those who want to follow. Bums
(1978), in a similar manner identified two categories of leadership: transactional,
leadership that focuses on basic physiological needs; and transformational, leadership
that focuses on high-order needs. There seems to be a consensus today that leadership can
be categorized as either leadership from positional power or leadership from personal
power (Sergiovanni, 1995; Morgan, 1997), a view that almost identically mirrors what
Pigors observed in 1935. These two categories of leadership encompass most of the
leadership styles identified through research. Though still not widely accepted, there is a
third category of leadership that blends positional and personal power. This blended

category of leadership is servant-leadership such as espoused by Greenleaf. Greenleaf,
who coined the phrase servant-leader and wrote prolifically on the subject of servant-
leadership, said, “The servant-leader is servant first” (Greenleaf, 1970, p. 7). The measure
of this servant-leader was the questions that Greenleafasked: are those being served
becoming healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, and more likely to become servant-
leaders themselves?
An example ofthese three categories of leadership can be seen in the military.
The leadership described by Pigors as the dominator is easily seen in the higher ranks of
command. The general does not earn followship; he demands it by virtue the authority
vested in his or her position. On the other hand, the combat officer that wishes to lead
must do more than just order soldiers to “charge the hill.” The combat officer certainly
has the rule of law to call upon, but combat experience shows that soldiers must be “led”
into battle and combat officers must “earn” respect. From this respect, obedience flows
more freely. This combat officer must be a natural leader or failure is likely. The servant-
leader can be seen in that common soldier who has as a desire to “serve” his or her
country. Under extreme conditions, say a battle in which many command officers were
lost, the soldier might encounter a situation that demands his or her leadership. It may
well be that ifthis soldier does not step forward and lead, many more comrades might
perish. The overriding consideration for this soldier is the desire to serve and help others.
A key difference to these three categories of leadership is how those being lead are
treated. Injob related terms, the dominator views the employee as a commodity to use
and the natural leader views the employee as a resource to manage, while the servant-
leader views the employee as an asset to be developed.

15
PositionalPower: The Dominator
Weber alluded to the first category of leadership, one leading from position, in his
discussion of bureaucracy. Weber taught that leadership is founded in a position (Weber,
1946/1997), and this position of authority was legitimized through rules, laws and
administrative regulations. Weber also expressed the idea that leadership can be
legitimized in custom and tradition as in the case of royalty (Morgan, 1997); however,
whether the position was earned by promotion through the ranks or inherited by
birthright, this category of leadership depends on positional power. According to Weber,
there were three distinct types of dominators yet pure types were rarely observed
(Morgan, 1997). The types of dominators Weber identified were the charismatic
dominator, the traditional dominator, and the rational-legal dominator. The charismatic
dominator is given power to rule because ofpersonal qualities and the faith that those
being ruled bestow in the leader. The traditional dominator gains power because of
inherited position such as in a monarchy. The rational-legal dominator gains position and
power by following a set appointed method of appointment or selection. In all of these
types of dominators Weber noted that the rulers saw themselves as having the right to
lead, and those under their rule felt it was their duty to obey.
McGregor, with his identification ofthe type “X” leader, addressed this same
category of leadership. Theory X (McGregor, 1957/1997) held that management must
organize the elements of enterprise including controlling the behavior ofpeople in the
enterprise, and that without active intervention people are passive about organizational
needs. McGregor stated that the conventional organizational structure of his day
promoted the beliefthat (a) average men were by nature lazy and would work as little as

16
possible, (b) ordinary people dislike responsibility and preferred to be led, (c) workers
were inherently self-centered and did not care bout the organization, (d) workers were
resistant to change, and (e) the average man was not very bright. Type “X” leaders
manipulate rather than motivate the workforce. Work was divided as a means to become
more efficient (Gulick, 1937/1997), however this specialization hinged on the idea that
the workforce in general had limited skills. No effort was made to advance the individual
in the workforce. Gulick believed that workers in this type organization needed to be
dominated by a strong singleness ofpurpose and should have only one master to be
accountable to. The efficiency of an organization was said to be increased by
specialization oftask, arranging members in a hierarchy of authority, limiting the span of
control, grouping workers in order to better control them (Simon, 1946/1997). Some
current writings on the responsibilities and traits of leadership seem encourage this
category of leader. Stanley (2001) list assertiveness, dominance, self-confidence,
persistence, and decisiveness among the desirable qualities a leader should possess. The
quandary with this category of leader is that it not only gives evidence to how the leader
views the role of leadership, but it also dictates how those under this leadership are
treated. Positional power is not evil, nor is it to be avoided. There are many occasions,
too obvious and numerous to list, in which positional power is absolutely necessary.
Positional power is abused when the leader becomes the dominator.
In the case ofthe dominator, leadership tends to be harsh and critical because of
the view that workers are inherently lazy and opposed to work (Leatherman, 1992).
Leaders who held the domination way ofthinking believed that any means of control at
the disposal ofthe appointed official was valid (Weber, 1946/1997). Domination

17
promotes superiority over another as opposed to teamwork. A dominator, according to
Pigors (1935), uses people as resources, which are expendable, and derives power only
through the ability to compel obedience. Fear and intimidation, whether real or perceived,
is relied upon using this type of leadership style.
Such leadership is counterfeit leadership (Shelton, 1997). Shelton list several
possible reason for the abundance of counterfeit leadership today, but reasons that the
long-held notion of “the tallest, toughest, biggest, loudest, most articulate, best dressed,
most popular, or the most physically or financially endowed” being best suited to lead is
central and must be reconsidered (1997, p.25). Shelton acknowledges that leadership of
this type rarely begins with sinister intent; however, leadership ofthis type does lead to
mismanagement and abuse of people (1997).
PersonalPower: The NaturalLeader
Pigors (1935) observed that leadership, that is leadership arising from personal
power, as opposed to domination, came when people shared a common cause. Pigors
claims that as the distinctive personalities of people interact with each other, a leader will
naturally emerge. Leadership is “a process of mutual stimulation which, by the successful
interplay of relevant individual differences, controls human energy in the pursuit of a
common cause” (Pigors, 1935, p. 16). Pigors gave an example of a group of people who
had been stranded on a commuter train. The person in the formal leadership role, the train
conductor, with legal authority over the riders requested that the group wait on the train
for help to come. One rider, who was concerned about being late for work, decided to
leave the train anyway. In this story related by Pigors, most ofthe people left the train

18
with the informal leader that had emerged because they had a common desire to get off of
the train and proceed somewhere.
McGregor (1957/1997) offered Theory Y as a suggested alternative to the
domination type leader. Theory Y holds that: (a) management is responsible for
organizing all aspects ofthe enterprise in the interest of economic ends; (b) people only
become lazy as a result ofnegative experiences within the organization; (c) the capacity
to care about organizational needs lies within all the people of the organization, and it is
the responsibility of management to develop this potential; and (d) the ultimate goal of
management is to create conditions which allow people to best achieve their individual
goals by directing their efforts toward organizational needs. There would also be found a
desire to manage differently by empowering those who are subordinates (e.g.,
Sergiovanni, 1995; Leatherman, 1992). The entire thrust of site-based decision making
has as its impetus the desire for leaders ofthis type.
There are natural conditions that allow leadership (Blank, 1995). Blank identified
these natural conditions or laws as (a) leaders have willing followers, (b) leadership is
based on relationships, (c) leadership occurs as an event, (d) leaders will use more than
formal authority, (e) leaders operate outside the boundaries of organizationally defined
procedures, (f) leadership involves risk and uncertainty, (g) not everyone will follow a
leader’s initiative, (h) consciousness - information processing capacity - creates
leadership, and (i) leadership is a self-referral process (1995, p. 10). The natural leader
recognizes that followers are essential to effective leadership and that relationship with
followers help insure loyalty.

19
Personal power arises from the personal skills and knowledge and the effort you
extend toward the organization (Gautschi, 1999). There are four contributing factors that
lead to a leadership style arising from personal rather than positional power. First, multi
function teams operate at a quick and efficient level creating a need for quick decision
making. Since no one person can know everything, decisions are rendered using
persuasion and consensus. Secondly, the current generation of workers is seeking to be
individuals and do not respond well to command or control. Third, the workforce is much
more educated and the competition to keep workers is keen. Fourth, in the information
age oftoday, knowledge, which traditional associated with power, is readily available to
the general workforce (Gautschi, 1999). Therefore, it is crucial that the leader has the
ability to persuade others to do his or her will. The art ofpersuasion lies in the ability to
come to a consensus even if the one doing the persuading has to change.
BlendedPower: The Servant-Leader
The third category of leadership, that of servant-leadership, arises from an
individual who first has a strong desire to serve (Greenleaf, 1970). The attitude ofbeing
servant first is what truly separates the servant-leader from all others. The servant-leader
may have positional power and or personal power, yet the underlying motivation for
action is the desire to serve. Greenleafpoints out that the person with a servant attitude
grows to a point where they feel that by leading, they can best serve. Caring about others
is the core commitment made by authentic leaders (Rooney, 2003). Rooney discusses the
responsibilities of school leadership in this context. While the principal has numerous
tasks to perform each day, she believes that have the caring commitment toward the

20
community, the staff, and the learning of each child is number one on the list. Caring is
not about a specific action but rather about a mindset. This mindset comes into play when
it is time to determine what actions to take or what battles to fight. Servant-leadership
embodies this attitude of caring as shown with the precept of striving to see each
individual served reach their fullest potential. In the case of students, the effort is to see
that no child is forgotten or written off. In the case ofteachers and staff, the attitude
becomes evident in the willingness to empower leaders at every level of the organization.
By sharing decision-making and power, the school leader enables the staffto “become
conductors, counselors, facilitators, coaches, and critical friends” (Rooney, 2003, p. 48).
The vitality of leadership at the lower levels of an organization can produce vitality of
leadership in higher levels ofthe organization (Gardner, 1990).
At first glance, the term servant-leader would seem to be a paradox. How could it
be possible to be both a servant and a leader? The answer is in how the term servant is
interpreted. In the context of servant-leader, a servant is one who serves voluntarily as
opposed to a slave who is forced to serve. The use of servant in this manner is well
established as in the example ofa public servant having a position of authority in order to
serve the needs of the community. While not often labeled servant-leadership, it is clear
in the literature on leadership that a call has been sounded for leaders who lead more than
dominate, motivate more that manipulate, and direct more than dictate. Leadership rather
than being about control should be viewed as a moral calling (Sergiovanni, 1992). Some
scholars are uncomfortable with the associating morals with leadership (Rost, 1993) and
use the term ethics. Others such as Gardner (1990) felt that the moral dimension of

21
leadership is of primary concern. Gardner also states that the leader must find shared
morals and values with followers in order to lead effectively.
This type leader takes to heart the research ofHerzberg to insure as best he can
that his employees are having their needs met and are findingjob satisfaction
(Leatherman, 1992). Educational terminology that indicates this type of leadership style
includes words such as “collaboration” and “empowerment.” Educational leaders are
encouraged to not exercise power over their staffbut to give power to them instead
(Sergiovanni, 1995). Advice from the market place encourages leaders to do the work
with employees, and to talk with employees, rather than “at” them (Leatherman, 1992).
References to the virtues of shared decision making utilizing decision-making teams are
found frequently in education literature (Barth, 1980; Heath and Vik, 1996; McCarthy
and Riner, 1996; Chirichello, 2001). Over a wide spectrum ofviewpoints, leaders are
encouraged to use a blend of personal power and positional power to lead rather than rely
primarily on positional power (Blank, 1995; Ebmeier and Nicklaus, 1999; Goldman,
1998; Zemke, 1999).
Current Trends in Leadership
Leadership attributes and styles have been studied over a long period of time. One
of the defining elements that demonstrate leadership is the ability to influence the
behavior ofthose being lead (Pigors, 1935). An effective leader successfully recognizes
the elements needed to motivate others. One well established theory is that the basis of
human motivation is the drive ofthe individual to meet their basic needs such as
physiological and safety needs (Maslow, 1943/1997). Sergiovanni (1992) suggest that (a)

22
extrinsic gain, (b) intrinsic gain, or (c) duty and obligation is what motivates people.
Transactional leadership is adequate when dealing with basic and primarily extrinsic
needs ofthe work force; however, transformational leadership must be adopted when the
work force seeks to meet higher-order and intrinsic needs (Bums, 1978). Bums gives of
picture of leadership that is a delicate balance between leader and follower. He observes:
Someone - the leader - must take some originating action to set in motion the
leadership-followership interaction. But the originator does so - assuming a desire
to attract a follower - by estimating the wants, needs, expectations, or political
attitudes ofthe follower. In that interaction, who is really the leader and who is
really the follower? (Becker, Couto, & Bums, 1996, p. viii)
Transformational leaders (a) must be charismatic, (b) must inspire followers, (c) must be
intellectually stimulating, and (d) must be considerate ofthe individual (Bass, 1998) in
order to gain a following.
It is clear that leadership style must change as the basic needs ofthe individual are
met and higher-order needs are sought (McGregor, 1957/1997; Rooney, 2003). Literature
clearly demonstrates that the change called for today is for a leadership style that is more
collaborative. Following is a review ofthe relevant literature from some ofthe leading
scholars on leadership. While in no way exhaustive, these scholars represent the major
areas of thought.
Sergiovanni
Thomas J. Sergiovanni, Professor and Senior Fellow at the Center for Educational
Leadership of Trinity University, for over a decade has been one ofthe more prolific

23
authors on the subject of educational leadership. His name has become almost
synonymous with the phrase “building community” and this phrase is used often to
describe a characteristic trait of several leadership styles including servant-leadership.
The development of community in the school is the school leader’s primary responsibility
and greatest challenge (Sergiovanni, 1999). Sergiovanni asserts that for the school
leadership to accomplish this task, moral leadership must be provided.
Sergiovanni’s view that leadership should be viewed as a moral calling comes
from his expressed disappointment with the study of leadership (1992). He observes that
after 50 years of study, very little is known about leadership. He attributes this lacking of
understanding to the fact that most leadership studies focused on practical application
such as levels of decision making and organizational effectiveness rather than look at the
heart ofthe leader. While understanding the value ofthe “hand of leadership”, that is
practical application of leadership duties, Sergiovanni stresses that the “heart and head of
leadership” must also be considered when assessing effective leadership. The heart of
leadership is defined as being what the leaders believes, values, and is committed to. The
head of leadership has to do with the theory ofpractice that the leader develops through
personal reflection over a period oftime. The union ofthe hand, heart and head of
leadership results in moral leadership (1992). When managerial style rather than the
moral leadership dominates the school environment (a) improvement plans become
substitutes for improvement outcomes, (b) teacher-appraisal systems become substitutes
for good teaching, (c) courses and inservice workshops become substitutes for changes in
practice, (d) student discipline becomes a substitute for student control, (e) leadership
style becomes a substitute for purpose and substance, (f) congeniality becomes a

24
substitute for collegiality, (g) cooperation becomes a substitute for commitment, and (h)
compliance becomes a substitute for results. “Where the managerialmystique (italics
added) rules, school administrators are forced to do rather than decide, to implement
rather than lead” (1992, p. 4).
There are five sources of authority for leadership according to Sergiovanni
(1992). These are (a) bureaucratic authority, (b) psychological authority, (c) technical
authority, (d) professional authority, and (e) moral authority. Bureaucratic authority is
based on hierarchy and rules while psychological authority depends on motivation
technology and interpersonal skills. Logic and scientific research define technical-ration
authority, and professional authority is characterized by the knowledge and personal
expertise ofthe leader. Moral authority is derived from widely shared community values,
ideas, and ideals (1992). The building ofthis shared moral community is the primary
purpose of school leadership (Sergiovanni, 1996).
Community in schools can be defined as shared values and ideals that bind
students and teachers together (Sergiovanni, 1994). Reminiscent of Theobald,
Sergiovanni reasons that the need for community is created because of the loss of
community. The culture oftoday promotes a “me first” mentality. Technological
advances have enriched our lives, yet have made independence rather than
intradependence the norm (Theobald, 1997). Recognizing the advances to society
Sergiovanni does not advocate returning to a simpler time. He does suggest that the loss
of community is unacceptable and that community must be reestablished in existing
organizations. “If leaders cannot find in their constituencies any base of shard values,
principled leadership becomes nearly impossible” (Gardner, 1990, p. 113).

25
Authentic community, more than adding community to vocabulary or labels,
requires thinking community, believing in community and practicing community (1994).
Diversity in schools makes building ofcommunity difficult and requires a fundamental
shift in how the school organization is viewed. More than becoming a community of
learners, schools need to become a community of leaders (1994). Leadership is not
defined as the exercise of power but an exercise of shared passion and purposes that
increase the likelihood that the shared goals will be accomplished. “And when this
leadership is exercised by everyone on behalfof what is shared, the school becomes a
community of leaders (1994, p. 170).
Community theory also requires rethinking how schools are defined. Schools
should not be defined by a building but by ideas and tight connections (Sergiovanni,
1996). This might require radical thinking in terms of the size of school population. For
instance, breaking a large high school into several smaller high schools would enhance
personal relationships. Student and teachers should stay together meaning that the typical
class period would be changed. Extrinsic reward systems would be replaced with a shared
view that intrinsic value is enough motivation to do the right thing. Sergiovanni suggest
that even the ideas ofhaving explicit rules, linked with stated consequences, should be
replaced by developing covenants. Thinking ofthe school as a moral community rather
than as an organization restore “character to the literature on school organization,
management, and leadership” (1996, p. 57).
Thinking of schools as communities works well for educational organizations
because ofthe unique purpose and environment of schools (Sergiovanni, 1996). The
leadership role in this community is responsible for the following:

26
1. Purposing - bringing shared visions into school that speak to supervisors,
teachers, parents, and students with a moral voice.
2. Maintaining harmony - building consensual understanding ofpurposes and of
the moral connections between roles and responsibilities while respecting
individuals.
3. Institutionalizing values - translating covenants into workable procedures
4. Motivating - providing for the basic needs of members to experience sensible
and meaningful school lives.
5. Managing - ensuring the necessary day-to-day planning and support that
allows the school to operate efficiently.
6. Explaining - giving reasons of doing certain task by linking the task to the
larger picture.
7. Enabling - removing obstacles that prevent members from fulfilling their
commitments.
8. Modeling - being an example to follow in thought, word, and action.
9. Supervising - overseeing to insure the school meets its commitments.
Senge
Peter Senge, perhaps best known for his book The Fifth Discipline, is director of
the Center for Organizational Learning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
a well known lecturer on the subject of leadership. He views the organization as a human
system, which is uncontrollable in any practical sense. His learning organization model
rejects the view that leaders are to “set the direction, make the key decisions, and

27
energize the troops” (Senge, 1990, p. 340). Leadership therefore must create a learning
environment where people are open to new ideas, responsive to change, and eager to
develop new skills (Senge, 1996). According to him, most executives miss the mark
because they fail to realize that they are the chieflearners in a learning organization.
Many top executives do not see themselves as having to learn much and hire consultants
when they do not know the answer to a problem. The consultants, who want to continue
being asked to work, aid the lack of learning by solving a particular problem without
enabling the executives to solve the problems themselves (1996). The solution according
to Senge is to view learning as a never-ending part of life. No matter the extent of
accumulated knowledge, there is always more to learn. This lines up well with how the
education system views learning. Teachers as well as students are encouraged to be life
long learners. Many describe the school in their mission statements are being
communities of learners or learning organizations.
The leaders of learning organizations must have mastery of the five disciplines
described by Senge (1990). These five disciplines are personal mastery, mental models,
shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking. A briefdescription of each is
presented as follows:
1. Personal mastery - the act of self-actualization characterized by continual
learning. The elements of personal mastery include (a) personal vision, (b)
holding creative tension, and (c) commitment to the truth. Personal vision is as
outgrowth ofthe personal reflection and is a process rather than a product
(1990). Senge points out that everyone has a espoused theory, that which is
professed, and a theory-in-use, that which is practiced. These two theories do

28
not always align and tension is caused. Emotional tension is a recognition that
beliefs do not match practices and can be accompanied by feelings ofguilt.
Creative tension is the same recognition but accompanied by action to change.
Recognition that theories do not always agree and change is needed is a part
ofwhat a commitment to truth is.
2. Mental models - those deeply embedded ideas and values that dictate how the
world is perceived and what actions are to be taken. Another word for mental
models is paradigms. Mastery of this discipline requires understanding that
mental models are based on assumptions, not facts (1990). At times the work
ofthis discipline is to expose hidden assumptions and unwarranted
assumptions. Honesty about personal mental models and open dialogue to
hear the mental models of others helps prevent mental models from become
entrenched and therefore an obstacle to change.
3. Shared vision - the idea of a shared picture ofthe future including the goals
and mission of the organization. Implicit is the ability to have the individual
vision strengthened or changed as it merges with other visions to become
shared. Senge stresses that no matter how heartfelt, it is impossible to compel
others to have the same vision.
4. Team learning - the “process of aligning and developing the capacities of a
team to create the results its members truly desire” (1990, p. 236). This
discipline builds on personal mastery and shared vision. Dialog between
members ofthe organization rather than discussion facilitates this alignment.
Discussion can be understood as two people presenting their positions and

29
why they hold that position. He points out that dialog on the other hand is an
open process where positions are not presented for the purpose of defending
the position, but given as possibilities that all can consider (1990).
5. Systems thinking - the fifth discipline for which Senge named his best known
work. Systems thinking is the most complex ofthe disciplines and also the
foundation of Senge’s work. A full explanation is not a possibility in the
context ofthis literature review. A general explanation centers on the
individual’s ability to view the organization as an entity that is always in a
state of flex. Simply stated, the better an individual can understand the
organization, the better equipped they are for taking appropriate action.
Because Senge believes that each person in the organization should practice these
five disciplines, and because he rejects (1990) the definition oftraditional leadership,
leadership must be given a new role. In Senge’s learning organization the leader is a
designer, steward, and teacher (Dever, 1997). Dever points out that the concept ofthe
leader as designer is closely related to the work ofBolman and Deal, which described the
structural leader as engaged in the behind-the-scenes operations that define the
organization’s work. Senge argues that while the designer’s work is largely unseen,
nothing has more influence on organizational life (1990). It is the designer who defines
the “purpose, vision and core values” ofthe organization (1990, p. 344). The leader as
steward metaphor portrays the leader as the keeper ofthe vision and the one primarily
with communicating this vision to others (Dever, 1997). Senge stresses that responsibility
for the vision does not mean sole ownership of it (1990). It is incumbent on the leader to
develop, that is to say design a shared vision. The leader as teacher speaks to the leader’s

30
role as facilitator (Dever, 1997). The leader empowers a realistic view of events, patterns
ofbehavior, systemic structures and the purposes of the organization (Senge. 1990). The
role ofthe teacher leader is not about teaching others how to obtain their vision (1990, p.
356) but about fostering learning in everyone. Dever (1997) suggests that what is missing
from the designer, steward, teacher metaphor is the specific place or office of leadership.
In an interview for Training magazine, Senge does not attempt to mask his
frustration that the reform he recommends is not happening as quickly as he anticipated
(Zemke, 1999). Senge does acknowledge that change has to be seen as a long-term
process but complains that more could be done by organizations to sustain momentum as
stated in his book The Dance o fChange (Zemke, 1999). The largest obstacle seems to be
how to become a learning organization and develop systems thinking. Senge says, “The
issue of how to move from concept to capability. It’s been the death of many good ideas”
(1999, p. 42). The biggest drawback to systems thinking according to Senge is that this
theory challenges people’s deepest assumptions about organizations and leadership.
Senge believes that profound change can not be imposed but must be nurtured (Sparks,
2001). He believes that the area where the greatest leverage for changing educational
practice can be applied is with teachers, principals, and parents. There are also at the
same time great forces—old habits—which pull the school organization back to the status
quo. Part ofthe problem related by Senge is the willingness of interested parties to accept
the quick fix rather than fundamental change. Great effort and persistence is required to
pursue the disciplines that create and sustain change (Smith & Kinard, 2001). Systems
thinking represents a radical change in the way organizations and leadership are
understood (2001).

31
Greenleaf
Robert Greenleaf, 1904 - 1990, spent most ofhis life in the field of management
research and development with AT&T. He also held positions as visiting lecturer at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Harvard Business School, as well teaching
positions at Dartmouth College and the University ofVirginia. He wrote Servant as
Leader as the first of four essays on the role of servant in 1970. Greenleafwas concerned
about the overall process of education and its apparent lack or regard for the individual as
servant and leader (Greenleaf, 1970).
The Robert K. GreenleafCenter, originally the Center for Applied Ethics, has a
stated mission to improve institutions through a new approach to leadership, structure,
and how decisions are made: namely servant-leadership. Larry Spears, Executive
Director ofthe Robert K. GreenleafCenter, is a prolific author and lecturer on the subject
of servant-leadership and has been instrumental in bringing this theory of leadership back
to the forefront of current leadership concepts.
The fundamental beliefthat shapes all of the servant-leader thought is stated,
“The servant-leader is servant first.. (Greenleaf, 1970, p. 7). The test for servant-
leadership lies in the following questions: “... do those served grow as persons; do they,
while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely
themselves to become servants?” (p.7) According to Greenleaf, the leader exhibits the
ability to (a) articulate the goals or vision ofthe organization, (b) elicit trust from those
being asked to follow, (c) listen and understand the problems of others, (d) establish
meaningful dialogue, (e) feel empathy and give acceptance. This last point is a major

32
stumbling block for many potential leaders (1970). Showing empathy and acceptance for
the less-than-perfect people that exists in reality builds trust and enables ordinary people
to accomplish extraordinary things. The servant-leader should also possess less-obvious
traits. “He needs to have a semefor the unknowable and be able toforesee the
unforeseeable” (Greenleaf, 1970, p. 14). This intuition helps the leaders get a feel for
patterns ofbehavior and develop foresight. Such intuition requires keen awareness and
perception ofthe surrounding environment. Strategies used by the servant-leader include
(a) persuasion, (b) being methodical, and (c) conceptualizing. More than a strategy,
conceptualizing is the prime leadership talent.
Greenleafput his “talent” to work in conceptualizing a new role for leadership,
although in the truest sense he viewed his ideas as not new at all, but a return to proper
leadership. Greenleafwas among the first modem authors to decry the loss of
community. “The school, on which we pinned so much ofour hopes for a better society,
has become too much a social-upgrading mechanism that destroys community” (1970, p.
28). He believed that the needs ofpeople could not be satisfied apart from community.
This loss of community can be regained in part by institutions that change their approach
to people. Greenleafargues that what is needed is for institutions to become the people
builders that communities were (1970).
In any organization, the leader has the ability to exert power over followers
(Greenleaf, 1976). This power can be exerted by (a) coercion—pressure to act in
accordance with the leader’s wishes or else face consequences, (b) manipulation—
guiding people into actions that are not fully understood and that may or may not be good
for them, and (c) persuasion—arriving at a consensus of beliefor action. Coercion is

33
often associated with overt means such as violence, yet the more destructive means of
coercion is covert. Covert coercion might been applied by exploiting the needs of people
or in the name ofjustice coercion might be applied to repress a wrong. Manipulation is
not far removed from coercion but it does not depend as much on threats or pressure.
Those being manipulated often recognize or feel that they are being manipulated even
when manipulation was not the primary intent of the leader (1976). This recognition
creates the atmosphere of mistrust that is still prevalent today in terms of management
and employee relations. The power to persuade is often most evident in those who have
no power to coerce. The test to show that persuasion rather than coercion or manipulation
has occurred is seen in the feet that individuals freely choose a proposed course of action.
Greenleaf notes that power is necessary and legitimate, but cautions the would-be leader
to use it “sanely" (1976, p. 159).
Spears (2002) who has, as previously mentioned, been instrumental in the
promotion of servant-leadership ideas identifies ten characteristics central to the
development ofthe servant-leader. These characteristics and a briefexplanation
oftheir meaning in the context of servant-leadership follows:
1. Listening. Rather than emphasize the need to communicate, the servant-leader
must also be a gifted listener. It is the leaders responsibility to “identify and
clarify the will ofthe group” (Spears, 2002, p.5). When listening skill is
coupled with reflection, it is essential to the growth ofthe servant-leader.
2. Empathy. It is a basic need of people to feel accepted for who they are. The
skilled servant-leader assumes that workers are going to do their best and is
empathetic to their expressed needs.

3. Healing. In a world ofbroken spirits and emotional stress, the servant-leader
has a powerful potential to heal. Healing is defined as “helping to make
whole” (2002, p. 5) those whom the leader comes into contact with. The
leader is also responsible for their personal healing. There is a bond that is
developed between servant-leader and led when there is “the understanding
that the search for wholeness is something they share” (Greenleaf, 1970, p.
27). Gardner speaks of healing by using the term of renewing and stresses that
the leader is responsible for self-renewal as well as directing the organization
toward renewal (1990).
4. Awareness. Being self-aware is potentially disturbing, but is essential to
personal growth. Greenleafbelieved that awareness was the great catalyst that
stimulates positive action.
5. Persuasion. The servant-leader seeks to persuade others rather than rely on
position in regards to making decisions in the organization. In this regard, the
servant-leader must be very adept at building consensus.
6. Conceptualization. To paraphrase an old saying, the servant-leader is a
“dreamer of dreams.” The traditional manager is focused, often by necessity,
on the short-term operational task. The servant-leader focuses on the
possibilities ofthe future. School Boards should be conceptual in their
orientation and leave the every day matters to the staffbest suited for those
tasks.
7. Foresight. The ability of the servant-leader to have foresight, like intuition, is
not easily described, but is often easily identified. “One knows it when one

35
sees it” (Spears, 2002, p. 7). Intuition is more akin to instinct and probably can
not be taught. However, intuition as well as instinct can be developed through
experience. The idea of foresight is largely unexplored in leadership studies
(2002).
8. Stewardship. In holding a trust for another, the servant-leader demonstrates
their commitment to serving the needs of others. School leadership has been
given the task ofholding in trust the future; namely the children who will one
day control our communities, institutions, and government.
9. Commitment to the growth of people. This characteristic of servant-leadership
perhaps more than any other trait separates the servant-leader from all other
models of leadership. It is good to respect workers and it is better yet to
facilitate their learning and view them as equal. It is another step to take a
personal interest in helping them grow into fulfilled human beings. The
servant-leader does everything in their power to facilitate the personal,
professional, and spiritual growth oftheir employees (Spears, 2002).
10. Building community. Knowing that the sense of community has diminished, it
is incumbent upon the servant-leader to seek ways of building community
(2002). Greenleafsuggested that true community is built through personal
relationships even in the workplace (Greenleaf, 1970).
To further define servant-leader Laub (1999), using a three part Delphi study with
a panel of fourteen recognized experts in servant-leadership, describes servant-leadership
in terms of six constructs. The constructs indicate that the true servant-leader (a) values

36
people, (b) develops people, (c) builds community, (d) displays authenticity, (e) provides
leadership, and (f) shares leadership.
Significance ofLeadership
Leadership is significant in many regards. Just as children’s behaviors and
attitudes are often a reflection ofthe parents, the climate and values of a school are often
the reflection ofthe leader (Goldman, 1998). The deeply held values and beliefs ofthe
leader determine the essence of leadership, or leadership style. No matter how leadership
style is labeled, the core values and beliefs of the leader will be mirrored in the
organization and will effect the overall climate ofthe school. Many studies have shown
that satisfaction with the work climate is positively linked to teacher performance and
commitment to the organization (Baughman, 1996). In this study Baughman learned that
supportive principal behavior was a predictor ofteacherjob satisfaction. Leadership style
has a direct bearing not only on climate but also on teacherjob satisfaction and teacher
retention. Literature and empirical studies support this notion.
Hope (1999) sites research indicating that approximately 40% of new teachers
leave the profession. Job dissatisfaction because of lack of administrative support, tough
assignments, overloaded with extracurricular duties, placement outside their field of
expertise, and isolation from colleagues was the primary cause. Hope (1999) suggest that
principals (a) spend more time assisting the growth of new teachers, (b) intervene to
diminish teacher isolation, (c) facilitate mentoring and collegial relationships, (d)
maximize potential success through the teaching assignments, (d) offer development

37
opportunities, (e) be accessible to the point of initiating contact, and (f) explain the
evaluation process.
Data from a study by Ingersoll indicated that inadequate support from the school
administration was a major factor in the lack ofjob satisfaction and thereby a major
contributing factor to teacher shortages (2001). A more recent study by Ingersoll and
Thomas supports the finding that leadership style is linked to job satisfaction and teacher
retention (2003). They found that almost 50% of all new teachers leave teaching. Ofthis
groups 29% indicated that the lack ofjob satisfaction was the primary cause for leaving
the teaching field. Most respondents in this group of 29% sited lack of administrative
support as a major factor of dissatisfaction. Conventional wisdom tries to lay the blame
for the current teacher shortage on outside factors, but the data suggest that the problem is
within the school organization (Ingersoll & Thomas, 2003).
Summary
A review ofthe literature reveals that leadership studies are difficult and are not
an exact science. In all probability no pure leadership style exists. Many ofthe identified
styles of leadership overlap with descriptions of other styles. While it can be argued
which leadership style represents the best practice, the preponderance of literature
suggests leadership that is more collaborative is needed today.
Literature reveals that the force driving the call for leadership reform is the
changing needs ofthe workforce. As basic needs are met, higher-order needs are sought
and leadership must change or face the loss oftheir following.

38
The literature teaches that a clear link exists between leadership style and teacher
job satisfaction. Literature and empirical studies also teach thatjob satisfaction is linked
to teacher retention.

Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Leadership attributes and styles have been studied over a long period oftime, yet
leadership styles are hard to observe because ofthe likelihood that no “pure” form of
leadership style exists in the real world. Rather, each leader has many qualities that result
in making him or her unique. Observing leadership styles is illusive at best and near
impossible at worst. For this reason, most studies of leadership deal with identifying and
measuring the character traits of a particular leadership style (Rost, 1993). Illusive as the
study of leadership style is, research indicates that leadership style has a significant
impact on how teachers feel about their work (Baughman, 1996; Hope, 1999; Ingersoll,
2001). This study seeks to extend the findings on leadership styles by determining the
correlation between the character traits identified in servant-leadership and the level of
job satisfaction felt by the teaching professionals in a public school organization. The
research measurement instrument that will be used is the Organization Leadership
Assessment - Educational Version (OLA) developed by Laub (1999).
Research Design
This was a correlational study using two variables of interest: the level of servant-
leadership present in a public school organization, and the level ofjob satisfaction felt by
the teaching professionals in a public school organization. Correlational studies are
straightforward in nature; however, careful scrutiny needs to be applied when interpreting
the findings. No causal relationship was established or sought by this study, but the
39

40
researcher hoped to establish that a significant correlation between the two variables
exists. If a correlation was found and was determined to be strongly positive rather than
negative, additional research in the field of servant-leadership might be encouraged. A
strong correlational study design incorporates the use of a sample that is of sufficient
size, which has been randomly selected, and a research measurement instrument that
yields quantitative results (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1996).
Research Participants
Population
Fraenkel and Wallen (1996) define the population as the all-inclusive group to
which the researcher hopes to generalize the findings of the research. Stated another way,
the population of a study is every item, person or thing, that shares the common trait
being studied. A given population for a study can be quite large and unmanageable for
research; however, Fraenkel and Wallen offer a method for identifying a representative
group. The target population, for example all secondary principals in the United States, is
the large general group that could make use ofthe research findings. The accessible
population, for example all secondary principals in the Dallas Independent School
District, is a more specific group, which is more manageable for the purpose of research.
The process of selecting a sample is analogous to a funnel (see Figure 1), working from
the very general to a highly specific group.
Targetpopulation. Because a desired goal of this research was to explore the
possible link between leadership and job satisfaction in the teaching profession, the target
population was all teachers in the state of Texas. The target population was limited to

41
TeachingProfessionals
Fifteen Selected High Schools
All Teachers in the State ofTexas
Stratified random selection of
units.
Selected high schools were
randomly selected with five
high schools coming from each
ofthree subgroups.
^ General group of
interest
Figure 1. Sample selection process
those holding a teaching position in a public school in an effort to reduce possible
alternative reasons for any correlation found in the variables to be studied. The size of the
target population was beyond the scope ofthis research; therefore, an accessible
population needed to be identified.
Accessiblepopulation. The Texas Legislature established twenty regional
education service centers in 1967. The teachers in one ofthe twenty service centers,
Region X, constitute an accessible population for the purpose ofthis research. Region X
was selected by purposeful means because the researcher had specific prior knowledge
that this particular region supported the concepts of servant-leadership. The Educational
Service Center Region X, with it’s headquarters located in Richardson, Texas, serves
approximately 500,000 students and 40,000 educators in 95 school districts across an area
covering eight counties and part of a ninth county (Educational Service Center Region X,

42
2002). Region X offers training to teachers and administrators on a yearly basis including
their Superintendent’s Academy, which in January of2002, was trained in servant-
leadership by Dr. Jim Boyd, a noted speaker and author as well as the former President of
Weatherford College in Weatherford, Texas.
The training that at least some superintendents received in servant-leadership
through Region X rendered the region well suited for this research. Purposive selection
processes, such as convenience and networking, are well established and documented for
use in both quantitative and qualitative research (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1996; Bogdan &
Biklen, 1998; Merriam, 1998). However, considering the number ofteaching
professionals in the region, the population for the study was still an unmanageable size.
For this reason, a random sample ofteachers from fifteen different high schools was
selected.
Sample Selection
Public high schools in Region X were separated into three subgroups according to
enrollment size. Group 1included high schools with an enrollment of over 1900 students.
Group 2 included high schools with an enrollment of900 to 1899 students. Group 3
included high schools with an enrollment under 899 students. Using figures obtained
from the 2001 - 2002 AEIS Report found on the Texas Education Agency web site, 32
high schools fell into the Group 1 subgroup, 34 high schools fell into the Group 2
subgroup, and 50 high schools fell into the Group 3 subgroup. Five high schools were
randomly selected from each ofthe three subgroups to make up the population for this
study. Again using the 2001 - 2002 AEIS Report, the total number ofteaching

43
professionals in each ofthe subgroups was determined. The high schools in Group 1
reported a total of 787 teachers, with Group 2 high schools reporting 528 teachers and
Group 3 high schools reporting 211 teachers, for a total population of 1526 teaching
professionals. Group 1 made up 51% of# (population size), while Group 2 and 3 made
up 35% and 14% respectively. Using the formula: s = X2NP (1 - P) ^ d2(N-1) +X2P(1
- P) (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970) a sample size of 307 units was indicated. The research
units were stratified across the subgroups using the same percentages as found in the
population; hence, 157 respondents were randomly selected from Group 1, as were 107
from Group 2, and 43 from Group 3.
Research Instrument
Laub (1999) developed the Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) survey
instrument using a three part Delphi survey with a panel of fourteen recognized experts in
the field of servant-leadership. This process yielded a consensus that servant-leadership
was best described using six specific constructs (see Figure 2), thus a servant-leader and
servant-organization model was developed. Sixty survey responses addressing each of the
six constructs identified in the servant-leader model were developed and spread
throughout the OLA survey instrument (see Appendix A). For example, survey items
number 1, 4, 9, 15, 19, 52, 54, 55, 57, and 63 address the sub-category construct of
valuing people. Six survey items were added by Laub to the OLA to measure job
satisfaction in order to perform a correlational study, bringing the total of survey response
items to 66. The six questions addressing job satisfaction were developed based on

44
Servant-leadership is ...
... anunderstandingandpractice ofleadershipthatplaces the good ofthose led over die self-interest of
the leader. Servant-leadershippromotesthevaluinganddevelopment ofpeople, thebuilding of
community, die practice ofauthenticity, theprovidingofleadershipforthegood ofthose led andthe
sharingofpowerandstatus forthe common goodofeach individual,dietotal organizationandthose
servedby die organization._____________________________________________________________
Values People
• By believing inpeople
• By serving other’s needsbefore his orherown
• By receptive, non-judgmental listening
Develops People
• By providingopportunities for learningand growth
• By modelingappropriatebehavior
• By building upothersthrough encouragement andaffirmation
Builds Community
• By building strong personal relationships
• By working collaboratively withothers
• By valuing the differences ofothers
Displays Authenticity
• By being open andaccountable to others
• By a willingness to learnfrom others
• By maintainingintegrity andtrust
Provides Leadership
• By envisioning the future
• By taking initiative
• By clarifying goals
Shares Leadership
• By facilitating a sharedvision
• By sharingpowerandreleasingcontrol
• By sharing statusandpromotingothers
The Servant-organization is ... 1
... an organization in whichthe characteristicsofservantleadershiparedisplayed throughthe 1
organizational cultureandarevalued andpracticedby the leadershipandworkforce. 1
Figure 2: Servant-leadership and the servant organization model (Laub, 1999)
Laub’s understanding ofthe relevant literature. Research conducted by Thompson (2002)
indicates that the job satisfaction portion o f the OLA has validity for use as a
measurement forjob satisfaction. In his research, Thompson used the OLA in
conjunction with the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, a validated job satisfaction
instrument, and found that there was a significant positive correlation. Using the Pearson

45
Correlation, a significant positive correlation, r2= .52, exists between the OLA and the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire in relation to the measurement ofjob satisfaction.
Thompson concluded that his findings support the use of the OLA for measurement of
servant-leadership and job satisfaction.
Likert scale items were written for each ofthe six constructs of servant-leadership
with more written for items having higher ratings in the Delphi study (Laub, 1999), as
well as for the job satisfaction portion ofthe OLA. The OLA is divided into three
sections assessing the organization as a whole, the leadership ofthe organization, and
both the organization and leadership from the perspective ofthe teacher’s personal
experience. The reliability ofthe OLA using the Cronbach’s Alpha was .98 for the
servant-leadership portion and .81 for the job satisfaction portion. In order to make the
survey instrument relevant for educational organizations, Laub made some minor
changes in wording and developed the education version ofthe OLA (see Appendix B),
which is being used in this research. For the purposes of this research, some demographic
information was obtained from each respondent. This information included the teacher’s
gender, teacher certification, years oftotal teaching experience, years ofteaching
experience in the teacher’s current district, and school size.
Web Site Design
The strength ofusing the web for research is the low cost of doing such research
and the fact that web design can make surveys visually compelling (Dillman, 2000).
There is cost associated with web site design but by comparison to the traditional route of
sending several mailings, the cost is minimal; therefore, the web design does not limit the

46
number ofrespondents. While graphics and color can be easily added to an on-line
survey, Dillman (2000) recommends keeping the design basic, especially when the use of
a mixed methodology as defined by Dillman is a possibility.
There are three chiefweaknesses (Dillman, 2000) associated with on-line surveys.
First is the fact that the researcher can not guarantee that every school in the target area
has access to the world wide web or e-mail. Where computers do exist, it must be noted
that not all computers are the same. There are not only differences in computer hardware,
PC as opposed to Mac, and operating systems, Windows as opposed to Apple, but there
are differences in speed of operation and memory capacity. Finally given the possibility
that all respondents would have access to similar computers, there is the problem of the
computer literacy ofthe respondents. The emphasis of teaching and using computer
technology in public schools over the last several years minimizes each ofthese concerns.
Nevertheless, it is incumbent on any researcher to consider each ofthese weaknesses
carefully when designing the on-line survey study.
Dillman (2000) offers several suggestions dealing with on-line survey design. The
suggestions relevant to this research are:
1. Use a welcome screen that is motivational, emphasizes the ease of responding,
and instructs the respondent on how to proceed. Instructions should be clear
but brief.
2. Require a unique log-in such as a pin number in order to limit access to the
survey instrument and to identify those who legitimately respond.
3. Choose a first question that is either interesting or easy.
4. Present the survey in a conventional format.

47
5. Restrain the use of color altogether. If color is utilized, the researcher must
make sure that the background color and the text color are compatible.
Compatibility means that the text can be easily read.
6. Avoid differences in the visual appearance due to screen configuration,
operating systems, partial screen display, browser types, and wrap-around text
settings. To minimize these problems, the designer should limit the horizontal
distance for the survey to no more than 600 pixels, consider instructing the
respondent to maximize their screen before beginning the survey, and design
conservatively.
7. Provide instructions for every computer action needed to respond. For
instance, the respondent may need to know that radio buttons only allow one
answer, but the respondent can change an answer by clicking another button.
8. Do not require the respondents to provide an answer before moving to another
question. The designer should however have a means to assure that all items
are answered before submittal ofthe survey.
9. Use graphic symbols or words that convey a sense ofwhere the respondent is
in the completion process.
Research Data Collection and Analysis
Each ofthe randomly selected teaching professionals in the sample population
were contacted by e-mail, by letter if for any reason e-mail was unavailable, in order to
notify them that they would be receiving the survey and to obtain their informed consent.
Getting formal consent on-line can be problematic in that there is not a signed consent

48
form and most respondents will not have access to digital signature technologies
(Anderson & Kanuka, 2002). Therefore, permission is implied upon completion of the
survey instrument. While in a technical sense implied permission does not carry the same
legal weight as a signed form, unless the researcher has reason to believe that participants
will misrepresent themselves, implied permission is generally acceptable for informed
consent (Anderson & Kanuka, 2002).
Ofthe original 307 e-mails sent, 14 were returned as undeliverable. Upon
examination ofthe reasons for undeliverable messages, it was discovered that 8 addresses
were no longer valid and 6 address had typographical mistakes. The invalid addresses
were dropped from the study, and the addresses with typing mistakes were corrected and
resent. A total of 165 respondents completed the on-line survey giving a response rate of
54%. The response rates of each subgroup are represented in Table 1. Although not in the
scope ofthis study, it is of interest to note that Group 1, schools with an enrollment of
over 1900 students, had a significantly lower response rate.
Table 1
Response Rates by Subgroups
Subgroup Surveys Sent Surveys Returned % Responding
Group 1 157 72 46
Group 2 107 67 63
Group 3 43 26 60

49
Using traditional surveys, response rates over 50% are considered good, rates
over 60% are very good, and rates over 70% are excellent (Babbie, 1995). A longevity
study by Sheehan (2001) indicated that response rates to electronic surveys have declined
consistently since the study began in 1986. In 1986, the average response rate to the
surveys included in Sheehan’s study was 61.5 percent. By the year 2000 the response rate
average was down to 24 percent. Sheehan discovered that the strongest predictor of
response rate was the year in which the survey was conducted. The later the year the
survey was given, the lower the response rate. Although not included in Sheehan’s study,
other issues that might negatively effect response rates include spam (unsolicited e-mail
sent primarily to advertise various products), and the fear of electronically transmitted
viruses. Surveys that included pre-notification by the researcher, shorter surveys, and
multiple contact or respondents faired better (Sheehan, 2001). The response rate of this
study, 54%, indicates a strong response compared to the average electronic survey and a
good response compared to traditional surveys.
Traditional surveys increase response rates by (a) creating a respondent-friendly
questionnaire, (b) having multiple contacts with the respondents, (c) providing a self-
addressed stamped return envelope, (d) personalizing correspondence, and (e) giving a
token financial incentive (Dillman, 2000). Most ofthese previously mentioned items
could be accomplished on-line, with the exception that the return envelope is not relevant
when using an on-line survey and financial incentives are prohibitive. Some effective
ways ofgiving a reward on-line include (a) showing positive regard toward the
respondent, (b) supporting group values, (c) refrain from using subordinating language,
and (d) connect filling out the survey with the respondents past behavior (Dillman, 2000).

50
The most effective element used to insure high returns is having multiple contacts with
the respondent (Schaefer & Dillman, 1998). In regards to multiple contacts, the use of
e-mail is efficient and cost effective when compared to traditional means of respondent
contact.
The prospective respondents in this study received a series of e-mails (see
Appendix C) unless a request was made at any time to stop receiving e-mails. The first e-
mail was sent as an introduction and a pre-notification ofthe study. The second e-mail
gave more details ofthe study, asked for informed consent, and provided a link and pin
number to access the on-line survey. A third e-mail, which served as an encouragement to
participate, was sent to any respondent who did not complete the survey after a one-week
period. The fourth e-mail, sent to respondents who had not yet completed the survey,
gave a final date for submission and encouraged participation. The final e-mail sent was
to thank all ofthe respondents who participated and to provide a means by which the
respondent could request the research results.
The possibility that some teachers in the sample population would not have e-mail
addresses or access to a computer, however unlikely, necessitated planning for the use of
mixed methodology. The most common type of mixed methodology occurs when the
researcher needs to collect the same type data from different members of a sample
population (Dillman, 2000). According to Dillman, mixed methodology occurs when
multiple survey modes are incorporated in the same study. For example, a researcher
might want to give a survey that is to be completed by e-mail. In an attempt to minimize
sampling errors the researcher provides traditional surveys as an alternative for those in
the population not having access to e-mail. Dillman indicates that using mixed

51
methodology can be justified in order to cut cost, increase the response rate, or as in the
case ofthis research to minimize survey coverage errors. To reduce concerns about
measurement difference when using mixed methodology Dillman suggest that a unimode
construction be employed when creating the survey. This will assure respondents receive
the same mental stimulus, regardless ofthe survey mode used. To this end, Dillman
suggests the researcher (a) make all response options the same across modes, (b) avoid
inadvertent changes to question, (c) reduce the number of response categories to achieve
similarity, (d) use the same descriptive labels for response categories, and (e) develop
equivalent instructions.
The respondents remained anonymous to all except the researcher and
confidentiality was assured. Each respondent was assigned a unique pin number, which
was used as an identification number on the survey, and only the researcher was able to
match the pin number with a particular respondent. Respondents used their unique pin
number on the survey regardless ofwhether the respondent was completing the on-line
survey or a traditional self-administered survey. When the researcher received a
completed survey, the researcher transferred the responses to a data file compatible with
the SPSS statistical software. Upon transference ofthe data, the completed survey was
encrypted and placed in a secure location by the researcher. Confidentiality was also
assured because the data will be publicized only in the aggregate. At no time will any
individual name, campus, school district, or administrator be made known.
SPSS 12.0.1 software was utilized to handle all survey data, conduct statistical
test, and determine statistical significance. Because this study was one ofthe first to
utilize the educational version of the OLA (Laub, 1999) in research, reliability of the

52
survey was considered. The alpha coefficient or Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated to
determine internal reliability. Using the educational version of the OLA did not change
the external validity shown in Laub’s original study. A Pearson Correlation statistic was
generated from the completed surveys and the correlation between the level of servant-
leadership and teacherjob satisfaction was determined. One-way ANOVA test were
conducted to discover if a significant difference in mean scores could be attributed to
gender, teacher certification, years ofexperience, years in current district, or school size.
If a significant difference was shown in an area with more than two groups, independent
sample t-tests were conducted to discover which specific groups were different. Brief
explanations ofthe statistical test to be performed follow.
Cronbach's Alpha
While several methods can determine the reliability of a research instrument,
Cronbach’s Alpha is used most frequently (Trochim, 2002). Mathematically, the alpha
coefficient is equivalent to the average of all possible split-half correlations. Modem
statistical software programs such as the SPSS, which calculate Cronbach’s Alpha for the
researcher, have contributed to the increased usage of the statistic. Statistical values that
approach 1.0, in a range from 0.0 to 1.0, are determined to have more internal reliability.
Reliability is defined as the ability of a survey instrument to yield consistent results over
multiple administrations (Trochim, 2002). Consistency is created when there is a
likelihood that differences in respondent’s answers are the result of individual differences
between respondents, rather than the result of questions that are confusing or have
multiple interpretations. Generally speaking, a Cronbach’s Alpha (a) must have a value

53
of at least a = .70 to be considered reliable (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1996). Higher values are
preferred.
Pearson Correlation
Any correlation between two variables is determined by comparing the means of
the two variables and is given a numerical value called the correlation coefficient. Values
range from -1.0, indicating a perfect negative relationship, to 1.0, indicating a perfect
positive relationship. A value equal to 0 would indicate that no relationship existed
between the two variables. Correlation coefficients that approach the maximum values of
-1.0 or 1.0 indicate a strong relationship between the variables. Perfect correlations or an
indication of no correlation are rarely if ever seen (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1996). A positive
correlation occurs when the high values in variable X are accompanied by high values in
variable Y and low values in variable X are accompanied by low values in variable Y
(1996). The opposite is true for a negative correlation.
Several methods can be employed to investigate correlations and several different
coefficients can be used; however, the most common is the Pearson Correlation (Fraenkel
& Wallen, 1996), sometimes called the product-moment coefficient. Represented by the
variable r, a Pearson correlation expressed by r = .693 would indicate a positive
relationship, while r = -.693 would indicate a negative relationship. The most important
thing to remember when undertaking a correlational study is that no causal relationship,
no matter how strong the correlation, will be shown.
The strength of a correlation can be estimated by looking at the effect size. Again,
there are several measure of effect size in two basic categories: variance accounted for

54
measures, which measure the percent of change in one variable that can be explained by
the other variable; and standardized difference measures, which directly examine the
difference between means (Newton & Rudestam, 1999). Some feel that the correlation
coefficient itself is the better index of effect size because other statistics such as r2or etcz2
may overestimate or underestimate the effect in the population (1999). It is always to the
researcher’ advantage to examine several measures of effect size to determine the
strength of a relationship between variables.
One-wayANOVA
When the researcher wishes to know ifthere is a significant difference in the
mean scores between two or more independent variables and a single continuous
dependent variable, the ANOVA or analysis of variance is the procedure of choice
(Newton & Rudestam, 1999). As an example, it might be ofinterest to the researcher to
discover if a significant difference in the responses of male and females can be
determined. A determination of significant difference could help the researcher gain
insight as well as facilitate clarity and understanding of the findings.
The ANOVA test is relatively straightforward. Mean values between groups and
within groups are compared and an F statistic is calculated. The default null hypothesis of
the ANOVA test is that the means are equal. To assess if a significant difference is found
a statistical table of critical values, -2.567 to +2.567 as an example, for F is examined.
Given the level of significance the researcher is trying to achieve it is then determined if
the F statistic is in the range ofthe critical value found in the table. When the F statistic is
not in the range ofthe critical value the null hypothesis is rejected and it is determined
that a significant difference between mean scores exists.

55
The ANOVA test verifies if a significant difference in mean scores exists between
groups, but ifthere are more than two groups, the test does not specify where the
difference lies. In order to specify which groups exhibited a significant difference,
independent sample t-test can be run pairing two groups at a time. The null hypothesis of
the t-test, like the ANOVA test for variance, states that there is no significant difference
in mean scores.

Chapter 4
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
In 1983 the National Commission on Excellence in Education predicted a major
shortage ofteachers (Ingersoll, 2001), and in 1996 the National Commission on Teaching
predicted a major shortage ofqualified classroom teachers over the next ten year period
(Hope, 1999). The graying ofthe teachers at the time of the study and a predicted
increase in student enrollment were cited as the primary factors for the future teacher
shortage; however, current research, while documenting a shortage in almost every
teaching field, points to different causes for the shortage. Empirical evidence establishes
a link between teacher retention and the teachers’ perception ofthe leadership under
which they work (Hope, 1999; Ingersoll, 2001). Further empirical studies (Baughman,
1996) reveal a strong correlation between teacher retention and job satisfaction. The
literature on leadership clearly indicates that a call has been sounded for leaders that are
more collaborative in their approach to leadership. The concepts of servant-leadership are
being freshly examined because ofthe possibility that this type of leadership can nurture
teachers, increase teacher’sjob satisfaction, and decrease teacher attrition.
56

57
In this chapter the reader will be presented with detailed information about the
population from which the research sample was taken, and the data gathered in the study.
The first section deals with descriptive statistics concerning demographic information and
the responses to the research instrument. The next section contains detailed analysis of
the data and the findings concerning each research question. The chapter ends with a
brief summary. Chapter 5 will address the discussion and conclusions ofthe findings.
Descriptive Statistics
A total of 165 teaching professionals completed the OLA on-line survey. Five
demographic questions were asked ofthe respondents to better understand the findings of
the study. Ofthose responding, approximately 65% were female and 35% were male as
shown in Table 2. A large majority ofthe respondents were certified teachers as indicated
in Table 3. Both ofthese distributions in the sample are not unexpected given the
population ofteaching professionals from which the sample was pulled.
Table 2
Number o fRespondents by Gender
Gender N Percentage
Male 57 34.5
Female 108 65.5

58
Table 3
Number o fRespondents by Certification
Valid teaching certificate N Percentage
Yes 152 92.1
No 13 7.9
Tables 4 and 5 indicate the total years ofteaching experience of respondents and
the number of years the respondents had been in their current districts respectively.
Interestingly, 67% ofthe respondents had five or more years ofteaching experience yet
approximately 50% ofthe respondents indicated being in their current district less than
five years. This seems to indicate a fairly high turnover ofteachers in Region X public
school districts. More research would be needed to assess the reason for this
phenomenon.
Table 4
Number o fRespondents by Years o f TeachingExperience
Years N Percentage
1to 4 43 26.1
5 to 10 47 28.5
Over 10 75 45.5

59
Table 5
Number o fRespondents by Years in CurrentDistrict
Years N Percentage
1to 4 82 49.7
5 to 10 46 27.9
Over 10 37 22.4
The last demographic question dealt with the size ofthe high school where the
respondents were employed. As indicated in Table 6, Group 1had the largest number of
respondents representing approximately 44% ofthe total response. However, this is a
substantially lower response rate, 46% percent (see Table 1), than Group 2 or 3, which
had response rates of 63% and 60% respectively. Approximately 41% ofthe respondents
were from Group 2 high schools, and Group 3 accounted for about 16% ofthe
respondents. Although interesting, this study did not attempt to answer why Group 1 had
a response rate so much lower than the other groups.
Table 6
Number o fRespondents by SchoolSize
Subgroup Enrollment N Percentage
Group 1 Over 1900 11 43.6
Group 2 900 to 1899 67 40.6
Group 3 Under 899 26 15.8

60
Practically any discussion concerning the use of parametric statistical tests
involves a few basic assumptions about the variables of interest and the sample
population (Newton & Rudestam, 1999). The assumption concerning the variables of
interest is that such variables are at least intervally scaled. Assumptions about the
population are that the sample was randomly taken and that the distribution ofthe
population is normal or approximately normal. An examination of the demographics
using histograms indicated that the sample was approximately a normal distribution with
the exception of gender and teacher certification. Table 7 illustrates the skewness and
kurtosis ofthe population by demographic variables. A perfect distribution would render
a bell curve with no skewness, .000 for a value. Not meeting the assumption of normalcy
Table 7
Population Distribution by Demographic Variables
Variable Skewness Kurtosis
Gender .656 -1.589
Certification 3.156 8.056
Years of experience -.376 -1.435
Years in district .537 -1.259
Size of school -.475 -.959
in the areas ofgender and certification was not problematic for this study because of what
is known about the accessible population from which the sample was pulled. Any sample

61
of teaching professionals in Texas would likely exhibit a majority of certified teachers,
and it is well documented that the number of female teachers far surpasses that of male
teachers. A longitudinal study by Shen, Wegenke and Cooley (2003) indicated that the
national teaching force consist of approximately 75% female and 25% male. They found
that in 1987-1988 male teachers accounted for 25.8% ofteachers nationally and by 1999-
2000 male teachers accounted for 25.1% ofthe population. This finding is consistent with
a research report given to the Texas Education Agency (n.d.), which stated that men were
underrepresented in the teaching force overall. At the time ofthis report, 22% of all
teachers in Texas were male.
The sixty Likert scale items addressing each of the six constructs of servant-
leadership as well as the six items addressing job satisfaction were written in a positive
manner (see Appendix A). Higher scores per item, on a scale of 1- 5 with 5 being the
maximum, indicated a stronger agreement with the item statement. Throughout the
survey, a response of zero was not accepted and all survey items had to be completed.
Given six item statements, each respondent could have a maximum score of 30 and a
minimum score of 6 for the Job Satisfaction portion ofthe OLA. A mean score M= 24.96
was recorded. When compared to the mean scores ofthe six constructs of servant-
leadership the mean score ofJob Satisfaction appears low. However, when the difference
of number of items in each construct is taken into account an alternate picture emerges.
The mean score ofJob Satisfaction represent and average of about 83% ofthe maximum
score possible, which makes this portion ofthe OLA the area of strongest agreement
among respondents (see Figure 3). The item statement in this section that was agreed
with the strongest as indicated by a mean of M= 4.30 was item 62: “I feel good about my

62
9 i
M9J
100
90
80
70
£o
£
sa
.1
s
S
60
50
hw
th
40
30
20
10
Values Develops Builds Displays Provides Shares Job
People People Community Authenticity Leadership Leadership Satisfaction
Figure 3. Comparison ofParticipant Agreement by Survey Construct

63
contribution to the school.” This could indicate that teachers in Region X do not suffer
from low self-esteem. The survey item that received the least agreement, M = 4.02, was
item 58: “I enjoy working in this school.” This could indicate that teachers generally are
satisfied with their profession, but not as happy in their situation.
Ten items addressed the construct of Values People, thus a maximum score of 50
and a minimum score of 10 could be recorded for each respondent for this construct. The
statement agreed with most strongly as indicated by a mean of, M = 4.00, was item 9: “In
general, people within this school are caring and compassionate towards each other.” The
indication here is that teachers generally feel good about fellow workers in their school.
The statement that generated the least agreement, M - 3.21, was item 54:
“Managers/supervisors and the school leadership in this school put the needs of the
teachers/staffahead oftheir own.” The overall mean score for the construct of Values
People wasM= 36.48. This agreement level might indicate mistrust by teachers of the
school leader's motivation.
The construct ofDevelops People was addressed in the OLA with 9 items and
could have yielded a maximum score of45 and a minimum score of 9. The mean value
for this construct was M= 31.27. The statement that garnered the strongest agreement, M
= 3.71, was item 59: “I receive encouragement and affirmation from those above me in
the school.” The statement agreed to the least, M - 3.00, was item 20: “In general, people
within this school view conflict as an opportunity to learn and grow.” Overall, teachers in
Region X seem to feel that they have good opportunities for professional growth. The
overall mean ofthe Builds Community construct wasM = 35.68 with the strongest point
of agreement, M= 3.88, being item 8: “In general, people within this school value

64
differences in culture, race and ethnicity.” This construct had a maximum score of 50 and
minimum score of 10 possible. The respondents were undecided about item 13 resulting
in the lowest mean for this category, M= 3.09. The statement was: “In general, people
within this school attempt to work with others more than working on their own.” This
could indicate that respondents might feel accepted in the school but do not feel part of a
team.
The largest number of survey items, twelve, addressed the construct ofDisplays
Authenticity. More items were designated to address this construct because of the results
ofthe Delphi study (Laub, 1999). Respondents’ answers for the twelve items could range
in value from 12 to 60. The statement displaying the strongest agreement, M - 3.86, was
item 11: “In general, people within this school are trustworthy.” The weakest agreement,
M ~ 3.00, came in response to item 32: “Managers/supervisors and the school leadership
in this school are open to receiving criticism and challenge from others.” The overall
mean for this construct was M= 41.41, which represents an average of about 69% of the
maximum score possible (see Figure 3). This weaker agreement seems to indicate that
teachers feel school leaders are not as transparent as needed.
There was general agreement to the nine item statements concerning the construct
ofProvides Leadership. In a value range of 9 to 45, the statement with the highest mean
score, M = 3.72, was item 2: “In general, people within this school are non-judgmental.
They keep an open mind.” Respondents agreed less, M= 3.36, with the statement in item
36: “Managers/supervisors and the school leadership in this school encourage people to
take risks even ifthey may fail.” The mean score for Provides Leadership was, M =
31.72.

65
The construct of Shares Leadership had a mean ofM= 34.86 out of a maximum
value for 10 items. The minimum value for this construct could have been 10 while 50
was the maximum value that could have been recorded. Respondents agreed more
strongly, M - 3.70, to item 39: “Managers/supervisors and the school leadership in this
school do not demand special recognition for being leaders.” Respondents were less
likely to agree, M= 3.12, with item 29: “Managers/supervisors and the school leadership
in this school empower teachers/staffto make important decisions.”
The responses concerning servant-leadership were somewhat confusing in that
some ofthe information appeared contradictory. An important point to remember is that
respondents leaned toward agreement with all statements concerning servant-leadership.
Therefore, the contradiction is only in the degree of agreement.
Research Questions
Question 1
Question. Can the internal reliability ofthe Organizational Leadership
Assessment - Educational Version (Laub, 1999) be clearly documented?
Finding. The OLA - Educational Version (Laub, 1999) displayed the same strong
internal reliability as the original OLA as evidenced by high Cronbach’s Alpha (a)
coefficients. The six constructs of servant-leadership measured in the OLA were tested
for reliability. Table 8 presents the constructs, the total possible score for each construct,
the mean score, standard deviation, and Cronbach’s Alpha. As illustrated in Table 8, each
construct of servant-leadership had an alpha coefficient of a> .900.

66
Table 8
Reliability Scoresfor the OLA by Constructs o fServant-leadership
Construct Total M SD a
Values people 50 36.48 8.40 .925
Develops people 45 31.27 8.60 .936
Builds community 50 35.68 7.93 .919
Displays authenticity 60 41.41 10.25 .935
Provides leadership 45 31.72 8.48 .935
Shares leadership 50 34.86 9.35 .945
The alpha ofthe servant-leadership portion in the OLA was a = .987. Job
satisfaction did not demonstrate as strong a reliability score as servant-leadership with an
alpha of a = .890. Overall, the OLA had an alpha of a = .987. This indicates that it is
highly probable that differences in responses were due to differences in individual
respondents opinions rather than hard to interpret or vague questions. Table 9 shows the
Table 9
Reliability Scoresfo r the OLA
Measure Total M SD a
OLA survey 330 236.38 54.00 .987
Servant leadership 300 211.43 50.67 .987
Job satisfaction 30 24.96 4.49 .890

67
total possible score, mean score, standard deviation, and the alpha statistic for the
servant-leadership and job satisfaction portions ofthe OLA as well as the entire OLA
instrument. Other reliability measures corroborated the finding of internal reliability as
demonstrated in Table 10. The high coefficients shown indicated that the items in the
split-halves were highly correlated and supported the finding of internal reliability.
Table 10
Reliability Scoresfo r the OLA Using the Split-halvesModel
Test Statistic
Cronbach’s alpha Part 1 (33 items) .973
Part 2 (33 items) .980
Correlation between parts .920
Spearman-Brown coefficient Equal length .958
Unequal length .958
Guttman Split-Halfcoefficient .955

68
Question 2
Question. Does a correlation exist between the level of servant-leadership
perceived by teachers in public schools served by the Texas Regional Service Center X,
Finding. A correlation matrix was generated using the Pearson product-moment
coefficient and a significant (p<01) positive correlation, r = .723, was found between
servant-leadership and job satisfaction. This finding denotes that higher servant-
leadership scores, which indicate that respondents felt a higher level of servant-leadership
in the organization, were matched by higherjob satisfaction scores. In this study, servant-
leadership was the only item that had a significant correlation to job satisfaction as
displayed in Table 11. Gender, teacher certification, years of experience, years in district,
and size of high school exhibited almost no correlation to job satisfaction.
Table 11
Correlation Matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Job satisfaction — .723 -.070 .073 .025 -.030 -.092
2. Servant leadership — -.146 .071 .078 -.088 -.132
3. Gender —
-.071 -.233 -.213 .073
4. Certified teacher — -.397 -.264 -.176
5. Years of experience — .648 .103
6. Years in current district — .058
7. Size of high school —
Note: **. Correlationis significantatthe 0.01 level (2-tailed).

69
The coefficient of determination, r2= .523, and the “percent variability explained”
statistic, etct2= .865, both indicated a large effect size (Newton & Rudestam, 1999),
which supported the finding of a strong positive correlation between servant-leadership
andjob satisfaction. According to the eta2statistic, approximately 87% ofthe changes in
job satisfaction scores were accounted for by changes in servant-leadership scores. The
coefficient of determination indicated that about 52% ofthe changes injob satisfaction
could be accounted for by changes in servant-leadership. Both statistics gave further
indications of a strong correlation between servant-leadership and job satisfaction.
To further understand the strength ofthe relationship between servant-leadership
andjob satisfaction a multiple regression analysis was performed. Multiple regression
procedures help the researcher explore the relationship between multiple independent
variables and a single dependent variable (Newton & Rudestam, 1999). The independent
variables used for this analysis were (a) servant-leadership, (b) gender, (c) teacher
certification, and (d) years of experience, (e) years in current district, and (f) size of high
school. Using the numbers ofthis study, sample size of 165 and 6 independent variables,
the formula N > 104 + k, where N is the sample size and k is the number of independent
variables (1999) confirmed a valid sample size for multiple regression analysis. A
stepwise regression model was used and the results indicated that servant-leadership was
the only predictor ofjob satisfaction among the six independent variables. It is important
to note that while servant-leadership was a predictor ofjob satisfaction in this model, no
causal relationship was established. Findings did indicate that when respondents
perceived higher levels of servant-leadership in the organization, their feeling ofjob
satisfaction increased.

70
Question 3
Question. Does gender ofthe respondent account for any significant difference in
responses given?
Finding. No significant difference in mean OLA scores, F(l, 163) = 3,381, p>.05,
was observed between male and female respondents. This indicates that gender did not
account for any significant difference in responses given. The null hypothesis ofthe
ANOVA test was supported. Table 12 gives the mean and standard deviation for each
category.
Table 12
OLA Means andStandardDeviation by Gender
Gender N M SD
Female 108 242.0 56.3
Male 57 225.9 48.1
Total 165 236.4 54.0

71
Question 4
Question. Does holding a valid teaching certificate account for any significant
Finding. No significant difference in mean OLA scores, F(l,163) = .866, p>.05,
was observed between respondents which held or did not hold valid teaching certificates.
This indicates that holding a valid teaching certificate did not account for any significant
difference in responses given. The null hypothesis ofthe ANOVA test was supported.
Table 13 gives the mean and standard deviation for each category.
Table 13
OLA Means andStandardDeviation by Certification
Certified teacher N M SD
Yes 152 235.2 53.7
No 13 249.8 58.0
Total 165 236.4 54.0

72
Question 5
Question. Do years ofteaching experience ofthe respondent account for any
significant difference in responses given?
Finding. No significant difference in mean OLA scores, F(2,162) = 1.556, p> 05,
was observed between respondents of differing teaching experience levels. This indicates
that teaching experience did not account for any significant difference in responses given.
The null hypothesis ofthe ANOVA test was supported. Table 14 gives the mean and
standard deviation for each category.
Table 14
OLA Means andStandardDeviation by Years o f TeachingExperience
Years N M SD
1to 4 43 235.8 50.1
5 to 10 47 225.7 58.0
Over 10 75 243.4 52.9
Total 165 236.4 54.0

73
Question 6
Question. Do years ofteaching in a particular school district account for any
Finding. No significant difference in mean OLA scores F(2,162) = 590,p>.05,
was observed between respondents based on years of service in their current district. This
indicates that years ofteaching in a particular school district did not account for any
significant difference in responses given. The null hypothesis ofthe ANOVA test was
supported. Table 15 gives the mean and standard deviation for each category.
Table 15
OLA Means andStandardDeviation by Years in CurrentDistrict
Years N M SD
1to 4 82 240.4 55.0
5 to 10 46 235.3 56.1
Over 10 37 228.9 49.6
Total 165 236.4 54.0

74
Question 7
Question. Does school size account for any significant difference in responses
given?
Finding. A significant difference in mean OLA scores, A(2,162) = 3.299, p<.05,
was observed between respondents in different school sizes. The null hypothesis of the
ANOVA test was rejected. This indicates a difference within this category but does not
specify how groups differ. Independent sample t-tests were conducted to confirm
significance in any difference of mean scores found between groups. The null hypothesis
ofthe t-test, like the ANOVA test for variance, states that there is no significant
difference in mean scores. Results ofthe t-tests revealed that no significant difference in
the mean OLA scores, t = -.386, p>.05, was observed between Groups 1 and 2. The null
hypothesis ofthe independent sample t-test was supported. A significant difference in
mean OLA scores, t = 2.323, /K.05, was observed between Group 1and 3. The null
hypothesis ofthe independent sample t-test was rejected. A significant difference in mean
OLA scores, t = 2.425,/?< 05, was observed between Group 2 and 3. The null hypothesis
ofthe independent sample t-test was rejected. The indication was that Group 3 perceived
a higher level of servant-leadership in their respective organizations than was perceived
by Groups 1or 2. Table 16 gives the mean and standard deviation for each category.

75
Table 16
OLA Means and StandardDeviation by SchoolSize
Subgroup N M SD
Group 1 72 233.5 51.2
Group 2 67 230.0 56.2
Group 3 26 260.7 51.1
Total 165 236.4 54.0
Summary
The findings presented above demonstrated that a strong positive correlation
exists between the level of servant-leadership perceived and the level ofjob satisfaction
felt by teaching professionals in the Educational Service Center Region X public schools
Examination of the OLA survey instrument revealed strong internal reliability. A more
detailed discussion ofthese findings is found in the next chapter. Chapter five will also
include a brief summary ofthe problem, purpose and methodology ofthis study, as well
as conclusions about the findings, the relationship of these findings to previous research,
recommendations to educators, and suggestion for further research.

Chapter 5
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
The purpose ofthis chapter is to facilitate an understanding by the reader ofthis
study and its findings. Presented first is a restatement ofthe problems that this study
identifies and the purposes the research followed by a review ofthe methodology. The
majority ofthis chapter deals with the summary and discussion ofthe findings. The
discussion portion will include conclusions about the findings, the relationship of these
findings to previous research, recommendations to educators, and suggestions for further
research. No causal relationship was established or sought by this study, but the
researcher hoped to establish that a significant correlation between servant-leadership and
job satisfaction exists.
Problem and Purpose
Today servant-leadership is being freshly examined and is a key issue in
leadership studies in various arenas. Servant-leadership has been written about and
studied in the corporate setting (Greenleaf, 1996; Spears, 1995; Laub, 1999). Information
from the GreenleafCenter for Servant-leadership lists several universities such as
Arizona State University, Abilene Christian University, Ball State University, and Baylor
University that include the study of servant-leadership as a substantial part of their
educational leadership programs. Yet, almost no research exists dealing with the presence
and impact of servant-leadership in the public school setting.
76

77
Evidence points to the fact that school leaders today face low teacher moral, high
attrition of classroom teachers in virtually every field, and a reduction ofpublic
confidence as well as face the challenges of improving student performance and
addressing student safety. In 1983 the National Commission on Excellence in Education
predicted a major shortage ofteachers (Ingersoll, 2001), and in 1996 the National
Commission on Teaching predicted a major shortage of qualified classroom teachers over
the next ten year period (Hope, 1999). The graying ofthe teachers at the time of the study
and a predicted increase in student enrollment were cited as the primary factors for the
future teacher shortage; however, current research, while documenting a shortage in
almost every teaching field, points to different causes for the shortage. Empirical
evidence establishes a link between teacher retention and the teacher’s perception of the
leadership under which they work (Hope, 1999; Ingersoll, 2001). Further empirical
studies (Baughman, 1996) reveal a strong correlation between teacher retention and job
satisfaction. A current trend in education seminars, such as the Superintendent’s
Academy provided by the Texas Regional Service Center X, considers the possibility that
servant-leadership may provide the type of leadership that can nurture new teachers,
increase teacher’sjob satisfaction, and decrease teacher attrition. However more
empirical research needs to be conducted in order to establish such a link.

78
Review ofMethodology
A correlational study was conducted using two variables of interest: the level of
servant-leadership present in a public school organization and the level ofjob satisfaction
felt by the teaching professionals in a public school organization. The accessible
population was determined, and a random sample was selected. Public high schools in the
Texas Regional Service Center X were separated into three subgroups according to
enrollment size. Group 1 included high schools with an enrollment of over 1900 students.
Group 2 included high schools with an enrollment of900 to 1899 students. Group 3
included high schools with an enrollment under 899 students. Five high schools were
randomly selected from each ofthe three subgroups to make up the population for this
study. Research units were stratified across the subgroups using the same percentages as
found in the population; hence, 157 respondents were randomly selected from Group 1,
as were 107 from Group 2, and 43 from Group 3.
Potential respondents were invited by e-mail to participate in the study by going
to a protected web site and completing the Organizational Leadership Assessment -
Educational Version (Laub, 1999). Ofthe original 307 e-mails sent, 14 were returned as
undeliverable. The invalid addresses were dropped from the study, and the addresses with
typing mistakes were corrected and resent. A total of 165 respondents completed the on
line survey giving a response rate of 54%. Group 1had the largest number of respondents
representing approximately 44% ofthe total response; however, this is a substantially

79
lower response rate, 46% percent, than Group 2 or 3, which had response rates of 63%
and 60% respectively. Approximately 41% ofthe respondents were from Group 2 high
schools, and Group 3 accounted for about 16% of the respondents. The number of returns
was good when compared to traditional survey response rates (Babbie, 1995), and
substantially better than the average on-line or electronic survey response rates (Sheehan,
2001).
SPSS 12.0.1 software was utilized to handle all survey data, conduct statistical
test, and determine statistical significance. Because this study was one ofthe first to
utilize the educational version ofthe OLA (Laub, 1999) in research, reliability of the
survey was considered. The alpha coefficient or Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated to
determine internal reliability. Using the educational version ofthe OLA did not change
the external validity shown in Laub’s original study. A Pearson Correlation statistic was
generated from the completed surveys and the correlation between the level of servant-
leadership and teacherjob satisfaction was determined. One-way ANOVA test were
conducted to discover if a significant difference in mean scores could be attributed to
gender, teacher certification, years of experience, years in current district, or school size.
The ANOVA test verifies if a significant difference in mean scores exists between
groups, but ifthere are more than two groups, the test does not specify where the
difference lies. In order to specify which groups exhibited a significant difference,
independent sample t-test were run pairing two groups at a time.

80
Summary ofFindings
Question I
Question. Can the internal reliability ofthe Organizational Leadership
Assessment - Educational Version (Laub, 1999) be clearly documented?
Finding. Internal reliability ofthe Organizational Leadership Assessment -
Educational Version was clearly documented. A significantly high Cronbach’s Alpha
coefficient, a= .987, indicates strong internal reliability. The servant-leadership portion
of the OLA had an alpha coefficient of a = .987, and the job satisfaction portion had an
alpha coefficient of a= .890. High alphas indicate that it is highly probable that
differences in responses were due to differences in individual respondents opinions rather
than hard to interpret or vague questions. Split-halfmeasures also revealed high
coefficients, which support the finding of internal reliability.
Question 2
Question. Does a correlation exist between the level of servant-leadership
perceived by teachers in public schools served by the Texas Regional Service Center X,
Finding. The product-moment coefficient or Pearson correlation revealed a
significant (p<01) positive correlation, r = .723, between servant-leadership and job
satisfaction. The coefficient of determination, t 2= .523, and the “percent variability
explained” statistic, eta2= .865, both indicate a large effect size (Newton & Rudestam,
1999), which supports the finding of a strong positive correlation. A multiple regression
test was conducted to assess the strength ofthe correlation. The stepwise regression

81
model was used and the results indicated that servant-leadership was the only predictor of
job satisfaction among the six independent variables utilized in this study.
Question 3
Question. Does gender ofthe respondent account for any significant difference in
responses given?
Finding. No significant difference in mean OLA scores, F(l,163) = 3.381, p>.05,
was observed between male and female respondents. This indicates that gender did not
account for any significant difference in responses given. The null hypothesis ofthe
ANOVA test was supported.
Question 4
Question. Does holding a valid teaching certificate account for any significant
Finding. No significant difference in mean OLA scores, F(l,163) = .866,p>.05,
was observed between respondents which held or did not hold valid teaching certificates.
This indicates that holding a valid teaching certificate did not account for any significant
difference in responses given. The null hypothesis ofthe ANOVA test was supported.
Question 5
Question. Do years of teaching experience of the respondent account for any

82
Finding. No significant difference in mean OLA scores, F(2,162) = 1.556, p>.05,
was observed between respondents of differing teaching experience levels. This indicates
that teaching experience did not account for any significant difference in responses given.
The null hypothesis of the ANOVA test was supported.
Question 6
Question. Do years ofteaching in a particular school district account for any
Finding. No significant difference in mean OLA scores F(2,162) = 590,p>.05,
was observed between respondents based on years of service in their current district. This
indicates that years ofteaching in a particular school district did not account for any
significant difference in responses given. The null hypothesis ofthe ANOVA test was
supported.
Question 7
Question. Does school size account for any significant difference in responses
given?
Finding. A significant difference in mean OLA scores, F(2,162) = 3.299, /K.05,
was observed between respondents in different school sizes. The null hypothesis of the
ANOVA test was rejected. This indicates a difference within this category but does not
specify how groups differ. Independent sample t-tests were conducted to confirm
significance in any difference of mean scores found between groups. The null hypothesis
ofthe t-test, like the ANOVA test for variance, is that there is no significant difference in

83
mean scores. Results ofthe t-tests revealed that no significant difference in the mean
OLA scores, t = -386,/?>05, was observed between Groups 1and 2. The null hypothesis
ofthe independent sample t-test was supported. A significant difference in mean OLA
scores, / = 2.323,/K.05, was observed between Group 1 and 3. The null hypothesis of the
independent sample t-test was rejected. A significant difference in mean OLA scores, t =
2.425, p<05, was observed between Group 2 and 3. The null hypothesis of the
independent sample t-test was rejected. The indication was that Group 3 perceived a
higher level of servant-leadership in their respective organizations than was perceived by
Groups 1or 2.
Discussion of Findings
Conclusions drawn from a study are at times so obvious that the reader questions
the need for the study. At other times, conclusions come subtly during the course of the
study and are not obvious to others. Often conclusions are disputed or disregarded. With
an understanding ofthe possible responses to any conclusion and a sense oftrepidation,
the following discussion is undertaken. Presented first are specific conclusions drawn
from and supported by the data. In these specific conclusions rest the primary value of
this study. Following are some conclusions drawn from a variety of sources during the
course ofthis study.
Conclusions
Specific. The data supports the conclusion that the OLA - Educational Version
(Laub, 1999) survey instrument is internally reliable. As such, it can be used with

84
confidence to measure the level of servant-leadership in an organization as well as the
level ofjob satisfaction felt by members ofthe organization. The servant-leadership
demonstrates stronger internal reliability than does the job satisfaction portion, but not to
the extent that the survey instrument is weakened. The OLA could be administered with
or without the job satisfaction portion, making this instrument suitable for a variety of
needs.
The use of the OLA in this study revealed that teaching professionals in Texas
Regional Service Center X respond well to servant-leadership in terms ofthe level ofjob
satisfaction felt. The data indicated a strong positive correlation between servant-
leadership and job satisfaction across the spectrum ofthe sample population. The higher
the level of servant-leadership perceived by the participant, the higher the level ofjob
satisfaction felt. This finding did not vary based on gender, teacher certification, years of
experience, years in a current district, or school size. The data did indicate those teachers
in Group 3, high school with an enrollment of less 899 students, felt significantly greater
levels of servant-leadership than teachers in Group 1or 2. Data from all groups however
revealed a strong correlation between the variables of interest.
General. The 54% survey completion rate was good compared to traditional
survey return rates (Babbie, 1995) and more than double the average on-line survey
return rates (Sheehan, 2001). The strong response could indicate that the subject matter of
the study was important to the teachers ofRegion X; yet almost one-halfof the sample
did not respond. One non-respondent’s reply may provide some insight into the cause of
the non-responses. This teacher made contact through a private e-mail account, not the
school e-mail account used in the research, and explained the reason for not completing

85
the survey. This individual, who had more than five years experience, expressed a great
deal of fear that the administration would know that they completed the survey and would
be able to find out the responses given. Two additional contacts were made to this teacher
in an effort to belay those fears but to no avail. Possibly other non-respondents, who did
not make personal contact with the researcher, might have been afraid to participate,
suggesting that the mindset of “us against them” may still exist between administrators
and teachers.
Survey responses seemed to suggest that the sense of mistrust toward
administrators might be more evident on campuses that have a greater number of students
and staff. High schools with an enrollment ofover 1900 students, Group 1in this study,
had a response rate of only 46% while Group 2 or 3 had response rates of 63% and 60%
respectively. Concurrently, the data indicated that teachers in Group 3, the smaller high
schools, perceived a higher level of servant-leadership than either ofthe other groups.
According to Theobald (1997) many in large organizations feel impotent and powerless
to effect change, making the building oftrust problematic. Theobald reminds us that such
an environment can adversely effect community. Building community is one of the six
constructs of servant-leadership identified in Laub’s study (1999) and important to the
overall perception of servant-leadership. Perhaps the task ofbuilding community, as in
personal relationships and trust, is more difficult for administrators of large campuses.
The evidence in this study suggest that servant-leadership, even when not labeled
as such, is a style of leadership whose time has come. Meeting the needs ofteachers
should be a priority in the high-stakes testing environment oftoday. Much is written
about the need for education to be learner centered. What is sometimes overlooked is

86
how to best accomplish this goal. It is clear that while not a causal effect, teachers are
more satisfied with theirjobs when servant-leadership is present. Literature teaches that
when teachers are satisfied with theirjobs they tend to remain in the teaching profession
thereby gaining the experience that produces high quality teachers. Servant-leadership
would enable the campus administrator to develop the teaching staffto the fullest
potential. This would include developing teachers into servant-leaders of the students.
When teachers, as servant-leaders, have the best interest ofthe students in mind, the
education system will truly be learner centered.
Relationship to Previous Research
This study helped solidify the notion that the OLA is a valuable research
instrument. The educational version ofthe OLA rendered the same strong internal
reliability as the original version developed by Laub in 1999. This study also agreed with
the finding ofLaub and Thompson (2002) that the OLA can by used with confidence to
measure the levels of servant-leadership and job satisfaction in an organization.
By showing that a strong positive correlation exists between servant-leadership
andjob satisfaction in Region X public schools this study added to a growing body of
knowledge concerning servant-leadership. The findings ofthis study agreed with similar
studies done by Hope (1999) and Ingersoll (2001) thereby adding to the evidence that
leadership style effects teacherjob satisfaction.
Recommendationsfor Educators
This study revealed a need for more awareness and training in the area of

87
servant-leadership. The recommendations, based on the findings ofthis study, are as
follows:
1. Professional development in the area of servant-leadership should become a
priority for campus level administrators.
2. Campus level administrators should provide continuing professional
development in the area of servant-leadership for their teaching staff.
Teachers need to become more aware oftheir role as servant-1eader to the
student.
3. District level administrators should use the OLA survey instrument to assess
the level of servant-leadership on each district campus and the overall job
satisfaction oftheir teaching staff.
4. Educational Service Centers throughout Texas should follow the lead of
Region X in terms of offering staffdevelopment in the area of servant-
leadership.
5. Educational service centers that offer staffdevelopment to district level
administrators in the area of servant-leadership should expand this offering to
campus level administrators and teaching professionals.
6. Universities should add training/awareness components in the area of servant-
leadership to their educational administration course of study.
Recommendationsfor Further Research
The findings ofthis study established a need for further research in the areas that
could increase the existing knowledge of servant-leadership. Recommendations for

88
further research are as follows:
1. A study should be conducted to determine if campuses perceived as having
higher levels of servant-leadership have higher levels of student achievement.
2. A study should be conducted to discover ifthe gender ofthe lead campus
administrator determines the amount of servant-leadership perceived by the
teaching staff.
3. Research concerning the correlation of servant-leadership and job satisfaction
should be extended to campuses of different grade levels such as elementary
or middle school campuses.
4. This study should be replicated in other Educational Service Regions of Texas
or be conducted as a statewide study of all teachers in Texas.
5. A study should be conducted to discover ifthe ethnicity ofthe participant
determines the level of servant-leadership perceived in the organization.

REFERENCES
Anderson, T., & Kanuka, H. (2002). E-Research: Methods, strategies, amiissues.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Babbie, E. (1995). Thepractice o fsocialresearch (3rded). Belmont, California:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Barth, R. S. (1980). Run schoolrun. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press.
Baughman, K. S. (1996). Increasing teacherjob satisfaction: A study ofthe changing role
ofthe secondary principal. American Secondary Education, 24(3), 19-22.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformationalleadership: Industrial, military, and educational
impact. Mahwah, New Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers
Becker, T. L., Couto, R. A., & Bums, J. M. (1996). Teaching democracy by being
democratic. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
Blank, W. (1995). Nine naturallaws o fleadership. New York: AMA Company.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative researchfor education: An
introduction to theory and methods (3rded.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bums, J. M. (1978). Leadership (1st ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Chirichello, M. (2001). Collective leadership: Sharing the principalship. Principal, 5/(1),
46-51.
Dever, J. T. (1997, Fall). Reconciling educational leadership and the learning
organization. Community College Review, 25, 57-63.
89

90
Dillman, D. A. (2000). M ailand internet surveys: The tailored design method New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ebmeier, H., & Nicklaus, J. (1999, Summer). The impact ofpeer and principal
collaborative supervision on teacher's trust, commitment, desire for collaboration,
and efficacy. Journal o fCurriculum and Supervision, 14(4), 351-378.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1996). How to design and evaluate research in
education (3rd ed ). New York. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York: The Free Press.
Gautschi, T. (1999). Lead by persuasion. Design News, 54(19), 218-219.
Goldman, E. (1998, April). The significance of leadership style. EducationalLeadership,
55(7), 20-22.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). Servant as leader. Indianapolis, Indiana: Robert K. Greenleaf
Center.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1996). D. M. Frick & L. C. Spears (Eds ), On becoming a servant-
learder: Theprivate writings o fRobertK. Greenleaf. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Gulick, L. (1997). Notes on the theory of organization. In J. M. Shaffitz & A. C. Hyde
(Eds.), Classics o fPublic Administration (pp. 81-88). New York: Harcourt Brace
College Publishers. (Reprinted from Papers on the Science o fAdministration, by
L. Gulick & L. Urwick, Eds., 3-13, 1937)
Heath, J. A., & Vik, P. (1996, January). School site councils: Building communities of
leaders. Principal, 75, 24-25.

91
Hope, W. C. (1999, September). Principal's orientation and induction activities as factors
in teacher retention. The Clearing House, 73(1), 54-56.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational
analysis. American EducationalResearch Journal, 38(3), 499-534.
Ingersoll, R. M. & Thomas, M. S. (2003, May). The wrong solution to the teacher
shortage. EducationalLeadership, 60(8), 30-33.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.
EducationalandPsychologicalMeasurement, 30, 607-610.
Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the
organizational leadership assessment instrument. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Florida Atlantic University.
Leatherman, R. W. (1992). Quality leadership through empowerment Amherst,
Massachusetts: HRD Press.
Majka, C. (2001). Lao Tzu: Father of Taoism. In Taoism and the Philosophy o f Tai Chi
Chuan (chap 1). Retrieved June, 2002, from
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Taichi/taoism.html
Maslow, A. H. (1997). A theory of human motivation. In J. M. Shafritz & A. C. Hyde
(Eds.), Classics o fPublic Administration (pp. 114-121). New York: Harcourt
Brace College Publishers. (Reprinted from PsychologicalReview, 50, 370-396,
July 1943)
McCarthy, J., & Riner, P. S. (1996, Winter). The accelerated schools inquiry process:
Teacher empowerment through action research. Education, 117, 223-229.

McGregor, D. M. (1997). The human side of enterprise. In J. M. Shafiitz & A. C. Hyde
Brace College Publishers. (Reprinted fromManagementReview, November 1957)
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Morgan, G. (1997). Images o forganization (New ed). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications.
New American standardBible: The open Bible (Expanded) (1985). Nashville, Tennessee:
Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Newton, R. R & Rudestam K. E. (1999). Your statistical consultant: Answers to your
data analysis questions. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Pigors, P. (1935). Leadership or domination. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Rooney, J. (2003, March). Principals who care. A personal reflection. Educational
Leadership, 60(6), 76-78.
Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadershipfor the twenty-first century (Paperback ed.). Westport,
Connecticut: Praeger.
Schaefer, D., & Dillman, D. A. (1998). Development of a standard 3-mail methodology:
Results of an experiment. Pubic Opinion Quarterly, 62, 378-397.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth discipline: The art andpractice o fthe learning
organization. New York. Doubleday/Currency.
Senge, P. M. (1996, Fall). The ecology of leadership. Leader to Leader, 2, 18-23.
Retrieved February, 2004, from
http://www.pfdf.org/leaderbooks/L2L/fall96/senge.html

93
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart o fschool improvement.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994) Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1995). Principalship: A reflectivepracticeperspective (3rd ed ).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1996). Leadership basics for principals and their staff. The
EducationalForum, 60, 267-270.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1996). Leadershipfo r the schoolhouse. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1999, September). Refocusing leadership to build community. High
SchoolMagazine, 7(1), 10-15.
Sheehan, K. (2001). E-mail survey response rates. A review. Journal o fComputer-
Mediated Communication, 6(2). Retrieved November 15, 2003, from
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6 /issue2 /sheehan.html
Shelton, K. (1997). A newparadigm o fleadership: Visions o fexcellencefo r 21st century
organizations. Provo, Utah: Executive Excellence Publishing.
Shen, J., Wegenke, G. L., & Cooley, V. E. (2003, Spring). Has the public teaching force
become more diversified? National and longitudinal perspectives on gender, race,
and ethnicity. EducationalHorizons, 81(3), 112-118.
Simon, H. A. (1997). The proverbs of administration. In J. M. Shaffitz & A. C. Hyde
Brace College Publishers. (Reprinted from Public Administration Review, 1946)

94
Smith, J. E. & Kinard, J. (2001, July). Systemic thinking or a quick fix: A managerial
dilemma. Supervision, 62(7), 3-6.
Sparks, D. (2001, Summer). Why change is so challenging for schools. Journal o fStaff
Development, 22(3), 42-47.
Spears, L. C. (1995). How RobertK. Greenleafs theory ofservant-leadership influenced
today’s top management thinkers. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Spears, L. C. (2002). Focus on leadership: Servant leadershipfor the 21st century. New
York: J. Wiley and Sons.
Stanley, T. (2001, June). Is there a leader in the house? Supervision, 62(6), 9-11.
Strong, J. (1984). New Strong’s exhaustive concordance o fthe Bible. Nashville,
Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Texas Education Agency. (n.d.). Texas teacher diversity and recruitment. Retrieved
February 13,2004, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/research/pdfs/prr4.pdfrbcml
Theobald, P. (1997). Teaching the commons: Place, pride, and the renewalo f
community. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Thompson, R. S. (2002). The perception of servant leadership characteristics and job
satisfaction in a church - related college. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Indiana State University.
Trochim, W. (2002). Types of reliability. In Research Methods Knowledge Base.
Retrieved February 4, 2003, from
http://trochim.human,comell.edu/kb/reltypes.htm

95
Trochim, W. (2002). Theory of reliability. In ResearchMethods Knowledge Base.
Retrieved February 4, 2003, from
http://trochim.human,comell.edu/kb/reliablt.htm
Weber, M. (1997). Characteristics of bureaucracy (H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills, Trans ). In
J. M. Shafritz & A. C. Hyde (Eds.), Classics o fPublic Administration (pp. 37-43).
New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. (Reprinted from From Max
Weber: Essays in sociology, by H. H. Gerth, Ed., 1946, London: Oxford
University Press)
Zemke, R. (1999, September). Why organizations still aren't learning: An interview with
Peter Senge. Training, 40-49.

APPENDIX A
BREAKDOWN OF THE OLA PER SURVEY ITEMS
96

97
BREAKDOWN OF THE OLA PER SURVEY ITEMS
I. Six Constructs of Servant-leadership
1. ValuesPeople
Item # Item
1 Trust each other
4 Respect each other
9 Are caring & compassionate towards each other
15 Are aware ofthe needs of others
19 Accept people as they are
52 Are receptive listeners
54 Put the needs ofthe teachers/staffahead oftheir own
55 I feel appreciated by my principal for what I contribute
57 I am listened to by those above me in the organization
63 I am respected by those above me in the school
2. Develops People
Item # Item
2 0 View conflict as an opportunity to learn & grow
31 Create an environment that encourages learning
37 Practice the same behavior they expect from others
40 Lead by example by modeling appropriate behavior
42 Provide opportunities for all teachers/staffto develop to their frill potential
44 Use their power and authority to benefit the teacher/staff
46 Build people up through encouragement and affirmation
50 Provide mentor relationships in order to help people grow professionally
59 I receive encouragement and affirmation from those above me in the school

98
3. Builds Community
Item # Item
7 Work well together in teams
8 Value differences in culture, race & ethnicity
1 2 Relate well to each other
13 Attempt to work with others more than working on their own
16 Allow for individuality of style and expression
18 Work to maintain positive working relationships
2 1 Know how to get along with people
25 Work alongside the teachers/staffinstead of separate from them
38 Facilitate the building of community & team collaboration
47 Encourage teachers/staffto work together rather than competing against each
other
4, Displays Authenticity
Item # Item
3 Are non-judgmental - they keep an open mind
6 Maintain high ethical standards
1 0 Demonstrate high integrity & honesty
1 1 Are trustworthy
23 Are open to learning from those who are below them in the organization
28 Promote open communication and sharing of inffomation
32 Are open to receiving criticism & challenge from others
33 Say what they mean, and mean what they say
35 Admit personal limitations & mistakes
43 Honestly evaluate themselves before seeking to evaluate others
51 Are accountable & responsible to others
61 I trust the leadership ofthis school

99
S. Provides Leadership 1
Item # Item
2 Are clear on the key goals ofthe organization
5 Know where this organization is headed in the future
14 Are held accountable for reaching work goals
2 2 Communicate a clear vision ofthe future ofthe school
27 Don't hesitate to provide the leadership that is needed
30 Provide the support and resources needed to help teachers/staffmeet their
goals
36 Encourage people to take risks even if they may fail
45 Take appropriate action when it is needed
49 Communicate clear plans & goals for the school
6. Shares Leadership
Item # Item
17 Are encouraged by supervisors to share in making important decisions
24 Allow teachers/staffto help determine where this school is headed
26 Use persuasion to influence others instead ofcoercion or force
29 Empower teachers/staffto make important decisions
34 Encourage each person to exercise leadership
39 Do not demand special recognition for being leaders
41 Seek to influence others from a positive relationship rather thatn from the
authority oftheir position
48 Are humble - they do not promote themselves
53 Do not seek after special status or the "perks" of leadership
65 In this school, a person's work is valued more than their title

100
II. Survey items measuring job satisfaction
lab Satisfaction
Item # Item
56 I am working at a high level of productivity
58 I feel good about my contribution to the school
60 Myjob is important to the success ofthis school
62 I enjoy working in this school
64 I am able to be creative in myjob
6 6 I am able to use my best gifts and abilities in myjob

APPENDIX B
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
101

102
ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP ASSESSMENT - EDUCATIONAL VERSION
Please provide your response to each statement by placing an X in one of the five boxes
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Undecided Agree
Strongly
Agree
Section 1
In this section, please respond to each statement as you believe it applies to the entire
school including teachers/staff, managers/supervisors and school leadership
In general, people within this school....
1 2 3 4 5
1 Trust each other
2 Are clear on the key goals ofthe organization
3 Are non-judgmental - they keep an open mind
4 Respect each other
5 Know where this organization is headed in the future
6 Maintain high ethical standards
7 Work well together in teams
8 Value differences in culture, race & ethnicity
9 Are caring & compassionate towards each other
10 Demonstrate high integrity & honesty
11 Are trustworthy
12 Relate well to each other
13
Attempt to work with others more than working on their
own
14 Are held accountable for reaching work goals
15 Are aware ofthe needs ofothers
16 Allow for individuality of style and expression
17
Are encouraged by supervisors to share in making
important decisions
18 Work to maintain positive working relationships
19 Accept people as they are
20 View conflict as an opportunity to learn & grow

103
21 Know how to get along with people
Please provide your response to each statement by placing an X in one of the five boxes
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Undecided Agree
Strongly
Agree
Section 2
In this next section, please respond to each statement as you believe it applies to the
leadership ofthe school including managers/supervisors and school leadership
Managers/Supervisors and the school leadership in this school..
1 2 3 4 5
2 2 Communicate a clear vision ofdie future ofthe school
23
Are open to learning from those who are below them in
the organization
24
Allow teachers/staffto help determine where this
school is headed
25
Work alongside the teachers/staffinstead of separate
from them
26
Use persuasion to influence others instead of coercion
or force
27 Don’t hesitate to provide the leadership that is needed
28
Promote open communication and sharing of
information
29 Empower teachers/staffto make important decisions
30
Provide the support and resources needed to help
teachers/staffmeet their goals
31 Create an environment that encourages learning
32 Are open to receiving criticism & challenge from others
33 Say what they mean, and mean what they say
34 Encourage eachperson to exercise leadership
35 Admit personal limitations & mistakes
36 Encourage people to take risks even ifthey may fail

104
3 7 Practice the same behavior they expect from others
Facilitate the building of community & team
collaboration
39 Do not demand special recognition for being leaders
40 Lead by example by modeling appropriate behavior
4 j Seek to influence others from a positive relationship
rather than from the authority oftheir position
4 9 Provide opportunities for all teachers/staffto develop to
their frill potential
Honestly evaluate themselves before seeking to
evaluate others
4 4 Use theirpower and authority to benefit the
teachers/staff
45 Take appropriate action when it is needed
4 6 Build people up through encouragement and
affirmation
4 9 Encourage teachers/staffto work together rather than
competing against each other
48 Are humble - they do not promote themselves
49 Communicate clear plans & goals for the school
^ Provide mentor relationships in order to help people
grow professionally
51 Are accountable & responsible to others
52 Are receptive listeners
Do not seek after special status or the “perks” of
leadership
54 Put the needs ofthe teachers/staffahead oftheir own
Please provide your response to each statement by placing an X in one ofthe five boxes
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly
Agree
Section 3
In this next section, please respond to each statement as you believe it is true about you
personally and your role in the school

105
In viewing my own role in this school...
1 2 3 4 5
55 I feel appreciated by my principal for what I contribute
56 I am working at a high level ofproductivity
57 I am listened to by those above me in the organization
58 I feel good about my contribution to the school
59
I receive encouragement and affirmation from those
60 Myjob is important to the success of this school
61 I trust the leadership ofthis school
62 I enjoy working in this school
63 I am respected by those above me in die school
64 I am able to be creative in myjob
65 In this school, a person’s work is valued more than their
6 6
I am able to use my best gifis and abilities in myjob
© James Alan Laub, 1999 (usedby permission)
Demographics
A. Do you hold a valid teaching certification? Yes No
B. Gender: Male Female_____
C. Total years teaching experience: 1-4_____ 5-10_____> 1 0 ______
D. Years of experience in current school district: 1-4_____ 5-10_____ >10
E. What is the classification of your high school? 1A____ 2A_____ 3A___
4A 5A

APPENDIX C
E-MAILS SENT TO POTENTIAL RESPONDENTS
First E-mail: Pre-notification and Introduction
Second E-mail: Informed Consent and Request for Participation
Third E-mail: Follow up and Reminder
Fourth E-mail: Final Notification
Fifth E-mail: Appreciation Message
106

107
E-MAILS SENT TO POTENTIAL RESPONDENTS
First E-mail: Pre-notification and Introduction
<Date>
Dear Educator:
My name is Larry Miears and I am a graduate student at Texas A&M University -
Commerce, currently working toward a doctorate in education administration.
I need your help. In a few days, you will be receiving another e-mail from me. You, as a
teaching professional in Region X were randomly selected to participate in a study. You
will be asked to complete a briefsurvey, which is “cutting-edge” in that it will be
completed on-line via a web site. The web address as well as additional information
about the research will be provided in my next message.
Please consider taking this opportunity to participate in the “learning” process. It is only
with the help of gracious people like you that my research will be successful. Your help
is greatly appreciated, and I want to thank you in advance for your consideration and
participation.
Larry Miears
Doctoral Candidate
Texas A&M University - Commerce

108
Second E-mail: Informed Consent and Request for Participation
<Date>
Dear Educator:
Recently you received an e-mail from me in which I explained that I am a doctoral
student at Texas A&M University - Commerce. The research I am conducting is a
correlational study between leadership style and teacherjob satisfaction. You would do
me a great service if you would complete the online survey, which will take about 1 0 to
15 minutes. If you agree, simply follow the link at the bottom of this message. You will
need to place your assigned pin number in the UserlD box at the beginning ofthe survey,
and you will need to answer all questions before submitting the survey. I encourage you
to make a copy ofthis e-mail for your records.
As we all know, there is currently a serious shortage of qualified educators. The results of
my research will add to a growing body of evidence that leadership style directly
influences teacher job satisfaction and therefore teacher retention. Your participation is
voluntary and you may withdraw from the study at any time. The following steps are
taken to protect your confidentiality: 1 ) you have been assigned a unique pin number; 2 )
your name as well as the name of your campus, district, or administrator do not appear on
the survey; 3) all ofthe data will be reported in mass; 4) once your survey is received, all
personal identifiers will be removed and only the data will be kept; 5) all data received
will be stored off-line and destroyed at the appropriate time. While confidentiality can not
be guaranteed, these steps should minimize any potential risk to you. If you have
questions about confidentiality, you may contact me via e-mail at <personal e-mail
address provide>.
This research complies with the policies governing Research Involving Human Subjects
and has been reviewed by the Institutional Review Board of Texas A&M - Commerce.
Any questions regarding these policies can be directed to Dr. Dean Ginther, Chair of the
University’s IRB, by calling (903) 886-5444 or the Graduate School by calling (903)
886-5161.1thank you for your participation in this very important research
Your pin number:____
Link to the survey: http://www.olasurvev.org

109
Larry Miears
Doctoral Candidate
Third E-mail: Follow up and Reminder
<Date>
Dear Educator:
GREAT NEWS! The teacher who have provided feed back say the survey only takes 5-
10 minutes to complete and it is a no hassle process. NOT SO GREAT NEWS? I have
not received your completed survey. Participation is voluntary; however, your voice is
needed to provide strong research results.
I want to encourage you to do what so many Region X teachers have already done. This
is a real opportunity to speak to the issues that effect job satisfaction. To access the
survey, simply follow the link below. Remember to place you unique pin number in the
identity verification box ofthe survey.
Your pin number: ____
Larry Miears
Doctoral Candidate

110
Fourth E-mail: Final Notification
<Date>
Dear Educator:
Last call. All surveys need to be completed and submitted by June 1, 2003. Please
consider taking a few minutes before then to complete the on-line survey. Your
participation is greatly appreciated. I have again included your pin number and the link to
the survey below.
Have a great summer.
Your pin number: ____
Larry Miears
Doctoral Candidate

Ill
Fifth E-mail: Appreciation Message
<Date>
Dear Educator:
Thank you for participating in my research. If you would be interested in learning the
results of my research, you may request this information by e-mail at <personal e-mail
address provided>. You may also simply reply to this e-mail and ask for the results to be
sent to you.
Have a great summer.
Larry Miears
Doctoral Candidate

VITA
Larry D. Miears was bom in Duncan, Oklahoma on September 4, 1950, the son of
L.J. and Billie Ruth Miears. Upon graduating from Velma-Alma High School, Velma,
Oklahoma in 1968, he enrolled in Southeastern Oklahoma State University in Durant,
Oklahoma. In May of 1975, after a two-year enlistment in the United States Marine
Corps, he graduated from Southeastern with a Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in
music education. He taught two years in Paris, Texas before enrolling at Stephen F.
Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas in the summer of 1977. After being
awarded a Master of Arts degree in music in August 1978, he returned to the teaching
profession and directed successful band programs in Texas and Oklahoma. He entered
The Graduate School of Texas A&M University-Commerce during the summer of 1998,
and received his Principal Certification in September 2000. He served as Assistant
Principal for Commerce Middle School, Commerce, Texas for two years and in 2003
became a fiill-time doctoral student. He was awarded the Doctor ofEducation degree
with a major in Educational Administration in May 2004. He married Marilyn Kay
Weaver ofDurant, Oklahoma on December 21, 1973. They have three children and three
grandchildren: Brian Keith, bom in 1976 and married to Amy Michele Bench in1998,
parents of Anna Michele and Alyssa Lee; Jason Paul, bom in 1978; and Rachael
Michelle, bom in 1979 and married to Josiah Paul Noller in 2003, parents ofMadison
Cary Noller.
Permanent address: 4023 Western Circle
Greenville, TX 75401
112

2004 dissertation-servant-leadership and job satisfaction

More Related Content

Similar to 2004 dissertation-servant-leadership and job satisfaction

More from Henry Sumampau

2004 dissertation-servant-leadership and job satisfaction