The Demographic Context Of Servant Leadership

Servant Leadership

THE DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP Michael K. McCuddy, Valparaiso University Matthew C. Cavin, EMSystems ABSTRACT Servant leadership is an increasingly popular concept that fuses being a servant with being a leader. In this paper, servant leadership  which is characterized by active listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth, and community-building  is explored in the context of five selected demographic characteristics — socioeconomic status, level of educational attainment, gender, age, and respondent’s domicile. Five research hypotheses are tested in this study, with full support being found for one hypothesis and partial support for the other four hypotheses. Keywords: Demographic Characteristics, Socioeconomic Status, Education, Gender, Age, Domicile, Servant Leadership 1. INTRODUCTION Robert Greenleaf (1999, p. 1) argued that the characteristics of “servant” and “leader” could be fused into one person. Moreover, Greenleaf asserted that this person could be nurtured by teachers who are committed to the preparation of students called to “serve and be served” (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 204), and that servant leadership could be cultivated by the “growing edge church” (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 261). It is in these two arenas — higher education and the institutional church — where servant leadership practices are typically acculturated and taught. In both religious and educational environments, individuals come from a variety of social, economic, and experiential backgrounds. Common sense suggests that certain demographic variables affect servant leadership. Servant leadership behaviors — specifically, active listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth, and community-building (Spears, 2000) — may be, in part, influenced by one’s social, economic, or power dimensions within a given culture. Thus, an individual’s relative position in society, as determined by socioeconomic status, educational attainment, gender, age, or domicile, may affect his/her perception of servant leadership. This paper specifically explores whether the servant leadership behaviors of people involved in the Lutheran church and Lutheran church-related higher education are linked to the demographic variables of socioeconomic status, educational attainment, gender, age, and geographic area of the respondent’s residence (i.e., domicile). Based upon an analysis of existing relevant literature, which is presented in the following section of this article, we propose five research hypotheses. In order to test these research hypotheses, the authors conducted an online survey of individuals associated with churches and/or church-related institutions of higher education. Greenleaf (1977, p. 94) claims that the “dynamics of leadership — the vision, the values, and the staying power — are essentially religious concerns, and fostering them should become the central mission” of churches and universities. The model of servant leadership has “antecedents” in the religious world, with forgiveness and expressly Christian behavior as the “logical extension of values embedded in servant leadership” (Finch, 2007, pp. 203-205). Therefore, targeting our survey toward members of churches and/or church-related institutions of higher education is quite appropriate. 2. SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND ITS DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT Servant leadership is a form of leadership that focuses on followers and how leaders can and do serve their followers. In this section, we first explore the fundamental nature of servant leadership, and then we consider the possible impact that selected demographic characteristics might have on the exhibition of servant leader behaviors.

Servant Leadership

2.1 The Nature of Servant Leadership Servant leadership, in its practical application, requires a community of trust, authenticity, and shared reliance. Despite leaders’ various attempts to impose “servant leadership” practices on unwitting subordinates, Greenleaf (1991, p. 4) asserts that “the only authority deserving one’s allegiance is that which is freely and knowingly granted by the led to the leader” as a response to the “clearly evident servant stature of the leader.” This servant stature is based on moral authority, exhibited in sacrificial behavior, which Stephen Covey (1977, p. 6) designates as “the subordinating of one’s self or one’s ego to a higher purpose, cause, or principle.” Operationally, servant leadership has been characterized according to ten points: active listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth, and community-building (Spears, 2000). These characteristics of servant leadership, articulated by Larry Spears as a recapitulation of Greenleaf’s work, proffer a framework for the identification and measurement of servant leadership characteristics within an individual. In more rhetorical terms, however, Greenleaf (1991, p. 27) asserts that the servant leader is one who serves first, and by whom those served “while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants.” Thus, the servant leader builds up leadership in a community in a “follower-oriented theory of leadership” (Irving and Longbotham, 2007, p. 808). Some researchers have offered variations on Spears’ ten characteristics, including such virtues as agapao love, humility, altruism, vision, trust, empowerment, and service (Patterson, 2008). Others point to characteristics of valuing people, developing people, building community, displaying authenticity, providing leadership, and sharing leadership (Laub, 2008). In each case, however, servant leadership is lifted up as a practice antithetical to autocratic leadership in an organizational setting. Whether they are evaluated in a professional or personal context, these servant leadership characteristics have significant impact on the individual’s ability to effectively lead others and serve the organization, community, or context. Notably, despite recent developments in quantitative metrics for organizational effectiveness, including Laub’s (2008) Organizational Leadership Assessment instrument, no core quantitative instrument for the measurement of servant leadership characteristics within the individual could be found. Thus, the present study focuses on individual self-assessment of servant leadership characteristics according to Spear’s ten points. 2.2 The Demographics of Servant Leadership Given the aforementioned operational definition of servant leadership, one might consider where these characteristics are localized in a multi-demographic sample. The ten servant leadership characteristics should be weighed against variables such as socioeconomic status, educational attainment, gender, age, and respondents’ domicile. Previous studies have commented differently on the impact of demographic considerations on servant leadership. Dannhauser and Boshoff (2006) suggest that the demographic variables of gender, language, ethnic group, and age are not related to servant leadership. However, Parolini (2005) argues that age and gender are indicators of a servant leadership culture. Indeed, the question of the impact of demographic variables on the exhibition of servant leadership behaviors requires further investigation. Socioeconomic status may be an enlightening factor in the propensity to exhibit servant leadership behaviors, in that socioeconomic status reflects both relative power and relative wealth. The tie between servant leadership and power differentials may be particularly pronounced, insofar as those who fall on the extraordinarily high and low ends of a socioeconomic power spectrum may become subject to either entitlement or self-supporting utility, respectively. In the case of entitlement, servant leadership ideals and behaviors are suppressed for personal gain. In the case of utility, fundamental needs-fulfillment and survival mechanisms may allow neither capacity nor prescience to practice servant leadership behaviors. As such, those who fall in the center of a power spectrum may find themselves well-poised to both identify and practice servant leadership behaviors. With respect to relative wealth, an analysis of servant leadership behaviors might reveal that some practices require exceptional time and energy, which may be

Servant Leadership

challenging for those whose time and energy is fully expended in support of their livelihood; therefore, servant leadership behaviors may be less prevalent among those with less wealth. Alternatively, and speculatively, one might discover a sense of entitlement among those at the top of the socioeconomic gamut, which would not be particularly conducive to servant leadership behaviors. Given these polar opposites, perhaps servant leadership is more prevalent among those who are neither consumed by the demands of daily economic survival nor by those who may feel entitled to their wealth and affluence. Hence, it is hypothesized that: H1: The propensity to exhibit servant leadership behaviors will be more prevalent among individuals of moderate socioeconomic status than among people of either lower or higher socioeconomic status. Educational attainment may have a noticeable effect on servant leadership. Although servant leadership is by no means dependent upon any educational benchmark, the requisite foresight, conceptualization, and subsequent modification of daily behavior may be more pervasive among those with strong educational foundations. Greenleaf (1977, p. 18) was quick to rebuke those who claimed to be “educated,” yet still made “gross errors in choosing whose leadership to follow.” Nevertheless, many of those engaged in the active study of servant leadership find themselves at the pinnacle of educational attainment. Servant leadership behaviors do not require advanced degrees, yet the requisite understanding of characteristics such as foresight, conceptualization, and empathy may be challenging for those without sufficient educational foundations. Indeed, the practice and exhibition of these behaviors in daily life does not require the abstract knowledge of their existence; however, the attention to detail required for the explicit practice of servant leadership behaviors may be localized, in part, among those with heightened levels of educational attainment. Therefore, the following hypothesis is offered: H2: The propensity to exhibit servant leadership behaviors will be more prevalent among individuals with a higher level of educational attainment. Sometimes gender has been assumed to affect the presence of empathy, healing, and communitybuilding, in particular. Certainly, servant leadership may be appropriate for both men and women to embrace, but women may be particularly inclined to exhibit the “so-called (service-oriented) feminine characteristics,” that Patsy Sampson, former President of Stephens College, understands to be “consonant with the very best qualities of servant-leadership” (Spears, 2002, p. 164). Observers may consider their own perceptions of masculinity and femininity in each servant leadership characteristic, in order to identify servant leadership among the sexes. Indeed, some characteristics (e.g., empathy and healing) may appear more feminine at first glance, whereas others (e.g., persuasion and commitment to growth) may seem quite the opposite. In this study, the individual’s ability to perceive his/her own servant leadership may be partially influenced by the specific context; in some church-related settings, women are subject to some limitations of roles. As such, women in these settings may be less inclined to overtly identify their own leadership or servant-leadership characteristics. Although not a major factor, it is notable that those who are marginalized by certain organizations would be less likely to perceive a culture of servanthood within the organization (Parolini, 2005, p. 8), and so might be similarly disinclined to recognize their own servant-leadership in that specific context. Given that some servant leader behaviors may be more feminine-oriented and others more masculine oriented, and given scant existing literature with its mixed results regard the impact of gender on servant leadership, we posit that: H3: The propensity to exhibit servant leadership behaviors will not differ between women and men. In a recent study, Parolini (2005, p. 8) suggested that increases in age serve as a positive predictor for follower perceptions of servant leadership behaviors in the workplace. According to this study, older members of organizational cultures perceive a greater degree of servant leadership in their environments, which in turn suggests increased attention to servanthood and increased potential for behavioral modification in accordance with servant leadership (Parolini, 2005, p. 8). However, lower-level organizational participants without managerial responsibility tend to perceive fewer servant leadership behaviors in supervisors, than do top leaders with respect to the same supervisors (Parolini, 2005, p. 8).

Servant Leadership

Here, age is tied to servant leadership characteristics insofar as older individuals tend to perceive a culture of servant leadership in an organization, whereas younger individuals may fail to make such connections. Age may therefore positively affect the individual’s perception of servanthood. This tie between age and servant leadership, Parolini (2005, p. 8) suggests, may be due in part to a heightened ability of older people to differentiate one’s self from one’s emotions; in younger people, these emotions are more likely to be carried into behavioral situations. In a contrary view, Greenleaf (1977, p. 59) notes that there is significant promise among the younger generations, as potential practitioners of servant leadership: “[o]lder people who grew up in a period when values were more settled and the future seemed more secure will be disturbed by what they find today. … [However,] we are at a turn of history in which people are growing up faster and some extraordinarily able, mature, servant-disposed men and women are emerging in their early and middle twenties.” Although people who are younger and ones who are older may embrace servanthood to a reasonable, if not substantial, extent, what about servant leadership among those who are middle-aged? People in this latter category, who perhaps have lost the idealism of youth but are not in a position to be substantially other-directed, may not be as inclined toward embracing servant leadership behaviors. Based on this small body of evidence and this line of reasoning, we posit that: H4: The propensity to exhibit servant leadership behaviors will be more prevalent among either younger or older people than among middle-aged individuals. Finally, domicile and geographic setting may affect the exhibition of servant leadership behaviors, insofar as the individual’s behavior with respect to his/her community is largely determined by the nature of the community. Rural life’s mutuality and communalism may be a more suitable host for servant leadership than necessarily the isolation of empty and expanded suburban sidewalks. However, urban life’s crowded nature, in which individuals socialize on street corners despite outward individualistic appearance, may be similarly conducive to the construction of community bonds of trust. Jane Jacobs (1961, p. 68) references the “self-appointed public characters” who are steadily stationed within the social structure of sidewalk life in the typical American city; these individuals are certainly building “a sense of trust and connection” that is appropriate to the tenth characteristic of servant leadership, that of community-building (Gaskill and Hammer, 2007, p. 575). Nevertheless, there is a paucity of studies that have analyzed the occurrence of servant leadership vis-à-vis the individual’s domiciliary context. Based on the foregoing, we offer the following hypothesis: H5: The propensity to exhibit servant leadership behaviors will be more prevalent among people residing in rural areas or in urban centers than among people residing in towns or suburban areas. 3. METHODOLOGY 3.1 Nature of the Sample In order to explore how servant leadership is related to certain demographic characteristics among people involved in church-related higher education and/or religious life, a survey was distributed to a geographically diverse sample. The survey was conducted online, using the Zoomerang survey instrument . As noted by Greenleaf (1977, p. 94), the “dynamics of [servant] leadership  the vision, the values, and the staying power  are essentially religious concerns, and fostering them should become the central mission” of churches and universities. Therefore, we selected our potential respondents from those who had participated in the life and work of the Lutheran church and/or church-related higher education during the period 2003-2008. In total, 287 respondents were invited to participate, of whom 32.7% were directly affiliated with Valparaiso University, a church-related institution of higher education. Another 39.1% were directly involved in the high-level administration of the church-wide organization for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, as volunteers, ministry professionals, executive directors, or bishops. This category was the most geographically diverse, representing 29 states in all major regions across the United States, including Alaska. The remaining 28.2% were directly associated with a Lutheran parish in Virginia.

Servant Leadership

The electronic survey generated 156 responses from the 287 invited respondents, representing a 54.3% response rate over a period of exactly 90 days. Of these 156 responses, 10 contained some degree of missing data and were eliminated from the analyses. Thus, the results reported herein are based on the 146 responses with complete data across all survey questions. 3.2 Nature of the Survey In the survey, which is available from the authors, the respondents were first asked to evaluate themselves on ten servant leadership characteristics. These characteristics included active listening, empathy, healing, self-awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth, and community-building (Spears, 2002). Respondents were asked to rank themselves on each characteristic according to a seven-point scale, identifying the degree to which the characteristic most accurately described them. The endpoint labels differed for each question and were tailored to the content of the question. The survey also contained demographic questions regarding socioeconomic status, educational level, gender, age, and domicile (or place of residence). Table 1 provides a characterization of the sample in terms of these demographic characteristics. TABLE 1: DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE Category within Demographic Variable Demographic Variable Frequency Percent

Socioeconomic Status*

1 = Lower 2 = Middle 3 = Upper

17 67 62

11.6 45.9 42.5

Educational Level

1 = Less than a baccalaureate degree 2 = Baccalaureate degree 3 = Masters degree 4 = Doctoral degree

33

22.6

44 41 28

30.1 28.1 19.2

Gender

1 = Male 2 = Female

72 74

49.3 50.7

Age**

1 = 29 years old or younger 2 = 30 to 39 years old 3 = 40 to 49 years old 4 = 50 to 59 years old 5 = 60 years old or older

37 17 33 37 22

25.3 11.6 22.6 25.3 15.1

Domicile

1 = Rural area 2 = Town 3 = Suburban area 4 = Urban center

15 35 74 22

10.3 24.0 50.7 15.1

* The original survey categories of “poverty or near poverty,” “working class,” and “lower middle class” were collapsed into “lower socioeconomic status” due to low frequency counts. The original survey categories of “upper middle class” and “affluent” were collapsed into “upper socioeconomic status” due to a low frequency count in the “affluent” category. ** The original survey categories of “19 years old or younger” and “20 to 29 years old” were collapsed into “29 years old or younger” due to a low frequency count in the “19 years old or younger” category. The original survey categories of “60 to 69 years old” and “70 years old or older” were collapsed into “60 years old or older” due to a low frequency count in the “70 years old or older” category.

Servant Leadership

In addition, the survey contained questions concerning leadership effectiveness and the respondents’ Fundamental Moral Orientation; however, these additional questions pertained to a separate but related study of servant leadership and they are not reported in this article. 3.3 Development of the Servant Leadership Composite Score A servant leadership composite score was created by averaging each individual’s responses across the ten individual servant leadership questions. Thus, composite scores can range between 1 and 7  just like on the individual questions  and higher scores signify a stronger overall servant leadership orientation. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, which measures the internal consistency reliability of a scale, was .751 for the servant leadership composite score. This alpha coefficient exceeds the recommended threshold level of .70 (Nunnally, 1978, p. 245), thereby indicating a very satisfactory level of reliability among the composite scale items. 3.4 Method of Data Analysis To address the research hypotheses, the data were analyzed with the Oneway Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) statistical procedure. However, before analyzing the data with respect to the research questions, the Levene Test was used to assess the homogeneity of variance in the dependent variable relative to the different levels of the independent variables. In the Levene test, acceptance of the null hypothesis indicates that the cell variances are statistically equivalent, whereas rejection of the null hypothesis signifies the lack of equivalency among the cell variances. The results of this test, which are shown in Table 2, indicate rejection of the null hypothesis (p < .10) for socioeconomic status and domicile, and acceptance of the null hypothesis (p > .10) for education level, gender and age. (The p < .10 level is used because of the exploratory nature of this study. Significance levels of p < .10 but p > .05 are considered to be marginally significant, whereas p < .05 is labeled significant and p < .01 is very significant.) Therefore, any post hoc probing of cell differences with respect to servant leadership for educational level and age should be conducted using the Bonferroni statistical test that assumes equal cell variances (no post hoc probing is needed for gender since it has only two categories). Post hoc probing of socioeconomic status and domicile will use the Tamhane T2 test since there are unequal cell variances. The Bonferroni test and the Tamhane T2 test are very comparable pairwise comparisons that are based on the t-test (SPSS Statistics Base 17.0 User’s Guide, 2007, pp. 317-318); hence, their usage in this study. TABLE 2: RESULTS OF THE LEVENE TEST FOR SERVANT LEADERSHIP VIS-À-VIS THE LEVEL OF THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Levene Independent Statistic Variable p-value df1 df2 Socioeconomic Status Educational Level Gender Age Domicile

3.841 0.658 0.434 1.947 2.505

2 3 1 4 3

143 142 144 141 142

.024 .579 .511 .106 .062

4. RESULTS The results of the Oneway Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests are reported in Table 3, and the graphs of cell means that correspond to each ANOVA test are shown in Figures 1 through 5. A marginally significant result exists for socioeconomic status (p < .10), significant results occur for educational level and age (p < .05), and a very significant result is present for domicile (p < .01). The finding for gender is not significant (p > .10).

Servant Leadership

TABLE 3. RESULTS OF THE ONEWAY ANOVAS FOR SERVANT LEADERSHIP Independent Variable F-Test p-value df1 df2 Socioeconomic Status Educational Level Gender Age Domicile

2.791 3.196 0.522 3.144 4.162

2 3 1 4 3

143 142 144 141 142

.065 .025 .471 .016 .007

Figure 1 shows the profile of means for servant leadership relative to socioeconomic status. Post hoc probing of differences between cell means, using the Tamhane T2 test, indicates that the propensity to exhibit servant leader behaviors is stronger (p = .047) in the middle socioeconomic status group (Mean = 5.54) than in the upper socioeconomic status group (Mean = 5.30). Further, neither of these two groups is significantly different from the lower socioeconomic status group. Thus, there is partial support for research hypothesis H1. Specifically, the propensity to exhibit servant leadership behaviors is more prevalent among individuals of moderate socioeconomic status than among people of higher socioeconomic status but not significantly different from those of lower socioeconomic status. Figure 2 presents the profile of means for servant leadership vis-à-vis the respondents’ level of educational attainment. According to the Bonferroni test, individuals holding a masters degree (Mean = 5.64) exhibit servant leadership significantly more frequently (p = .024) than those having less than a baccalaureate degree (Mean = 5.25). No other significant differences exist among the cell means. These findings provide partial support for research hypothesis H2. A higher level of educational attainment, as evidenced by a masters degree, fosters servant leadership behaviors relative to the absence of a college degree. However, more education, as evidenced by a doctorate, does not promote any further increase in servant leadership. Figure 3 provides the graph of cell means for servant leadership relative to gender. The lack of a significant difference between men and women confirms research hypothesis H3, which argues that the propensity to exhibit servant leadership behaviors will not differ between women and men. Figure 4 shows the profile of cell means for servant leadership relative to five different, sequential age categories. Use of the Bonferroni test for post hoc probing of differences between cell means demonstrates that only one significant difference exists (p = .064), which is the 60 years and older group (Mean = 5.66) relative to the 40 to 49 year old group (Mean = 5.23). Thus, partial support is provided for research hypothesis H4. The propensity to exhibit servant leadership behaviors is more prevalent among older people than among middle-aged individuals; however, younger people, as compared to either middle-aged individuals or older people, are neither significantly more or less likely to engage in servant leadership behaviors. Figure 5 presents the graph of cell means for servant leadership vis-à-vis four different domiciles. Using the Tamhane T2 test to probe differences among the four cell means, two significant differences are revealed. Residents of urban centers have a stronger propensity to exhibit servant leadership behaviors (Mean = 5.78) than either residents of suburban areas (Mean = 5.31, p = .001) or towns (Mean = 5.37, p = .029). People residing in rural areas are not significantly different from any of the other domicile groups in terms of their propensity toward servanthood. Therefore, research hypothesis H5 is only partially supported; this with respect to people residing in urban centers being more oriented toward servant leadership than are individuals residing in towns or suburban areas.

Servant Leadership

Figure 1

Figure 2

5.55 5.60

Mean of Servant Leadership

Mean of Servant Leadership

5.50

5.45

5.40

5.35

5.50

5.40

5.30

5.20

5.30 1.00

2.00

1

3.00

2

3

4

Socioeconomic Status

Education Level

Figure 3

Figure 4

5.45

Mean of Servant Leadership

Mean of Servant Leadership

5.60

5.425

5.40

5.40

5.20 1

2

1.00

Gender

Mean of Servant Leadership

5.80

5.60

5.40

2

3

Domicile

3.00

Age

Figure 5

1

2.00

4

4.00

5.00

Servant Leadership

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The results of our study indicate that the exhibition of servant leadership behaviors varies across four of five demographic characteristics, though not exactly as predicted by our hypotheses. Research hypotheses H1, H2, H4, and H5, which predict differences in servant leadership behaviors in relation to socioeconomic status, educational level, age, and domicile, respectively, are partially supported in the findings. Research hypothesis H3, which predicts no difference in the incidence of servant leadership on the basis of gender, is fully confirmed. The first research hypothesis states: the propensity to exhibit servant leadership behaviors will be more prevalent among individuals of moderate socioeconomic status than among people of either lower or higher socioeconomic status. Indeed, the propensity toward servant leadership is strongest among those of moderate socioeconomic status, yet this propensity is statistically equivalent to the lower socioeconomic status group while being significantly stronger than the higher socioeconomic status group. This finding suggests that very affluent people are less inclined to engage in servant leadership than are those who are less well-off. Perhaps the pursuit of high socioeconomic status diminishes the desire to serve others. Or perhaps achieving such status is rendered difficult if one engages in servant leadership. This raises an important question for future research: does servant leadership behavior facilitate or inhibit the accumulation of wealth and the attainment of social status; and if it does, what aspects of servant leadership contribute most to this facilitating or inhibiting process? According to the second research hypothesis, the propensity to exhibit servant leadership behaviors will be more prevalent among individuals with a higher level of educational attainment. The propensity toward servant leadership is strongest among respondents holding a masters degree, particularly in relation to those having less than a baccalaureate degree. Education appears to facilitate the exhibition of servant leadership behavior, but not in a sequential, linear fashion. Apparently, education helps sensitize people to their roles in the community and their responsibilities to other members of the community, which in turn may foster servant leader behaviors. According to the third research hypothesis, the propensity to exhibit servant leadership behaviors will not differ between women and men. The results confirm this hypothesis. One gender is no more likely than the other gender to engage in servant leadership behaviors — at least within this sample. Even those servant leader behaviors that are more feminine in nature (or conversely, more masculine in nature) appear to be equally embraced by both genders. The fourth research hypothesis states: the propensity to exhibit servant leadership behaviors will be more prevalent among either younger or older people than among middle-aged individuals. The results show that the oldest age group (i.e., 60 years and older) exhibits servant leadership behaviors significantly more often than does one of the middle-age groups (i.e., 40 to 49 years old). Perhaps those who are in their “golden years” have a stronger motivation to give back to their communities through servant leadership. Or their many years of experience may have taught them that leading by focusing on and serving followers does indeed work. Or those in the top age category may be more likely to be in significant leadership positions where servant leadership behavior can be more frequently and more effectively exhibited. The fifth research hypothesis posits that: the propensity to exhibit servant leadership behaviors will be more prevalent among people residing in rural areas or in urban centers than among people residing in towns or suburban areas. Our results show that residents of urban centers exhibit servant leadership behaviors to a greater extent than residents of towns or suburban areas. Perhaps smaller communities, such as towns or suburban areas, present fewer opportunities to engage in servant leadership than do large urban centers. Quite simply, with many more people to be served in large urban centers, the opportunities to serve increase — perhaps exponentially. Moreover, given the nature of our sample the opportunities to engage in servant leadership with respect to the poor and downtrodden may be significantly more evident in urban centers. While this study offers several contributions to the study of servant leadership, as it relates to

Servant Leadership

demographic variables, it is not without certain limitations. One important limitation of the present study is that the sample represents people who are connected with churches or church-related higher education. This sample was selected, in part, because of the respondents’ presumed sensitivity to servant leadership ideas. But the downside of this sample selection decision is the higher likelihood of a restricted range of responses on the servant leadership questions. Indeed, the responses tend to cluster in a fairly narrow range at the top end of the various servant leadership scales. Another related limitation is that the organizations included in this study are definitively Christian religious institutions or Christianrelated institutions of higher education; consequently, the findings may be biased according to religious preferences. Also, any bias may be accentuated because the respondents represent Lutheran churches and Lutheran-affiliated institutions of higher education rather than a broader swath of Christian denominations. Given variations in doctrine and practice among the various Christian denominations, we must exercise caution regarding any conclusions about the connection between demographics and servant leadership among Christians in general. Moreover, this study is limited with respect to representation of non-Christian religions and non-religious organizations. Clearly, this restricted sample hampers the external validity of the study, and the findings should be investigated relative to other environments, such as non-religiously affiliated higher education, non-religiously affiliated charitable organizations, different governmental agencies, or businesses in a variety of industries. In conclusion, even though our study has some limitations, it contributes to the growing literature on the nature, dynamics, and implications of servant leadership by exploring the impact that demographic characteristics have on the exhibition of servant leadership behaviors. Our results indicate that socioeconomic status, level of educational attainment, age, and domicile, but not gender, are related to the propensity toward engaging in servant leadership behaviors. Although the results do not correspond completely to the predictions of the hypotheses, the evidence nonetheless indicates that certain demographic characteristics do co-vary with servant leadership behaviors. 6. REFERENCES Covey, S., “Foreword”, In: R.K. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness, Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ, 1977, 6. Dannhauser, Z., and Boshoff, A., “The Relationships between Servant Leadership, Trust, Team Commitment and Demographic Variables”, Servant Leadership Roundtable, 2005, Regent University School of Leadership Studies, http://www.regent.edu/acad/sis/publications/conference_ proceedings/servant_leadership_roundtable/2006/pdf/dannhauser_boshoff.pdf (accessed February 15, 2008). Finch, K.P., "The Image of God, Servant-Leadership and Forgiveness", The International Journal of Servant Leadership, 2007, 203-205. Gaskill, F.J., and Hamer, M.A., “Servant-Leadership: A New Appreciation for the Embedded Enduring Concepts of Management in the Approach”, American Society of Business and Behavioral Sciences Proceedings 2007, Vol. 14 (1), 2007, 573-577. Greenleaf, R.K., Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness, Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ, 1977. Greenleaf, R.K., The Servant as Leader, The Robert K. Greenleaf Center, Westfield, IN, 1991. Jacobs, J., The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Vintage Books, Random House, New York, NY, 1961. Irving, J.A., and Longbotham, G.J., “Leading Effective Teams through Servant Leadership: An Expanded Regression Model of Essential Servant Leadership Themes”, American Society of Business and Behavioral Sciences Proceedings 2007, Vol. 14 (1), 2007, 806-817. Laub, J., “From Paternalism to the Servant Organization: Expanding the Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) Model”, Servant Leadership Roundtable, 2003, Regent University School of Leadership Studies, http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2003/laub_from_ paternalism.pdf (accessed February 15, 2008). nd Nunnally, J.C., Psychometric Theory (2 ed.), McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1978. Parolini, J.L., “Investigating the Relationships Among Emotional Intelligence, Servant Leadership Behaviors and Servant Leadership Culture”, Servant Leadership Roundtable, 2005, Regent

Servant Leadership

University School of Leadership Studies, http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/ publications/sl_ proceedings/2005/parolini_invest.pdf (accessed February 15, 2008). Patterson, K., “Servant Leadership: A Theoretical Model”, Servant Leadership Roundtable, 2003, Regent University School of Leadership Studies, http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/ publications/sl_ proceedings/2003/patterson_servant_leadership.pdf (accessed February 15, 2008). Spears, L.C. "On Character and Servant Leadership: Ten Characteristics of Effective, Caring Leaders", The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, 2002, http://www.greenleaf.org/ leadership/read-aboutit/articles/On-Character-and-Servant-Leadership-Ten-Characteristics.com (accessed February 1, 2008). Spears, L., “Servant Leadership: Towards a New Era of Caring”, In: J. Renesch (Ed.), Leadership in a New Era, Visionary Approaches to the Biggest Crises of Our Time, Cosimo, Inc., New York, NY, 2002. SPSS Statistics Base 17.0 User’s Guide, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, 2007. AUTHOR PROFILES Dr. Michael K. McCuddy earned his Ph.D. at Purdue University in 1977. He holds The Louis S. and Mary L. Morgal Chair of Christian Business Ethics and is a Professor of Management at Valparaiso University. He is a member of the editorial board for the Educational Innovation in Business and Economics book series. He is actively involved in a variety of research projects on ethical issues and educational innovation. Mr. Matthew C. Cavin earned a B.S. in Business Administration and a B.A. in Economics and Individualized Studies at Valparaiso University in 2008. A former VU Student Body President, ELCA Lutheran Youth Organization Board member, and James S. Kemper Foundation Scholar, he is interested in servant leadership relative to the Lutheran Church and church-related higher education. He is a Sales Consultant with EMSystems.