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 of the 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.

®

UMIUMI 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


SERVANT-LEADERSHIP AND JOB SATISFACTION: A CORRELATIONAL

STUDY IN TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY REGION X PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Approved:

Adviser

Dean ofthe College

Jean of Graduate Studies and Research


Copyright © 2004

Larry D. Miears

iii

Reproduced with permission o fthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

ABSTRACT

SERVANT-LEADERSHIP AND JOB SATISFACTION: A CORRELATIONALSTUDY IN TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY REGION X PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Larry D. Miears, Ed. D.Texas A&M University - Commerce, 2004

Adviser: Edward Seifert, Ed. D.

Purpose: The purpose of this 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 of job 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 of job

satisfaction felt by the teaching professionals within a public school organization. A

random sample of teaching 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 of the 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 their job. 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 of the 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 of this 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 of Problem 4

Purpose of Study 6

Research Question 7

Significance of the Study 7

Definition of Terms 8

Limitations of the Study 9

Delimitations of the Study 10

Assumption of the Study 10

Organization of Remaining Chapters 10

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 12

Categories of Leadership 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 of Leadership 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 of Methodology 78

Summary of Findings 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 of Respondents by Gender 57

3. Number of Respondents by Certification 58

4. Number of Respondents by Years of Teaching Experience 58

5. Number of Respondents by Years in Current District 59

6. Number of Respondents 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 the Servant Organization Model 44

3. Comparison of Participant Agreement by Survey Construct 62

xi


Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Typically people define leadership in terms of position. 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 of those who have the capacity to lead yet

hold no formal leadership position. The difficulty in defining leadership is one of three

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 of the 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 of the dominator, the power to lead depends on the ability to compel obedience,

while in the case of the 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 of authority was legitimized through rules, laws and administrative

regulations. However, as the basic needs of the 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 of this servant-leader was the

questions that Greenleaf asked: 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 of Jesus. 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 of Jesus, 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 of the 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 of Man 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 School Run (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 of viewpoints, 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 of the 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 of their 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 of the OLA were

developed. Laub added six survey items to the OLA to measure job 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 of the relevant

literature. Research conducted by Thompson (2002) indicates that the job satisfaction

portion of the OLA has validity for use as a measurement for job 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 of the 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 of teachers

(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 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 they work under (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 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’s job 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 and job satisfaction in Educational

Service Center Region X public schools.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this 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 of the 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 of job 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 of the 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 of teaching experience of the respondent account for any significant

difference in responses given?

6. Do years of teaching in a particular school district account for any significant


7. Does school size account for any significant difference in responses given?

Significance of the Study

If the 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 of this 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 of this 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 of the 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 of the 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 relief that the state assessment test was completed. The

choice to conduct the study at the end of the school year was made in the hope that a

broader base of participants 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 of job satisfaction felt.

Delimitations of the Study

1. This research was limited to school districts the Educational Service Center Region X

of Texas. 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 staff personnel

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 of the Remainder of the Study

A review of the literature relevant to the discussion of servant-leadership and job

satisfaction is found in Chapter 2 of the 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 of the research will be presented in Chapter 4. Brief explanations of the

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 of Leadership

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 of what 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, of the

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 of Rost. 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 of the 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 Greenleaf asked: are those being served

becoming healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, and more likely to become servant-

leader s themselves?

An example of these 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 if this 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. In job 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

Positional Power: 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 of personal 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 of the 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 of people 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 belief that (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 of purpose and should have only one master to be

accountable to. The efficiency of an organization was said to be increased by

specialization of task, 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 of the 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 of thinking believed that any means of control at

the disposal of the 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 of this type does lead to

mismanagement and abuse of people (1997).

Personal Power: The Natural Leader

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 of the 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 of the enterprise in the interest of economic ends; (b) people only

become lazy as a result of negative 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 of this 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 of today, 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 of persuasion lies in the ability to

come to a consensus even if the one doing the persuading has to change.

Blended Power: 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 of being

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. Greenleaf points 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 of teachers 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 staff to “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 of the 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 of a 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 of Herzberg to insure as best he can

that his employees are having their needs met and are finding job 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 staff but 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 of viewpoints, 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 of those 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the individual (Bass, 1998) in

order to gain a following.

It is clear that leadership style must change as the basic needs of the 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 of the relevant literature from some of the 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 of the 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 of the leader. While understanding the value of the “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 of practice that the leader develops through

personal reflection over a period of time. The union of the 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 managerial mystique (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 of the leader. Moral authority is derived from widely shared community values,

ideas, and ideals (1992). The building of this 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 of today 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 of community 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 behalf of 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 of having explicit rules, linked with stated consequences, should be

replaced by developing covenants. Thinking of the 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 of the 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 of purposes 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 chief learners 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 brief description 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 of the 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 of guilt.

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

of what 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

of this 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the disciplines and also the

foundation of Senge’s work. A full explanation is not a possibility in the

context of this 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 of traditional 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 of the

leader as designer is closely related to the work of Bolman 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” of the organization (1990, p. 344). The leader as

steward metaphor portrays the leader as the keeper of the 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

of behavior, systemic structures and the purposes of the organization (Senge. 1990). The

role of the 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 f Change (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 of the 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 of his 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 of Virginia. He wrote Servant as

Leader as the first of four essays on the role of servant in 1970. Greenleaf was 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. Greenleaf Center, 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 of the Robert K. Greenleaf Center, 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 belief that 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 of the 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 seme fo r the unknowable and be able to foresee the

unforeseeable” (Greenleaf, 1970, p. 14). This intuition helps the leaders get a feel for

patterns of behavior and develop foresight. Such intuition requires keen awareness and

perception of the 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.

Greenleaf put 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. Greenleaf was among the first modem authors to decry the loss of

community. “The school, on which we pinned so much of our hopes for a better society,

has become too much a social-upgrading mechanism that destroys community” (1970, p.

28). He believed that the needs of people could not be satisfied apart from community.

This loss of community can be regained in part by institutions that change their approach

to people. Greenleaf argues 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 belief or 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 of justice 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 of the servant-leader. These characteristics and a brief explanation

of their 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 of the group” (Spears, 2002, p. 5). When listening skill is

coupled with reflection, it is essential to the growth of the 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 of broken 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. Greenleaf believed 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 of the future. School Boards should be conceptual in their

orientation and leave the every day matters to the staff best 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 of holding 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 of their 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). Greenleaf suggested 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 of Leadership

Leadership is significant in many regards. Just as children’s behaviors and

attitudes are often a reflection of the parents, the climate and values of a school are often

the reflection of the leader (Goldman, 1998). The deeply held values and beliefs of the

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 of the 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 of teacher job satisfaction. Leadership style

has a direct bearing not only on climate but also on teacher job 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 of job 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. Of this

groups 29% indicated that the lack of job 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 of the literature reveals that leadership studies are difficult and are not

an exact science. In all probability no pure leadership style exists. Many of the 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 of the workforce. As basic needs are met, higher-order needs are sought

and leadership must change or face the loss of their following.


38

The literature teaches that a clear link exists between leadership style and teacher

job satisfaction. Literature and empirical studies also teach that job satisfaction is linked

to teacher retention.


Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

Leadership attributes and styles have been studied over a long period of time, yet

leadership styles are hard to observe because of the 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 of job 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 of the 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.

Target population. 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

Teaching Professionals

Fifteen Selected High Schools

All Teachers in the State of Texas

Stratified random selection of units.

Selected high schools were randomly selected with five high schools coming from each of three subgroups.

^ General group ofinterest

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 of this research; therefore, an accessible

population needed to be identified.

Accessible population. The Texas Legislature established twenty regional

education service centers in 1967. The teachers in one of the twenty service centers,

Region X, constitute an accessible population for the purpose of this 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 o f2002, 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 of teaching

professionals in the region, the population for the study was still an unmanageable size.

For this reason, a random sample of teachers 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 1 included high schools with an enrollment of over 1900 students.

Group 2 included high schools with an enrollment o f900 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 of the three subgroups to make up the population for this

study. Again using the 2001 - 2002 AEIS Report, the total number of teaching


43

professionals in each of the 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 . . .... an understanding and practice of leadership that places the good of those led over die self-interest of the leader. Servant-leadership promotes the valuing and development of people, the building of community, die practice of authenticity, the providing of leadership for the good of those led and the sharing of power and status for the common good of each individual, die total organization and those served by die organization._____________________________________________________________

Values People • By believing in people• By serving other’s needs before his or her own• By receptive, non-judgmental listening

Develops People• By providing opportunities for learning and growth• By modeling appropriate behavior• By building up others through encouragement and affirmation

Builds Community• By building strong personal relationships• By working collaboratively with others• By valuing the differences of others

Displays Authenticity• By being open and accountable to others• By a willingness to learn from others• By maintaining integrity and trust

Provides Leadership• By envisioning the future• By taking initiative• By clarifying goals

Shares Leadership• By facilitating a shared vision• By sharing power and releasing control• By sharing status and promoting others

The Servant-organization is ... 1... an organization in which the characteristics of servant leadership are displayed through the 1

organizational culture and are valued and practiced by the leadership and workforce. 1

Figure 2: Servant-leadership and the servant organization model (Laub, 1999)

Laub’s understanding of the relevant literature. Research conducted by Thompson (2002)

indicates that the job satisfaction portion o f the OLA has validity for use as a

measurement for job 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 of job 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 of the 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 of the OLA. The OLA is divided into three

sections assessing the organization as a whole, the leadership of the organization, and

both the organization and leadership from the perspective of the teacher’s personal

experience. The reliability of the 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 of the 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 of total teaching experience, years of teaching

experience in the teacher’s current district, and school size.

Web Site Design

The strength of using 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 of respondents. 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 chief weaknesses (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 of the respondents. The emphasis of teaching and using computer

technology in public schools over the last several years minimizes each of these concerns.

Nevertheless, it is incumbent on any researcher to consider each of these 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 of the survey.

9. Use graphic symbols or words that convey a sense of where the respondent is

in the completion process.

Research Data Collection and Analysis

Each of the 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).

Of the original 307 e-mails sent, 14 were returned as undeliverable. Upon

examination of the 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 of this 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 of these 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 of giving 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 of the study. The second e-mail

gave more details of the 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 o f the 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 of this 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 of the 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 of whether 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 of the 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 of the 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 teacher job 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.

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 of the 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 r2 or 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-way ANOVA

When the researcher wishes to know if there 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 of interest 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 of the critical value found in the table. When the F statistic is

not in the range of the 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 if there 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 of teachers (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 of the 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 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. 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 of the possibility that this type of leadership can nurture

teachers, increase teacher’s job 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 of the findings.

Descriptive Statistics

A total of 165 teaching professionals completed the OLA on-line survey. Five

demographic questions were asked of the respondents to better understand the findings of

the study. Of those responding, approximately 65% were female and 35% were male as

shown in Table 2. A large majority of the respondents were certified teachers as indicated

in Table 3. Both of these distributions in the sample are not unexpected given the

population of teaching professionals from which the sample was pulled.

Table 2

Number o f Respondents by Gender

Gender N Percentage

Male 57 34.5

Female 108 65.5


58

Table 3

Number o f Respondents by Certification

Valid teaching certificate N Percentage

Yes 152 92.1

No 13 7.9

Tables 4 and 5 indicate the total years of teaching experience of respondents and

the number of years the respondents had been in their current districts respectively.

Interestingly, 67% of the respondents had five or more years of teaching experience yet

approximately 50% of the respondents indicated being in their current district less than

five years. This seems to indicate a fairly high turnover of teachers in Region X public

school districts. More research would be needed to assess the reason for this

phenomenon.

Table 4

Number o f Respondents by Years o f Teaching Experience

Years N Percentage

1 to 4 43 26.1

5 to 10 47 28.5

Over 10 75 45.5


59

Table 5

Number o f Respondents by Years in Current District

Years N Percentage

1 to 4 82 49.7

5 to 10 46 27.9

Over 10 37 22.4

The last demographic question dealt with the size of the high school where the

respondents were employed. As indicated in Table 6, Group 1 had the largest number of

respondents representing approximately 44% of the 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% of the respondents

were from Group 2 high schools, and Group 3 accounted for about 16% of the

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 f Respondents by School Size

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 of the

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 of the 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 of gender 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% of teachers nationally and by 1999-

2000 male teachers accounted for 25 .1% of the 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 of this 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 of the OLA. A mean score M = 24.96

was recorded. When compared to the mean scores of the six constructs of servant-

leadership the mean score of Job 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 of Job Satisfaction represent and average of about 83% of the maximum

score possible, which makes this portion of the 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 o f M= 4.30 was item 62: “I feel good about my


62

9 iM9J

100

90

80

70

£o£sa.1sS

60

50

hwth

40

30

20

10

Values Develops Builds Displays Provides Shares Job People People Community Authenticity Leadership Leadership Satisfaction

Figure 3. Comparison of Participant 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/staff ahead of their 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 of Develops People was addressed in the OLA with 9 items and

could have yielded a maximum score of 45 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 of the Builds Community construct was M = 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 of Displays

Authenticity. More items were designated to address this construct because of the results

of the 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

of Provides 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 if they may fail.” The mean score for Provides Leadership was, M =

31.72.


65

The construct of Shares Leadership had a mean of M= 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/staff to make important decisions.”

The responses concerning servant-leadership were somewhat confusing in that

some of the 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 of the 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 f Servant-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 of the 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 Scores fo 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 of the 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 Scores fo r the OLA Using the Split-halves Model

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-Half coefficient .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 higher job 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: **. Correlation is significant at the 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

and job satisfaction. According to the eta2 statistic, approximately 87% of the changes in

job satisfaction scores were accounted for by changes in servant-leadership scores. The

coefficient of determination indicated that about 52% of the changes in job 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 of the relationship between servant-leadership

and job 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 of this 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 of job satisfaction among the six independent variables. It is important

to note that while servant-leadership was a predictor of job 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 of job

satisfaction increased.


70

Question 3

Question. Does gender of the 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 of the

ANOVA test was supported. Table 12 gives the mean and standard deviation for each

category.

Table 12

OLA Means and Standard Deviation 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 of the ANOVA test was supported.

Table 13 gives the mean and standard deviation for each category.

Table 13

OLA Means and Standard Deviation 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 of teaching experience of the 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 of the ANOVA test was supported. Table 14 gives the mean and

standard deviation for each category.

Table 14

OLA Means and Standard Deviation by Years o f Teaching Experience

Years N M SD

1 to 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 of teaching 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 of teaching in a particular school district did not account for any

significant difference in responses given. The null hypothesis of the ANOVA test was

supported. Table 15 gives the mean and standard deviation for each category.

Table 15

OLA Means and Standard Deviation by Years in Current District

Years N M SD

1 to 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

of the t-test, like the ANOVA test for variance, states that there is no significant

difference in mean scores. Results of the 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 of the independent sample t-test was supported. A significant difference in

mean OLA scores, t = 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,/?< 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 1 or 2. Table 16 gives the mean and standard deviation for each category.


75

Table 16

OLA Means and Standard Deviation by School Size

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 o f job 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 of these findings is found in the next chapter. Chapter five will also

include a brief summary of the problem, purpose and methodology of this 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 of this chapter is to facilitate an understanding by the reader of this

study and its findings. Presented first is a restatement of the problems that this study

identifies and the purposes the research followed by a review of the methodology. The

majority of this chapter deals with the summary and discussion of the 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 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 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 of public

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 of teachers (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 of the 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’s job satisfaction, and decrease teacher attrition. However more

empirical research needs to be conducted in order to establish such a link.






78



Review of Methodology

A correlational study was conducted using two variables of interest: the level of

servant-leadership present in a public school organization and the level of job 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 o f900 to 1899 students. Group 3

included high schools with an enrollment under 899 students. Five high schools were

randomly selected from each of the 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). Of the 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 1 had the largest number of respondents

representing approximately 44% of the 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% of the 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 of the first to

utilize the educational version of the 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 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 teacher job 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 if there 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 of Findings

Question I

Question. Can the internal reliability of the Organizational Leadership

Assessment - Educational Version (Laub, 1999) be clearly documented?

Finding. Internal reliability of the 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-half measures 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the

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 of the 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 of teaching 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 of teaching in a particular school district did not account for any

significant difference in responses given. The null hypothesis of the 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

of the t-test, like the ANOVA test for variance, is that there is no significant difference in


83

mean scores. Results of the t-tests revealed that no significant difference in the mean

OLA scores, t = -386,/?>05, was observed between Groups 1 and 2. The null hypothesis

of the 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 1 or 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 of the possible responses to any conclusion and a sense of trepidation,

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 of this 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 of job satisfaction felt by members of the 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 of the level of job

satisfaction felt. The data indicated a strong positive correlation between servant-

leadership and job satisfaction across the spectrum of the sample population. The higher

the level of servant-leadership perceived by the participant, the higher the level of job

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 1 or 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 of Region X; yet almost one-half of 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 of over 1900 students, Group 1 in 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 of the other groups.

According to Theobald (1997) many in large organizations feel impotent and powerless

to effect change, making the building of trust 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 of building 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 of teachers

should be a priority in the high-stakes testing environment of today. 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 their jobs when servant-leadership is present. Literature teaches that

when teachers are satisfied with their jobs 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 staff to the fullest

potential. This would include developing teachers into servant-leaders of the students.

When teachers, as servant-leaders, have the best interest of the 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 of the OLA rendered the same strong internal

reliability as the original version developed by Laub in 1999. This study also agreed with

the finding of Laub 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

and job satisfaction in Region X public schools this study added to a growing body of

knowledge concerning servant-leadership. The findings of this study agreed with similar

studies done by Hope (1999) and Ingersoll (2001) thereby adding to the evidence that

leadership style effects teacher job satisfaction.

Recommendations fo r Educators

This study revealed a need for more awareness and training in the area of


87

servant-leadership. The recommendations, based on the findings of this 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 of their role as servant-1 eader 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 of their teaching staff.

4. Educational Service Centers throughout Texas should follow the lead of

Region X in terms of offering staff development in the area of servant-

leadership.

5. Educational service centers that offer staff development 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.

Recommendations fo r Further Research

The findings of this 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 if the gender of the 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 if the ethnicity of the participant

determines the level of servant-leadership perceived in the organization.


REFERENCES

Anderson, T., & Kanuka, H. (2002). E-Research: Methods, strategies, ami issues.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Babbie, E. (1995). The practice o f social research (3rd ed). Belmont, California:

Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Barth, R. S. (1980). Run school run. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University

Press.

Baughman, K. S. (1996). Increasing teacher job satisfaction: A study of the changing role

of the secondary principal. American Secondary Education, 24(3), 19-22.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: 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 natural laws o f leadership. New York: AMA Company.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research fo r education: An

introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). 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 ail and internet surveys: The tailored design method New

York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Ebmeier, H., & Nicklaus, J. (1999, Summer). The impact of peer and principal

collaborative supervision on teacher's trust, commitment, desire for collaboration,

and efficacy. Journal o f Curriculum 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. Educational Leadership,

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: The private writings o f Robert K. 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 f Public Administration (pp. 81-88). New York: Harcourt Brace

College Publishers. (Reprinted from Papers on the Science o f Administration, 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 Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534.

Ingersoll, R. M. & Thomas, M. S. (2003, May). The wrong solution to the teacher

shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30-33.

Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 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/T aichi/taoism. html

Maslow, A. H. (1997). A theory of human motivation. In J. M. Shafritz & A. C. Hyde

(Eds.), Classics o f Public Administration (pp. 114-121). New York: Harcourt

Brace College Publishers. (Reprinted from Psychological Review, 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.


http://www.chebucto

McGregor, D. M. (1997). The human side of enterprise. In J. M. Shafiitz & A. C. Hyde


Brace College Publishers. (Reprinted from Management Review, November 1957)

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.

San Francisco. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Morgan, G. (1997). Images o f organization (New ed). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage

Publications.

New American standard Bible: 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). Leadership fo r 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 and practice o f the 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). M oral leadership: Getting to the heart o f school 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 reflective practice perspective (3rd ed ).

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1996). Leadership basics for principals and their staff. The

Educational Forum, 60, 267-270.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1996). Leadership fo r the schoolhouse. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Publishers.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1999, September). Refocusing leadership to build community. High

School Magazine, 7(1), 10-15.

Sheehan, K. (2001). E-mail survey response rates. A review. Journal o f Computer-

M ediated Communication, 6(2). Retrieved November 15, 2003, from

http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6 /issue2 /sheehan.html

Shelton, K. (1997). A new paradigm o f leadership: Visions o f excellence fo 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. Educational Horizons, 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)


http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue2/sheehan.html

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 f Staff

Development, 22(3), 42-47.

Spears, L. C. (1995). How Robert K. Greenleaf s theory o f servant-leadership influenced

today’s top management thinkers. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Spears, L. C. (2002). Focus on leadership: Servant leadership fo r 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 f the 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 renewal o 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


http://www.tea.state.tx.us/research/pdfs/prr4.pdfrbcml

95

Trochim, W. (2002). Theory of reliability. In Research Methods 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 f Public 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. Values People

Item # Item1 Trust each other4 Respect each other9 Are caring & compassionate towards each other15 Are aware of the needs of others19 Accept people as they are52 Are receptive listeners54 Put the needs of the teachers/staff ahead of their own55 I feel appreciated by my principal for what I contribute57 I am listened to by those above me in the organization63 I am respected by those above me in the school

2. Develops People

Item # Item2 0 View conflict as an opportunity to learn & grow31 Create an environment that encourages learning37 Practice the same behavior they expect from others40 Lead by example by modeling appropriate behavior42 Provide opportunities for all teachers/staff to develop to their frill potential44 Use their power and authority to benefit the teacher/staff46 Build people up through encouragement and affirmation50 Provide mentor relationships in order to help people grow professionally59 I receive encouragement and affirmation from those above me in the school


98

3. Builds Community

Item # Item7 Work well together in teams8 Value differences in culture, race & ethnicity

1 2 Relate well to each other13 Attempt to work with others more than working on their own16 Allow for individuality of style and expression18 Work to maintain positive working relationships2 1 Know how to get along with people25 Work alongside the teachers/staff instead of separate from them38 Facilitate the building of community & team collaboration47 Encourage teachers/staff to work together rather than competing against each

other

4, Displays Authenticity

Item # Item3 Are non-judgmental - they keep an open mind6 Maintain high ethical standards1 0 Demonstrate high integrity & honesty1 1 Are trustworthy23 Are open to learning from those who are below them in the organization28 Promote open communication and sharing of inffomation32 Are open to receiving criticism & challenge from others33 Say what they mean, and mean what they say35 Admit personal limitations & mistakes43 Honestly evaluate themselves before seeking to evaluate others51 Are accountable & responsible to others61 I trust the leadership of this school


99

S. Provides Leadership 1

Item # Item2 Are clear on the key goals of the organization5 Know where this organization is headed in the future14 Are held accountable for reaching work goals2 2 Communicate a clear vision of the future of the school27 Don't hesitate to provide the leadership that is needed30 Provide the support and resources needed to help teachers/staff meet their

goals36 Encourage people to take risks even if they may fail45 Take appropriate action when it is needed49 Communicate clear plans & goals for the school

6. Shares Leadership

Item # Item17 Are encouraged by supervisors to share in making important decisions24 Allow teachers/staff to help determine where this school is headed26 Use persuasion to influence others instead of coercion or force29 Empower teachers/staff to make important decisions34 Encourage each person to exercise leadership39 Do not demand special recognition for being leaders41 Seek to influence others from a positive relationship rather thatn from the

authority of their position48 Are humble - they do not promote themselves53 Do not seek after special status or the "perks" of leadership65 In this school, a person's work is valued more than their title


100

II. Survey items measuring job satisfaction

lab Satisfaction

Item # Item56 I am working at a high level of productivity58 I feel good about my contribution to the school60 My job is important to the success of this school62 I enjoy working in this school64 I am able to be creative in my job6 6 I am able to use my best gifts and abilities in my job


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 5StronglyDisagree 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 51 Trust each other

2 Are clear on the key goals of the 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 of the needs of others

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 relationships19 Accept people as they are20 View conflict as an opportunity to learn & grow


103

21 Know how to get along with people



Agree

Section 2

In this next section, please respond to each statement as you believe it applies to the leadership of the 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 of die future of the school

23 Are open to learning from those who are below them in the organization

24 Allow teachers/staff to help determine where this school is headed

25 Work alongside the teachers/staff instead 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/staff to make important decisions

30 Provide the support and resources needed to help teachers/staff meet their goals

31 Create an environment that encourages learning

32 Are open to receiving criticism & challenge from others33 Say what they mean, and mean what they say

34 Encourage each person to exercise leadership35 Admit personal limitations & mistakes

36 Encourage people to take risks even if they 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 behavior4 j Seek to influence others from a positive relationship

rather than from the authority of their position4 9 Provide opportunities for all teachers/staff to develop to

their frill potentialHonestly evaluate themselves before seeking to evaluate others

4 4 Use their power and authority to benefit the teachers/staff

45 Take appropriate action when it is needed4 6 Build people up through encouragement and

affirmation4 9 Encourage teachers/staff to work together rather than

competing against each other48 Are humble - they do not promote themselves

49 Communicate clear plans & goals for the school^ Provide mentor relationships in order to help people

grow professionally51 Are accountable & responsible to others

52 Are receptive listenersDo not seek after special status or the “perks” of leadership

54 Put the needs of the teachers/staff ahead of their own



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 4 555 I feel appreciated by my principal for what I contribute

56 I am working at a high level of productivity

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 My job is important to the success of this school

61 I trust the leadership of this 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 my job

65 In this school, a person’s work is valued more than their

6 6I am able to use my best gifis and abilities in my job

© James Alan Laub, 1999 (used by 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_____ 3 A___

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 brief survey, 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 MiearsDoctoral CandidateTexas 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 teacher job 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 of the survey, and you will need to answer all questions before submitting the survey. I encourage you to make a copy of this 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 of the 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) 886-5161.1 thank you for your participation in this very important research

Your pin number: ____

Link to the survey: http://www.olasurvev.org


http://www.olasurvev.org

109


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 of the survey.






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.






I l l

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.



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 of Education degree

with a major in Educational Administration in May 2004. He married Marilyn Kay

Weaver of Durant, Oklahoma on December 21, 1973. They have three children and three

grandchildren: Brian Keith, bom in 1976 and married to Amy Michele Bench in 1998,

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 of Madison

Cary Noller.

Permanent address: 4023 Western Circle Greenville, TX 75401

112


2004 dissertation-servant-leadership and job satisfaction

Documents

public school organization

level of servant

abstract servantleadership

correlational study

graduate school of texas

level ofjob satisfaction

leadership present

purpose ofthis study