the new frontier of servant leadership

http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2007/spencer.pdf

The New Frontier of Servant Leadership Servant Leadership Research Roundtable – July 2007

J. Louis Spencer

Regent University

This conceptual article identifies the importance of commitment and emotional intelligence

as modifications to the seven-variable original Patterson (2003) model of servant leadership

that was extended by Winston (2003) as a circular model of interaction, and then further

extended by Cerff and Winston (2006) to include hope as part of a virtuous construct. A

reconfiguration of the leader side of Patterson’s (2003) model is advanced after an

integrative consideration of current streams of Servant Leadership research and the traits

they espouse. This hybrid model includes leader commitment and emotional intelligence as

distinct characteristics of the theory. The leader’s agapao love, mediated by humility and

altruism, affects leader commitment which is informed by vision and hope. Commitment

borne from vision and hope results in empowerment which is mediated by trust and

emotional intelligence, and results in service to the follower. The hybrid model provides

essentially a four-sectioned design that reflects recent and extant research on the subject

and may support empirical analysis that yields reliable quantitative assessment and furthers

the useful ness of the theory.

The New Frontier of Servant Leadership

The world is experiencing technological and sociological changes with increasing rapidity and

so are the organizations within it. Compounding issues of increased competition, political insecurity,

and a turbulent virtual global environment create an unpredictable business climate for both leaders

and followers (Longbotham & Longbotham, 2006; Yukl, 2006). Fueled by an online network that

advances at the speed of blur, organizational relationships have been swept into a milieu of

multiplying forms of empowerment expressed through fingers on a keypad. The new sociological

http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2007/spencer.pdf

2 The New Frontier of Servant Leadership – Spencer, J. Louis

reality is evidence of a new frontier that global leadership and entrepreneurship theory and practice

must address in order to harness its benefits.

In this new frontier of leadership there is less hierarchy in organizational structures coupled

with greater emphasis on follower empowerment. As Brafman and Beckstrom (2006) posit, emerging

leadership models in this hi-tech society feature more of a decentralized structure with a shared

intelligence. Followers have a greater resemblance to leaders and vice versa. Companies entrenched

in traditional hierarchical forms of leadership that confine power to a top-down functionality wrongly

ignore the contemporary emergence of a network of savvy followers whose access to information is

nearly limitless and whose expectations to have a voice in organizational authority steadily

crescendos.

Furthermore, the new frontier for leadership provides the matrix from which manifests

groundbreaking and innovative theories like Servant Leadership (SL)—a model that transforms and

propels entrepreneurial functionality by prioritizing goals and needs of followers over the goals and

needs of the organization (Greenleaf, 1977; Spears, 2004, 2005). After all, followers are the

organization. In SL, organizational vision incorporates the vision espoused by followers. The followers’

goals and needs therefore are expressed by the leader’s goals and needs. The leader and organization

succeeds because followers succeed.

A Road Map for Servant Leadership

SL was introduced by Robert K. Greenleaf (1977), the former Director of Management

Research at AT&T (Frick, 2004), who was inspired by a Hermann Hesse novel describing a mythical

journey of humility and sacrifice embodied in a humble sojourning servant named Leo (Hesse, 1956).

The nature and etymology of the word “servant” implies an approach to management, business and

organizational functionality that is abundant with concepts that support the moral and ethical

empowerment of others (Boyum, 2006). The word servant also implies the way in which things get

done, and in an organizational context this implies an invaluable, albeit unconventional and

paradoxical embracing of a dyadic leader-follower construct that looks more like an inverted pyramid

of power (Brumback, 1999; Spears, 2004; Yukl, 2006). The central mantra that Greenleaf’s (2004)

explanation of SL espouses is that the most important ingredient to becoming a great leader is to first

of all become a great servant.

Servent Leadership Round Table – July 2007 3

Published by the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University

Attributes: The Signposts of Servant Leadership

Greenleaf’s (1977) initial work influenced the observation, generation, and development of

notable sets of attributes that describe the qualities of a servant leader. Greenleaf himself referenced

numerous attributes—as many as 20—but did not publish a defining set (Russell & Stone, 2002). For

Greenleaf (Dittmar, 2006), SL attributes relate to how people learn, thus his descriptions of SL were

more conceptually oriented and were attuned to people who could make intuitive leaps.

Chart 1 summarizes the several groups of characteristics that have been attributed to SL and

were specifically identified beginning with the writings of Larry Spears (1996), who inherited

Greenleaf’s position at the Greenleaf Center. Spears’ (1996, 2004, 2005) presented a standard group

of characteristics that focused more on practical applicability of SL—and the one most popularized

initially. Those 10 traits continue to meet with the most recognized and widespread acceptance

(Russell, 2001; Crippen, 2005).

As the development of SL has continued and further definition sought, Bennet (2001) offered

his version of ten leader traits which, though similar to Spears (1996), were developed more from the

standpoint of what traits are needed by leaders who are actively involved in follower training activities.

A list similar to Spears’ (1996) was compiled by Barbuto and Wheeler (2002). After reviewing the

literature they presented 11 dimensions in an integrated construct that was identical to the Spears

model except for the addition of calling (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2002). Wong and Page (2003) also

developed a similar yet unique opponent-process model suggesting 9 functional traits similar to those

previously mentioned (with another 11 accompanying attributes as a sub-set).

Along the way Covey (2006a) weighed in with his proposed roles of leadership. According to

Covey (2006b), the key to leadership involves “combining high standards, strong values, and

consistent discipline with unconditional love, deep empathy, and a lot of fun” (p. 6). These roles and

needs are not so much divergent from previous lists of traits as they are a fresh perspective on those

compilations.

A major reevaluation of leader traits was undertaken by Patterson (2003) and a seven-fold

construct and model was established. Winston (2003) extended Patterson’s (2003) model by

distinguishing leader and follower participation, and then Cerff and Winston (2006) proposed the


addition of the hope theory into the SL construct, which is seen as a by-product of the agapao love

expressed in the leader and follower. Of all the signposts along the road to the development of SL, the

one marked agapao indicates that the theory has gained ground that may eventually lead to

recognition as an indigenous approach worthy of the status of related theories such as

transformational leadership.

The reconfiguration and modification of Patterson’s (2003) model proposed in this article

relates only to the leader-side construct and does not refer to Winston’s (2003) extension that

specifies the variables related to the follower. The emphasis throughout the current studies focuses

on the leader more than on the follower, since it is the servant leader who initially acts on behalf of the

follower (Greenleaf, 1977; Brody, 1992; Brumback, 1999; Frick, 2004; Spears, 2004; Boyum, 2006).

Furthermore, the intensity of a servant leader’s commitment results in the degree of influence

directed toward the follower, and it further illustrates the “processional pattern” (Patterson, 2003, p.3)

of the leader-follower dyad.

A Synoptic View Servant Leader Attributes

The ongoing theoretical discussions surrounding SL must not be viewed as a sign of

weakness with the theory, but rather as an indication that the theory, until now, has not “gotten over

the hurdle” of finalizing associated variables and establishing a recognized operational construct. The

closely associated theory mentioned in conjunction with SL—transformational leadership—has

undergone similar developmental wrangling among its proponents so that it is “vastly different today

than in the mid-70’s” (K. Patterson, personal communication, December 6, 2006). SL will similarly

progress until there becomes a mutuality of acceptance of essential functional components of the

theory. Until now, more and more lists of variables have been identified along with newer and newer

configurations of those variables.

As the comparison seen in Chart 1 identifies, there are numerous attributes, traits, qualities,

etc., associated with SL, several of which could serve as primary variables. However, as research

continues in SL the numerous variables need to be classified as the kind of function they serve in the

theory. Some of the attributes speak of outcomes of SL in practice, while others are typical and/or

generic of numerous leadership theories or which are related to skill development and so moderate SL



more than define it. A determination should also be made as to which of the variables, or combination

of such, contribute so that SL is distinguished from other theories.

CHART 1 A date-oriented chronology of the development of identifiable attributes of SL:

Note that Chart 1 lists the current accepted attributes as supplied by the current literature and that

Chart 2 concatenates those variables using a modified listing based on a working document currently

1. List S: Spears (1996, 2004, 2005) S1: Listening S2: Empathy S3: Healing S4: Awareness S5: Persuasion S6: Conceptualization S7: Foresight S8: Stewardship S9: Commitment to Growth of People S10: Community Building

2. List B: Bennett (2001) B1: Listen B2: Heal B3: Persuade B4: Conceptualize B5: Develop B6: Dream B7: Trust and Build B8: Communicate B9: Evolve B10:Promote

3. List BW: Barbuto and Wheeler (2002, 2006) Same as Spears, but add BW11: Calling

4. List RS: Russell and Stone (2002) (In addition to these 9 functional attributes, there are 11 accompanying traits) RS1: Vision RS2: Honesty RS3: Integrity RS4: Trust RS5: Service RS6: Modeling RS7: Pioneering RS8: Appreciation of others RS9: Empowerment

5. List SJ: Sendjaya (2003) SJ1: Covenantal relationship SJ2: Transforming Influence SJ3: Transcendental Spirituality SJ4: Responsible Morality SJ5: Authentic Self SJ6: Voluntary Subordination

6. List PW: Page and Wong (Dennis & Winston, 2003) PW1: Leading PW2: Servanthood PW3: Visioning PW4: Developing Others PW5: TeamBuilding PW6: Empowering Others PW7: Shared Decision Making PW8: Integrity

7. List P: Patterson (Patterson, 2003; Winston, 2003) P1: Leader’s Agapao P2: Humility P3: Altruism P4: Vision P5: Trust P6: Hope P7: Empowerment P8: Service

8. List LW: Liden, Wayne, Zhao, and Henderson (2006) LW1: Emotional Healing LW2: Creating Value for the Community LW3: Conceptual Skills LW4: Empowering LW5: Helping Subordinates Grow/ Succeed LW6: Putting Subordinates First LW7: Behaving Ethically


under development by Winston and Fields (2006). As Chart 2 suggests, the variables involve some

semantic overlap that tends to emphasize certain characteristics as distinctly associated with different

functional aspects of SL. Chart 3 identifies and connects the proposed variables with those grouped in

Chart 2 as they relate to the proposed hybrid model that will follow (Figure 1).

CHART 2 Concatenated grouping of SL attributes using a modified Winston and Fields (2006) list. Note that attributes are listed by their arbitrarily assigned identification codes from Chart 1 (some attributes are listed in two locations if definitions from literature warrant such):

As stated earlier, current theoretical examination of SL concludes that attributes associated

with SL have varying application, as exemplified by the pronounced differences between lists posited

by such researchers as Spears (1996, 2004, 2005) and Liden, Wayne, Zhao, and Henderson (2006).

The former describes mainly the attributes of the leader whereas the latter focuses almost exclusively

on the outcomes as a result of servant-leading. Note which of the lists in Chart 1 results in follower

empowerment, service, and community change. These are the kinds of attributes that affirm the

*Agapao P1 Humility P2 Altruism P3 Vision S7, B6, RS1, P4 Trust S8, B7, RS4, P5 *Hope P6 Service S10, B10, RS5, PW2, P8 Empowerment RS9, PW6, P7, LW4 Voluntary Subordination SJ6 Authentic Self RS2, SJ5 Covenantal Relationship SJ1 Responsible Morality SJ4 Transcendental Spirituality SJ3 Transforming Influence S5, B3, RS6, SJ2 Leading B8, RS7, PW1 Visioning PW3 Teambuilding PW5 Empowering others PW6 Shared decisionmaking PW7 Integrity RS3, PW8 Emotional Healing S3, B2, LW1 Creating Value for the Community LW2 Conceptual Skills S6, B4, LW3 Helping Employees/subordinates Grow/ Succeed S9, B5, RS8, PW4, LW5 Putting Employees/subordinates First LW6 Behaving Ethically LW7 Altruistic Calling BW11 Wisdom Persuasive Mapping S5, B3 Organizational Stewardship S8

*NOTE: Agapao and Hope are added; Wisdom was omitted



heartbeat of SL theory and which relate to what a leader does to bring about follower success, which

has organizational success as its by-product.

Moving toward a greater agreement regarding the common ground of SL research so that an

accepted and quantifiable functionality emerges is the next key step in theoretical progression. To

achieve that ground this paper focuses on leader attributes that are emerging as distinctively

descriptive of servant characteristics while simultaneously re-emphasizing (in some cases restating)

the most recurrent themes in the research to this point. A hybrid model will then be proposed that

expresses those variables so that a factor analysis may eventually be conducted and construct

validation achieved.

Introducing Commitment and Emotional Intelligence

SL, when examined unconditionally, suggests an accompaniment of numerous unquantifiable

qualities such as desire and passion. Such deeply felt forces epitomize Isaiah’s renowned prophecy

(chapters 52-53) describing the Old Testament servant whose extreme sacrifice enabled restoration

for the followers of God (Bible, 1996). Although the seven-trait construct initially proposed by

Patterson (2003) makes room for the effects of such immeasurable qualities as desire and passion,

zeal and dedication, the impact they make upon the life of the follower must somehow be represented

in the model in a way that can lead to the development of verifiable empirical evaluation. People crave

for a leadership that has a deeper, inner meaning (Kriger & Seng, 2005). Those aforementioned

unquantifiable attributes associated with the intensity of the theory—i.e. desire, passion, zeal,

dedication—will embolden its effectiveness, veracity, and usefulness. This sort of “climate” with

intensity may be achieved through a reconfiguration of Patterson’s (2003) model by introducing

commitment and emotional intelligence as viable traits in order to express the degree of functionality

of the theory. Within that context, Chart 3 concatenates the traits from Chart 2 even further by

presenting a hybrid list of attributes differentiated by how they describe a leader’s proactive

movement toward the empowerment of followers, which is the service-oriented goal of SL.


CHART 3 Hybrid list of functional attributes derived from Charts 1 & 2. Only those attributes that contribute to specific leader movement toward follower empowerment, and thereby, fulfillment of servant leadership, are confirmed.

A Hybrid Model for Servant Leadership Figure 1 presents a hybrid model that integrates the pertinent characteristics from the current

research (Chart 3) into a new construct. Patterson’s (2003) landmark reevaluation of leader traits

emphasized the “how” of SL and not just the “what” as stated in the initial conceptual work of

Greenleaf (1977) and later works of Spears (1996, 2005) and also of Russell and Stone (2002). As

subsequent extensions have been attached to the model it is clear that there is a move toward further

clarification of the “how.” In the case of Figure 1, this hybrid revision of the “hope-modified” version of

Patterson’s (2003) original model further expresses the functionality of the “how” by reconfiguring the

model by underscoring the simplicity of the essential actions of SL without undermining the original

intent.

Figure 1

Agapao P1 Humility P2 (Authentic Self RS2, SJ5) Altruism P3, BW11 (Transcendental Spirituality SJ3) Vision S7, B6, RS1, PW3, P4 Hope P6

Commitment (Voluntary Subordination SJ6; Leading B8, RS7, PW1) Trust S8, B7, RS4, P5 Emotional Intelligence (Covenantal Relationship SJ1; Transforming Influence S5, B3, RS6, SJ2)

Empowerment RS9, PW6, P7, LW4 (Teambuilding PW5; Shared decisionmaking PW7) Service S10, B10, RS5, PW2, P8 (Putting Employees Grow/Succeed, etc)

S9, B5, RS8, PW4, LW5, LW6

Nonapplicable attributes from Chart 2: , Responsible Morality SJ4 Integrity RS3, PW8 Emotional Healing S3, B2, LW1 Creating Value for the Community LW2 Conceptual Skills S6, B4, LW3 Behaving Ethically LW7 Wisdom Persuasive Mapping S5, B3 Organizational Stewardship S8



Note in Figure 1 that there are four larger boxes that appear on the same horizon throughout

the center of the model (compare also with Chart 3). Each of these concepts reflects a sector of the

model and denotes major shifts of activity in the theory that begins with agapao and results in service.

The added colors emphasize the modifications that have been made to Patterson’s (2003) original

model. The green shading represents Patterson’s original order; the yellow shading indicates

alterations of the hope-added model by Cerff and Winston (2006); the blue indicates new traits

proposed within this hybrid model. As with similar constructs anchored by four central concepts, such

as transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994), situational leadership (Hersey, 2004),

emotional intelligence (Caruso & Salovey, 2004), etc., the simplicity of design clarifies the integration

of the various traits. Just as Patterson’s (2003) evaluation homogenized the 20 or so traits into a

seven-part virtuous construct, so this proposed model further solidifies the key aspects of Patterson’s

consolidation while establishing recent extensions of the model as integral traits.

Consider this modified four-anchor approach through the consideration of a familiar and

meritorious verse of scripture, John 3:16—“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten

Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (Bible, 1996). “Loving,”

“giving,” “believing,” and “living” are the four operative concepts, each of which aligns with the four

major horizontal concepts in the modified model. Although further discussion shall doubtless ensue

regarding this proposed reconfiguration, the point is simple: SL that perpetuates theoretical

development must show a clearer and simpler pathway of movement from agapao to service on the

leader side of the model.

Agapao—the Preeminent Variable of the Servant Leadership Model

The initiating trait and preeminent variable in Patterson’s (2003) original revision of SL theory

is “agapao”—sacrificial love. “Agapao” is an ancient Greek term that is synonymous with the idea of

charity as an unreciprocated expression of love. It is the kind of action that keeps giving itself away

without regard for a return. Winston (2002) describes it as a moral action that includes “embracing

the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principal, duty, and propriety” (p.5).

The agapao turf involves right actions at the right time and for the right reasons.


Patterson (2003) cites Ferch & Mitchell (2001) in expressing love as a goal for leaders in

such a way that they are emotionally, physically, and spiritually present for the follower. Russell and

Stone (2002) connect unconditional love with integral servant leader traits. Kouzes and Posner (2002)

support this while expressing the community-building nature of such love in the form of compassion

that gives birth to passion that energetically gives of itself. The effectiveness of agapao love in an

organization is expressed in Winston’s (2002) interpretation of the Beatitudes, stating, “The call of

agapao love in the organization is to go far beyond seeing people as ‘hired hands,’ to seeing them as

‘hired hearts’” (p. 9). Agapao is the originating motive of SL that enables the leader to selflessly initiate

a relationship with the follower that will lead to their fulfillment (Patterson, 2006).

Humility and Altruism—Variables That Mediate Agapao

In the virtuous model posited by Patterson (2003), humility and altruism are seen as

simultaneously resulting from agapao. Humility expresses that sense of self-estimation that enables a

person to put other’s concerns ahead of their own (Sandage & Wiens, 2001). True humility involves

the idea of being “otherly” focused, a value whose identification should be viewed, according to

Sandage and Wiens (2001) from an Eastern Orthodox perspective in order to yield a comprehensive

understanding that the individual may keep their accomplishments and talents in perspective of self-

acceptance void of self-elevation. Humility carries a key part in the SL model because of its

relationship with agapao, according to Patterson (2003), that works together to create an altruistic

pursuit of followers’ interests or vision for the organization.

Altruism expresses the unselfish concern for the welfare of others (Quick, 1992). Patterson’s

(2003) model employs this trait as a way of expressing collaboration with humility, based on agapao,

to extend toward the follower. At this juncture the leader expresses firm commitment beyond the

needs of the organization and is directed toward the follower. Whereas Winston’s (2003) extension

suggests how the organization ultimately benefits from a follower who has been servant-led, altruism

as a lone definable term expresses the actions of the leader in viable sacrificial form.

Commitment—the Next Best Step

This is the first point of reconfiguration and modification of Patterson’s (2003) construct.

There is no question that the word commitment by itself does not provide enough information to

explain the direction of the previous momentum. Commitment should be the result of informed



decision which is the result of vision and hope working together to inform the commitment motivated

by agapao, humility, and altruism. Commitment is no less a valid trait as any of the previous ones, but

it depends upon information in order for it to gain intensity sufficient to continue the momentum.

Commitment also refers to the initial resolve—point of ignition—that engages the leader in a forward

momentum toward serving.

The Patterson model correctly expresses the importance of contributors such as vision. As

Winston (2003) points out, Patterson’s (2003) identification of vision must be viewed in terms of the

role of the follower. The leader, moved with agapao, and expressing himself or herself with humility

and altruism, intentionally moves toward assessing the follower’s needs in the context of the

organization. However, this is an adjunct to another trait introduced by Cerff and Winston (2006) that

carries a counterbalance to vision. The inclusion of hope in the extended Winston (2003) model

conveys a sense of expectation of goal attainment (Snyder, 2002) and working together with vision

produces a viable picture of the a preferred future. It is therefore vision and hope that inform

commitment.

According to Yukl (2006), commitment is a process of promoting the achievement of

objectives that leads to empowerment (the next trait to the right). For the servant leader, this

translates into a focus on follower objectives instead of organizational objectives, as would be seen in

transformational leadership (Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2004). So with this trait—commitment—a

question is asked: “Commitment to what?” The answer is a restatement: “Commitment to follower

objectives.” SL points the leader to the objectives of the follower (Humphreys, 2005; Dingman &

Stone, 2006). Without vision and hope working together to intensify commitment to the follower,

agapao, humility, and altruism are thwarted in terms of purposeful expression.

Dannhauser and Boshoff (2006) have contributed research in the area of commitment from a

demographics perspective using a recent tool of measurement, Positive Organisational Scholarship—

POS—that focuses on employee strength and psychological capabilities. Servant leadership, trust, and

team commitment among employees were found to be related, although not in equally strong

dimensions. According to the research, servant leadership showed a “more common variance with

emotional commitment than with rational team commitment” (Dannhauser & Boshoff, 2006, p. 11),


and as such reinforces the importance of the leader’s “heart” commitment to the follower. The

intensity of commitment relates to the effectiveness of the outcome.

Vision and Hope—Expressions of Purpose

Vision and hope are the essential contributor/informers to commitment. Perhaps, as Winston

(2003) states, a term will ultimately be selected that will replace vision, and in this case it could be

that a term will be established that replaces this entire portion of the modified construct involving

commitment, vision, and hope. For now the three will remain as separately identifiable traits and may

be further modified as additional research is conducted.

According to Winston (2003), one of the applications of Theory Y plays is as a means of

explaining the comprehensive picture of vision expressed toward the follower from the leader and

back again toward the organization through the follower (Carson, 2005; Pugh & Hickson, 1999). Vision

maintains a critical place in SL theory (Farling, Stone, & Winston, 1999), as stated by Greenleaf

(1977) who posited the essential question leaders must ask themselves, "Do the people they serve

grow?"

Vision keeps the servant leader concentrating on the direction they are headed and confronts

the question of whether the followers are being served with the end in mind. Vision supports

commitment in enabling empowerment by knowing the reasons for the direction. Patterson (2003)

describes the visionary process as an ability to see each person’s unique abilities and talents as an

asset to help the leader support a viable plan for the follower’s future. The stronger the sense of vision

regarding the follower, the greater will be the intensity of commitment.

Hope works toward commitment in a similar fashion, and as Cerff and Winston (2006) have

posited, gains ground based on Vroom’s Expectancy Theory (Ivancevich, Konopaske, & Matteson,

2001; Yukl, 2006). Hope has gained a theoretical foundation as a cognitive, motivational model

(Snyder et al, 2003). As Cerff and Winston (2006) state, “Hope theory is a fairly young field in positive

psychology and provides fruitful scope for understanding how enhancing this construct can be put to

great advantage in the development of leaders” (p. 6). According to Snyder, Lopez, Shorey, Rand and

Feldman (2003), “hope reflects individuals’ perceptions regarding their capabilities to (a) clearly

conceptualize goals, (b) develop the specific strategy to reach those goals (pathways thinking), and (c)

initiate and sustain the motivation for using those strategies (agency thinking)” (p. 122-123).



Vision and hope work together to affect the intensity of commitment. Vision says, “Here’s

what this is supposed to look like,” while hope says, “If we stay at it, it will look like that.” As will be

mentioned later, trust and emotional intelligence also play an indirect role in the intensity of

commitment as pictured in the hybrid model (Figure 1). Trust, working through vision, amplifies the

conviction of the leader’s commitment based on the confidence of a preferred future. Emotional

intelligence, working through hope, amplifies the conviction of the leader’s commitment based on

rationale gleaned from head and heart working together (Caruso & Salovey, 2004).

Empowerment—Transferring the Means to Act

Empowerment comes as the result of the commitment to the process of promoting the

achievement of objectives in the follower (Yukl, 2006). Empowering the follower involves providing

authority, accountability, and responsibility along with the resources to achieve what the follower

reckons is their objective relative to their vision within the organization (Winston, 2003). Bass (1985,

1990) states that follower empowerment increases along with “autonomy and discretionary

opportunities and getting support from the higher authority for their efforts” (p. 213). Kouzes and

Posner (2002) describe it as enabling and encouraging others to act within an environment that

inspires a shared vision. Russell and Stone (2002) see empowerment as involving effective listening,

making people feel significant, putting an emphasis on teamwork, and the valuing of love and equality.

In every case, empowerment means that transference has occurred. The leader has committed into

the possession of the follower the authority and assets necessary to enable the follower to carry out

what they envision to be their purpose.

Trust and Emotional Intelligence—Intensifying Empowerment

In a similar way that vision and hope inform and inspire commitment, so trust and emotional

intelligence inform and inspire empowerment. Trust is essentially activated “belief.” It is here on the

cusp of serving the follower that beliefs are made visible.

Trust refers to the confidence possessed by the leader toward the follower and their future.

According to Fairholm and Fairholm (2002), establishing a culture of trust requires an integration of

values and vision. One of Bennis’ (1999) four leadership competencies that determine success is trust

seen through the authentic behaviors of the leader directed toward the follower. From an


organizational perspective, SL is an antecedent of leader and organizational trust (Joseph & Winston,

2005). Trust develops on the basis of knowing the follower’s ability to accomplish goals and so relates

to the leader’s vision for the follower. Trust is a synonym for belief and the strength of it affects the

intensity of confident empowerment by the leader toward the follower. Trust also relates to the

function of vision and vice versa. Seeing and believing, at least in a figurative sense, contribute to the

leader’s willingness to move toward the empowerment of the follower.

The viability of emotional intelligence as an integral trait of SL is proposed in accordance to

Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) four-trait construct of emotional intelligence (Caruso & Salovey, 2004;

Winston & Hartsfield, 2004). Whereas Winston and Hartsfield (2004) examined the traits to discover a

range of theoretical equivalencies, the uniqueness of the emotional intelligence construct suggests its

key role in the empowerment of followers. Leaders emotionally connect to the act of empowerment

through emotional involvement that adds a collateral momentum to the leader’s sense of hope for the

follower. Although Patterson (2003) acknowledges emotional currency within the leader’s agapao,

clearly it is a stand-alone trait that bears significant impact as an intensifier of appropriate actions

toward a follower (Caruso & Salovey, 2004). SL is personal leadership expressed through personal

relationship. Servant leaders lead with logical feelings related to the follower, which supports and

fosters the development of understanding, gratitude, kindness, forgiveness, and compassion (Gunn,

2002). Emotional intelligence also contributes to the aesthetic sense of the leader-follower

relationship since the presence of emotions affects how thinking and reasoning are leveraged against

feelings and passion (Strati, 2000). The emotionally intelligent leader combines passion with logic and

emotions with intelligence. The result is an intentional empowerment that is informed by both mind

and feelings (Caruso & Salovey, 2004).

Whereas trust intensifies empowerment through confidence in the follower, emotional

intelligence intensifies empowerment through ongoing personal support and connectivity with the

follower. And whereas trust was tied to vision in a secondary sense, likewise emotional intelligence is

tied to hope—hope that is not only a reflection of confidence, but also a feeling of worthwhile

investment in the follower.



Service—the Means Meets the Ends

The servant leader serves—they are what they do (Farling, Stone, and Winston, 1999; Covey,

2006b). Greenleaf (1977) referred to the servant leader as a servant first. Crippen (2005) posits the

credo, “First to serve, then to lead” (p. 16). Winston (2003) describes the servant leader’s mindset as

one engaged “in the process of thinking about leading and sees his/her role to the follower as one of

providing the follower what is needed so that the follower can accomplish his/her tasks” (p. 4).

Although similar-sounding to empowerment in some ways, service is the actual carry-out of the

previous qualities—perhaps it should be relabeled intentional service. Service is the deliberate act that

results from the momentum that was initiated with agapao.

The Next Steps of Research

The next major obstacle in the development of the SL theory will be in the area of cultivating

and verifying an effective empirical model. Several of the researchers associated with SL theory, such

as Dennis and Bocarnea (2005), have already moved definitively to establish a quantitative

foundation for SL. The list of traits in Chart 1 correlates to the most notable research that has been

conducted using various models and approaches so that a validated set of traits can be confirmed.

Additionally, SL is being interpreted in a global context to underscore the universality of the

concepts that are inherent in the theory. Although SL possesses an ages-proven philosophical

underpinning that has universal application, the development of reliable and verifiable empirical

research is crucial to it becoming a theory that stands on its own merit and becomes worthy of

universal, stand-alone merit. The expectation which accompanies that possibility is an important piece

of the map.

An Achievable Frontier

As with other current leadership theories, combining an emphasis on the leader-follower

relationship along with finding effectiveness in achievement and outcome is an important road on this

frontier journey (Ferch & Mitchell, 2001). For the servant leader it is both a difficult road and the only

true road (Greenleaf, 1977). As in the journey Hesse (1956) introduced to Greenleaf that inspired the

origination of SL, if Leo is forced off the road, the destination will have been lost and only recoverable

at some other time in the future. That time for SL is now. SL is destined to be more than just another


option within the context of organizational leadership—it will become the defining functionality of a

leadership construct bound by trust and sacrifice and motivated by a love that inspires service.



References

Barbuto, J. E., Jr., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct

clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3),

300-326.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY:

The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, &

Mangerial Applications. (3rd Ed.). New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (Eds.). (1994). Improving Organizational Effectiveness

through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bennett, J. L. (2001). Trainers as leaders of learning. Training & Development, 55(3), 42-

45.

Bennis, W. (1999). The end of leadership: Exemplary leadership is impossible without

full inclusion, initiatives, and cooperation of followers. Organizational Dynamics,

28(1), 71-80.

Bible. The New King James Version (NKJV). (1996). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Boyum, G. (2006, August). The Historical and philosophical influences on Greenleaf’s

concept of servant leadership: setting the stage for scientific theory building.

Servant Leadership Roundtable, Regent University, Virginia Beach. August, 2006.

Brafman, O., & Beckstrom, R. A. (2006). The Starfish and the Spider: the unstoppable power of

leaderless organizations. New York: Portfolio.

Brody, D. (1992). First among equals. Foundation News, 33(5), 50-51.

Brumback, G. B. (1999). The power of servant leadership. Personnel Psychology, 52(3),

807-810.

Carson, C. M. (2005). A historical view of Douglas McGregor’s Theory Y. Management

Decision, 43(3), 450-460.

Caruso, D. R., Salovey, P. (2004). The Emotionally Intelligent Manager: How to develop


and use the four key emotional skills of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cerff, K., & Winston, B. E. (2006). The Inclusion of hope in the servant leadership

model; an extension of Patterson and Winston’s models. Servant Leadership

Roundtable, Regent University, Virginia Beach. August, 2006.

Covey, S. R. (2006a). Servant-leadership and community leadership in the 21st century. The

International Journal of Servant-Leadership, 2(1), 103-109.

Covey, S. R. (2006b). Servant Leadership. Leadership Excellence, 23(12), 5-6.

Crippen, C. (2005). Servant-leadership as a effective model for educational leadership

and management: first to serve, then to lead. Management in Education, 18(5),

11-16.

Dannhauser, Z. & Boshoff, A. B. (2006). The relationships between servant leadership, trust,

team commitment and demographic variables. Servant Leadership Roundtable, Regent

University, Virginia Beach. August, 2006.

Dennis, R. S., & Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of the servant leadership assessment

instrument. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(7/8), 600-615.

Dennis, R. S., & Winston, B. E. (2003). A factor analysis of Page and Wong's servant

leadership instrument. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(7/8),

455-459.

Dingman, W. W., & Stone, A. G. (2006). Servant leadership’s role in the succession

planning process; a case study. Servant Leadership Roundtable, Regent

University, Virginia Beach. August, 2006.

Dittmar, J. K. (2006). An interview with Larry Spears: President & CEO for the Greenleaf

Center for Servant Leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(1),

108-118.

Fairholm M.R., & Fairholm. G. (2000). Leadership amid the constraints of trust.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(1/2), 102-109.

Farling, M. L., Stone, A. G., & Winston, B. E. (1999). Servant leadership: setting the

stage for empirical research. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1/2), 49-72.

Ferch, S. R., & Mitchell, M. M. (2001). Intentional forgiveness in relational leadership: A



technique for enhancing effective leadership. The Journal of Leadership Studies,

7(4), 70-83.

Frick, D. M. (2004). Robert K. Greenleaf: A life of servant leadership. San Francisco:

Berrett-Koehler.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership : A journey into the nature of legitimate

power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.

Greenleaf, R. K. (2004). Serve the servants. People Management, 10(25), 30-33.

Gunn, B. (2002). Leading with compassion. Strategic Finance, 83, 10.

Hersey, P. (2004). The Situational Leader. Escondido, CA: Center for Leadership

Studies.

Hesse, H. (1956). The journey to the east. New York: Picador.

Humphreys, J. H. (2005). Contextual implications for transformational and servant

leadership; a historical investigation. Management Decision, 43(10), 1410-1431.

Ivancevich, J. M., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. T. (2001). Organizational Behavior

and Management (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust,

and organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,

26(1/2), 6.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Kriger, M. & Seng, Y. (2005). Leadership with inner meaning: A contingency theory of

leadership based on the worldviews of five religions. The Leadership Quarterly,

16, 771-806.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2005). Development of a

multidimensional measure of servant leadership. Manuscript submitted for

publication.

Longbotham, G. J., & Longbotham, C. R. (2006). A scientific approach to implementing change.

Journal of Practical Counsulting, 1(1), 19-24.


Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J.

Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational

implications (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books.

Patterson, K. A. (2003). Servant leadership: a theoretical model. Servant Leadership

Roundtable, Regent University, Virginia Beach. October, 2003).

Patterson, K. A. (2006). Servant-leadership: A brief look at love and the organizational

perspective. The International Journal of Servant-Leadership, 2(1), 287-296.

Pugh, D. S., & Hickson, D. J. (1999). Great Writers of Organizations (2nd ed.). Burlington,

VT: Ashgate Publishing.

Quick, J. C. (1992). Crafting organizational culture: Herb’s hand at Southwest Airlines.

Organizational Dynamics, 21(2), 45-57.

Russell, R. F. (2001) The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 22(2), 76-83.

Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes:

developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,

23(3), 145-157.

Sandage, S.J., & Wiens, T.W. (2001). Contextualizing models of humility and

forgiveness: A reply to Gassin. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 29, 201.

Sendjaya, S. (2003). Development and validation of servant leadership behavior scale.

Servant Leadership Roundtable, Regent University, Virginia Beach. October,

2003.

Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope Theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13(4),

249-275.

Snyder, C. R., Lopez, S. J., Shorey, H. S., Rand, K. L., & Feldman, D. B. (2003). Hope

theory, measurements, and applications to school psychology. School Psychology

Quarterly, 18(2), 122-139.

Spears, L. (1996). Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant-leadership. Leadership

& Organization Development Journal, 17(7), 33.

Spears, L. C. (2004). Practicing servant-leadership. Leader to Leader, 2004(34), 7-11.



Spears, L. C. (2005). The understanding and practice of servant-leadership. Servant

Leadership Roundtable, Regent University, Virginia Beach. August, 2005.

Strati, A. (2000). The aesthetic approach in organization studies. In S. Linstead & H. Hopfl

(Eds.), The Aesthetics of Organization (pp. 13-34). London: Sage.

Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant

leadership: A difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 25(3/4), 349-361.

Winston, B. E. (2002). Be a Leader for God’s Sake. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent

University, School of Leadership Studies.

Winston, B. E. (2003). Extending Patterson’s servant leadership model: Explaining how

leaders and followers interact in a circular model. Servant Leadership

Roundtable, Regent University, Virginia Beach. October, 2003.

Winston, B. E., & Fields, D. (2006). Evaluating Servant Leadership Dimensions. Working

document, Regent University School of Leadership Studies at Virginia Beach, VA.

Winston, B. E., & Hartsfield, M. (2004). Similarities between emotional intelligence and servant

leadership. Servant Leadership Roundtable, Regent University, Virginia Beach.

August, 2004.

Winston, B. E., & Ryan, B. (2006). Servant leadership as a humane orientation: Using

the GLOBE study construct of humane orientation to show that servant leadership

is more global than western. Working document, Regent University School of

Leadership Studies at Virginia Beach, VA.

Wong, P. T. P., & Page, D. (2003). An opponent-process model and the revised servant

leadership profile. Servant Leadership Roundtable, Regent University, Virginia

Beach. October, 2003.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice

Hall.

the new frontier of servant leadership

Documents