running head: servant leadership in schools 1 servant

Running head: SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN SCHOOLS 1

Servant Leadership and Job Satisfaction in K-12 Schools:

A Systematic Review

By

Haroon Rasheed Baqai

Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the

University of Maryland University College, in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctorate of Management

Advisory Committee

Dr. Kriesta L. Watson

Dr. Richard G. Milter

December 2017

SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN SCHOOLS 2

Abstract

Teachers are the most important assets for a school because their work leads to

improvement in a school’s bottom line: its students’ performance. With the passing of the No

Child Left Behind Act in 2002 and with its recent replacement by Every Student Succeeds Act in

2015, schools across the United States have been under pressure to show sustained improvements

in their students’ performance. At the same time the increase in teachers’ job dissatisfaction and

the resulting spike in turnover rates have a negative impact on student performance, which can

lead to long-term societal and economic impacts. School leadership plays a pivotal role in the

employee job satisfaction in K-12 schools. Among the various types of leadership, servant

leadership has been shown to have a positive correlation with employee job satisfaction in

schools. However, due to a lack of consensus among management scholars on the dimensionality

of servant leadership, it is difficult for practitioners to understand, implement, and train others on

servant leadership. Using systematic review as the research methodology, the present research

identified key servant-leadership behaviors that have the strongest correlation with employee job

satisfaction in K-12 schools. The present researcher found the behavior of “values people” to

have the strongest correlation with job satisfaction, whereas the behavior of “builds community”

has the second strongest correlation. This research clarifies the ambiguity associated with the

servant leadership construct, especially as it applies in K-12 schools. It offers K-12 school leaders

a concrete plan of action to work on improving employee job satisfaction and student

performance. More empirical studies and training programs are needed to further clarify the

servant-leadership construct in schools.

Keywords: Servant leadership, job satisfaction, schools, motivator-hygiene theory, self-

determination theory, Robert Greenleaf.


Acknowledgements

I start off by thanking God (Allah) – the One Who deserves to be worshipped

alone – for helping me throughout this journey. This journey was challenging at times.

Without His help, I could not have finished it.

I am also indebted to Him for blessing me with an amazingly supportive wife,

Sajeela Yaqub, whose constant help and encouragement got me through this journey.

Thank you for sacrificing so much for me always, and for being the rock of my life. To

my precious daughter Maryam, who gave up her valuable childhood times so I can

complete this degree. To my three sisters, Shumaila, Sumayya, and Khansa, who,

although were far from me in distance, always wished me well and motivated me

throughout my degree program. To my amazing parents – Rasheed Baqai and Imrana

Tabassum – for their unconditional love and prayers for me to reach the finish line; thank

you for your blessings and motivation. To my ever-loving and supportive in-laws – Dr.

Muhammad Yaqub and Nasreen Yaqub – for their consistent encouragement and support;

thank you for being there for me. To my teacher, mentor, coach, and servant leader, Safi

Khan, for showing me servant leadership in action and exemplifying the behavior of the

Prophet Muhammad, may peace and blessings of God be upon him.

I extend my sincere gratitude to my dissertation chair, respected Dr. Kriesta

Watson, whose constant encouragement helped me get through many tough times during

this process. Thank you for supporting me during my difficulties and for celebrating my

achievements. Many thanks to my secondary advisor, Dr. Richard Milter, for his

insightful comments and feedback. I cannot thank enough two of my most respected

Professors and mentors: Dr. Leslie Dinauer, my program chair, and Dr. Marcia Bouchard,


who were instrumental in providing me the encouragement and support to start the

program, and to follow it through. To the members of my cohort, thank you for your

constructive feedback and encouragement, always! Last but not least, to Dr. Rhonda

Jones, one of my esteemed Professors in my Master’s program, whose continuous and

frequent encouragement during our Statistics course sparked my interest to pursue this

Doctorate degree.


Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................10

Problem Statement and Significance .................................................................................10

The Role of School Leadership in Job Satisfaction .......................................................13

Study Purpose and Rationale .........................................................................................14

Importance to Management ............................................................................................14

Definitions of Key Terms ..................................................................................................15

Servant Leadership .........................................................................................................15

Job Satisfaction ..............................................................................................................17

Relevance of Variables for Dissertation.........................................................................18

Study Scope and Assumptions .......................................................................................19

Organization of Dissertation ..........................................................................................20

Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................21

General Positive Outcomes ............................................................................................22

Organizational Citizenship Behavior .............................................................................23

Organizational Commitment ..........................................................................................25

Employee Satisfaction ....................................................................................................26

Servant Leadership – Job Satisfaction Correlation in Educational Institutions .............27

Underlying Theoretical Mechanisms .................................................................................32


Servant Leadership (Robert Greenleaf)..........................................................................33

Self-Determination Theory (Edward L. Deci and Richard Ryan) .................................36

Unexplained Aspects of Servant Leadership – Job Satisfaction Relationship ...............38

Summary ............................................................................................................................40

Chapter 3: Research Methodology.....................................................................................42

Importance of Evidence-Based Management ....................................................................42

Importance of Systematic Reviews ....................................................................................45

Justification for the Selection of Systematic Review for the Present Research ................47

Steps for Conducting the Systematic Review ....................................................................48

Engage Stakeholders ......................................................................................................49

Summary ............................................................................................................................69

Chapter 4: Findings ............................................................................................................70

Descriptive Analysis ......................................................................................................70

Results of Thematic Synthesis .......................................................................................76

Additional Themes .........................................................................................................80

Summary ............................................................................................................................80

Chapter 5: Discussion, Implications, and Conclusion .......................................................81

Cultural and Religious Contexts of Schools ......................................................................81

Servant Leader Behaviors with Strongest Correlation with Job Satisfaction ....................82

Values People .................................................................................................................82


Builds Community .........................................................................................................83

Provides Leadership .......................................................................................................86

Shares Leadership: A Striking Result ............................................................................86

Implications for Management ............................................................................................88

Summary ............................................................................................................................89

Recommendations for Future Research .........................................................................91

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................93

References ..........................................................................................................................94

APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................121


List of Tables

Table 1: Mapping of Servant Leader Characteristics and Behaviors to Laub’s (1999)

Model ................................................................................................................................ 66

Table 2: Cultural Contexts of Included Studies ................................................................ 71

Table 3: Religious Affiliations of Schools in Included Studies ........................................ 72

Table 4: Servant Leadership Models Used in Included Studies ....................................... 73

Table 5: Descriptive Analysis of Included Primary Studies ............................................. 75

Table 6: Servant Leader Behaviors and their Correlation with Job Satisfaction, With

References to Primary Studies (Sorted by Strongest Correlation).................................... 77

Table 7: Most Strongly Correlated Servant Leader Behaviors with Job Satisfaction

(Second Round After Mapping to Laub’s Model) ............................................................ 79


List of Figures

Figure 1. The Servant Leadership Virtuous Cycle of Service ...........................................39

Figure 2. The Four Elements of EGMgt. ...........................................................................43

Figure 3. A conceptual framework based on CIMO framework. ......................................53

Figure 4. First stage of coding in NVivo. ..........................................................................60

Figure 5. Examples of the generation of nodes in stage 1 of the coding process. .............62

Figure 6. Examples of the generation of analytical themes in stage 3 of the coding

process................................................................................................................................67


Chapter 1: Introduction

One of the biggest assets that a school has is its faculty and staff. Their

satisfaction and commitment can improve the bottom line of any school, namely student

performance. With the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act ("No Child Left

Behind," n.d.), schools across the United States must show sustained improvements in

their students’ academic performance. At the same time, the increased job dissatisfaction

among school employees and the resulting spike in turnover rates have a negative effect

on student performance, which can lead to long-term societal and economic impacts.

Among several factors, school leadership plays a vital role in employee job satisfaction.

The present researcher proposed to investigate the effect of servant leadership on

employee job satisfaction in K-12 schools. In particular, this research explores specific

servant leader behaviors that have the strongest positive correlation with job satisfaction.

This chapter is organized as follows. First, an introduction to the management

problem and its significance to educational leaders are discussed. Next, the purpose of the

study and its rationale are presented. Next, definitions of key terms in this research are

reviewed. Finally, the research question guiding this study is presented and discussed. A

brief discussion on the organization of this dissertation and summary conclude this

chapter.

Problem Statement and Significance

Due to the demanding and challenging nature of the teaching profession, many

teachers become dissatisfied with their jobs and pursue other careers. Teacher

satisfaction in the United States dropped to the lowest level in 25 years in 2013, with only

39% of the teachers satisfied with their jobs (Strauss, 2013). Teacher dissatisfaction


leads to high absenteeism and turnover (Hulpia, Devos, & Rosseel, 2009). According to

Donaldson and Johnson (2011), about 1,000 teachers leave their profession every day.

Hudson (2009) reported that between 40 and 50 percent of the teachers leave the teaching

profession after their first year. Mertler (2002) found that if given the opportunity to

select a career again, 36% of the teachers said they would not choose to become a teacher

again. Ingersoll (1999) noted that many teachers leave their jobs because of

dissatisfaction with their jobs. Teachers play a critical role in educating and shaping the

minds of the young generation. Hence, such high rates of dissatisfaction and resulting

turnover pose a significant problem for educational leaders.

The high rates of dissatisfaction and the resulting high employee turnover carry

substantial costs for school districts. When teachers leave, they take with them their

knowledge and experience of instructional strategies, students’ learning styles, and

training (Chuong, 2008). In short, “institutional memory is lost” (Ronfeldt, Loeb &

Wyckoff, 2013, p. 1). The costs of turnover among teachers include time spent on exit

interviews, finding temporary or long-term substitutes, recruitment of new teachers, and

training and professional development (Levy, Joy, Ellis, Jablonski, & Karelitz, 2012).

Employee turnover costs the U.S. upwards of $7 billion annually (NCTAF, 2011). This

large amount of money takes away from what can be spent on supplemental instructional

resources, building better educational facilities, hiring special education teachers, etc., all

of which can improve the quality of education for students.

Teachers’ dissatisfaction with their jobs and high turnover has a negative effect on

school effectiveness and students’ academic performance. According to a longitudinal


study conducted in New York, high teacher turnover rates have a negative effect on

student performance (Ronfeldt et al., 2013). Guin (2004) found that schools with higher

teacher turnover had lower student achievement. Moreover, Sawchuk (2012) concluded

that teacher turnover is harmful to students’ performance. When teachers are dissatisfied

with their jobs and leave their profession, they are often replaced with newer, less

experienced teachers, and thus, the quality of instruction and student performance

decreases.

On the other hand, when teachers are satisfied with their jobs, it improves the

quality of instruction and student achievement. Reed (1987) found that teachers’ job

satisfaction is positively related to school effectiveness and success, and leads to high

academic performance and achievement among students. Teacher job satisfaction was

found to be positively correlated with students’ reading growth (Banerjee, Stearns,

Moller, & Mickelson, 2017). Teachers’ attitude towards their job and their morale

tremendously affect the academic achievement of students (Chambliss, 2013). When

teachers have high morale and are satisfied with their jobs, they pass this excitement and

satisfaction on to students who, in turn, perform better in their academics.

Improved student performance can have far-reaching economic and societal

effects. According to a study conducted by McKinsey and Company (2009), if existing

student achievement gaps were closed, the yearly gross domestic product of the US could

be improved by billions of dollars. If all students in the United States achieved at least a

basic level of proficiency in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) –

often known as the “Nation’s Report Card” – the national GDP of the U.S. would


increase by $32 trillion (Hanushek, Ruhose, & Woessmann, 2016). On the other hand, the

existing gaps in student achievement “impose on the United States the economic

equivalent of a permanent national recession” (McKinsey & Company, 2009, p. 5). In

addition, low student achievement is correlated with an increase in delinquent behavior

(Hoffmann, Erickson & Spence, 2013; Savolainen, Hughes, Mason, Hurtig, Ebeling,

Moilanen, & Taanila, 2012). Improving teacher job satisfaction and decreasing turnover

can improve student performance, which in turn can have long-term economic and

societal effects.

The Role of School Leadership in Job Satisfaction

School leadership plays a vital role in job satisfaction. In a study involving

elementary school teachers, Eldred (2010) found that the perceived leadership style of

principals had a significant positive correlation with teachers’ job satisfaction. Hulpia et

al. (2009) found that leader support had a strong correlation with teachers' job

satisfaction. According to Ladd (2011), school leadership is the most salient dimension

that results in teachers’ decision to leave schools. Moreover, Hudson (2009) conducted a

meta-analysis to explore the reasons behind lack of job satisfaction and high attrition

rates among teachers from 1983 to 2005. He concluded that lack of administrative

support was one of the primary reasons for lack of job satisfaction among teachers.

Though there are several factors that may affect job satisfaction, school leadership plays a

vital role in making teachers feel satisfied or dissatisfied with their jobs.


Study Purpose and Rationale

Teachers are one of the most important assets of a school. Given that they have a

strong influence on student performance, it is important to ensure that good teachers

remain satisfied with their jobs and continue working in their profession to shape the

young minds of our society. School leadership plays a pivotal role in teachers’

satisfaction with their jobs. Of the various styles of leadership, servant leadership has

been shown to have a strong and positive correlation with teachers’ job satisfaction.

However, because of its abstract nature and the lack of an agreed-upon operationalization

of the servant leadership construct, it is challenging for educational leaders to pin-point

what exactly servant leadership is, especially in a school, and how it can be implemented

in schools to affect teacher’s job satisfaction.

As such, the purpose of this study is to analyze existing empirical literature that

explores the servant leadership-job satisfaction correlation and identify specific servant

leadership behaviors that have the strongest correlation with teachers’ job satisfaction. By

investigating this relationship, this study aims to provide a clear and concrete set of

servant-leader character traits that school leaders can be trained to practice and

implement, that would increase their teachers’ job satisfaction and decrease their turnover

rate. The results of this research can reduce the ambiguity that is attributed to the concept

of servant leadership, which, in turn, will make it easier for school leaders to practice

servant leadership on a day-to-day basis.

Importance to Management

Leadership plays a key role in improving school outcomes by influencing the

capacities and satisfaction of its teachers. School leadership has become a top priority in


educational policy agendas across the globe (OECD, 2008). Because of its abstract nature

and a lack of consensus on its definition, it is difficult for educational leaders to

conceptualize servant leadership in order to practice it. The present research can provide

school leadership with a concrete set of servant leadership attributes that have been

shown to have a strong and positive correlation with teachers’ job satisfaction in schools.

Having a clear idea of such effective attributes would improve the selection and

recruitment of servant leaders to lead our schools who can make a difference in the

satisfaction and motivation of teachers. Moreover, it would allow for more targeted

training and professional development of educational leaders, which would enhance the

quality of school leadership.

Definitions of Key Terms

This section will offer conceptual definitions of the two variables in the researcher’s

dissertation: a) servant leadership, and b) job satisfaction. In addition, the relevance of

these variables for the researcher’s dissertation will be discussed.

Servant Leadership

The concept of servant leadership has largely been undefined and has not received

as much empirical support as other leadership theories (Andersen, 2009; Parris &

Peachey, 2013; van Dierendonck, 2011). Robert Greenleaf did not leave us with a list of

characteristics or behaviors that describe a servant leader, nor did he leave us with an

empirically validated definition of servant leadership (van Dierendonck, 2011; Andersen,

2009). Hence, much of the research on servant leadership so far has focused on

developing a conceptual model of servant leadership (Parris & Peachey, 2013). Some of


the most influential and widely used models of servant leadership are the ones developed

by 1) Spears, 2) Laub 3) Russell and Stone, and 4) Patterson (Parris & Peachey, 2013;

van Dierendonck, 2011).

The primary point of divergence among these scholars is whether they define

servant leadership as a set of personal traits and characteristics or a set of behaviors and

actions. Spears (2009) described ten characteristics of servant leaders, whereas Patterson

(2003) argued that servant leadership is based on seven values. Russell and Stone (2002)

identified twenty distinct characteristics of servant leaders. They classified nine of them

as functional attributes and the remaining eleven as accompanying attributes, which

augment the functional attributes (p. 147). Laub (1999) suggested six necessary

characteristics of servant leaders and asserted that these characteristics include

"behaviors, attitudes, values, and abilities" (p. 44). Combined together, these four

authors have suggested 43 characteristics or behaviors of servant leaders.

Of the models discussed above, Laub’s model is the most comprehensive and

inclusive of servant leader characteristics and behaviors. For example, one of the

characteristics of a servant leader is that he or she “values people” (Laub, 1999, p. 46).

Laub (1999) explains that a servant leader does so by believing in people and their

potential, respecting them, accepting them as they are, trusting them, appreciating them,

putting their needs ahead of his or her own needs, showing love and compassion towards

them, and listening to them in a non-judgmental fashion (p. 46). These characteristics

include Spears’ “listening,” “empathy,” and “stewardship” characteristics of servant

leaders. Moreover, they include Patterson’s “Agapao love” and “serving” values, and

Russell and Stone’s “appreciation of others,” “trust,” and “service” functional attributes.


A detailed mapping of the four models of servant leadership mentioned above has been

provided in the Appendix. As the present researcher analyzes studies with different

models of servant leadership in his systematic review, he plans to map those models to

Laub’s model in a similar way, whenever possible. Such mapping will identify the

aspects of the servant leadership that are most strongly correlated with job satisfaction.

Based on this analysis, the present author proposes the following definition of

servant leadership: “A style of leadership where the leader serves the needs of others

first, empowers them, and helps them develop their own strengths, while displaying

highest ethical values; thereby helping with the improvement of the organization and

community at large.” This definition includes characteristics and behaviors of servant

leaders as described in some of the widely used servant leadership models discussed in

this paper.

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction has been defined in a number of ways. Shultz (as cited in Erdem,

İlğan and Ucar, 2014) defined it as a neutral psychological disposition towards one's

work. Erdem, İlğan and Ucar (2014) considered job satisfaction to be a positive feeling

and defined it as "as the degree of an individual’s affective orientation toward his or her

role in an organization” (p. 10). Belasco and Alutto (as cited in Taylor & Tashakkori,

1995) viewed job satisfaction as equivalent to one of its outcomes and defined it as the

willingness of an employee to remain with the organization.

The author of the present paper investigated the servant leadership-job satisfaction

relationship in schools, which results in other desirable outcomes such as reduced

turnover and improved student performance. Hence, definitions of job satisfaction that


describe it as a neutral feeling, which could be positive or negative, were not considered.

For this author's research, job satisfaction is defined as “the degree of affective

orientation and contentment determined by the psychological disposition of people

towards their work.”

Relevance of Variables for Dissertation

The present researcher’s dissertation will explore the specific aspects of servant

leadership that have the strongest correlation with job satisfaction. Though there is no

consensus on the definition of the independent variable, servant leadership, it is well

understood and practiced among practitioners in a variety of organizations. Moreover,

empirical literature has shown positive effects of servant leadership on employee

behavior in a variety of organizations (Parris & Peachey, 2013). The present researcher

will highlight specific servant leader behaviors that can have the strongest effect on job

satisfaction so that educational leaders can engage in those behaviors in their interactions

with their employees.

The present research is situated within the larger context of student performance,

which can be influenced by employee job satisfaction. Since the No Child Left Behind

(NCLB) Act was passed in 2002 and later replaced by Every Student Succeeds Act

(ESSA), schools are under continuous pressure to close student achievement gaps, and

provide students with a better educational experience. Employee job satisfaction is of

paramount importance in educational institutions because it affects student performance

(Hulpia, et al., 2009; Chambliss, 2013; Sawchuk, 2012; Ronfeldt, Loeb, & Wyckoff,

2013). Since school leadership is one of the key determinants of job satisfaction


(Aelterman, Engels, Van Petegem, & Verhaeghe, 2007; Bogler, 2001, 2005; Evans &

Johnson, 1990), exploring the effects of servant leadership on job satisfaction could be of

tremendous benefit to educational leaders in improving their students’ performance.

Study Scope and Assumptions

Instead of conducting a voluminous investigation of all leadership styles that can

affect job satisfaction in schools, this study primarily focused on servant leadership and

its specific aspects that have the strongest impact on job satisfaction. Moreover, due to

time limitations, the present research did not consider other desirable employee outcomes

that are related to job satisfaction and are influenced by servant leadership. For example,

servant leadership is positively correlated to employees’ organizational commitment

(Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008) and organizational citizenship behavior

(OCB) (Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010; Ehrhart, 2004; Hu & Liden, 2011), both of

which affect job satisfaction (Jinhua, Yanhui, Yan, & Xiaoyan, 2014). Such desirable

outcomes that are related to job satisfaction were not included in the present research.

The following assumptions guided the design of the present research:

1. Servant leadership is considered an abstract phenomenon. Despite its lack of

clarity as a construct, it was assumed that educational leaders researched in the

included primary studies practiced servant leadership as envisioned by Robert

Greenleaf.

2. All participants in the included empirical literature answered all of the questions

openly and honestly.


Organization of Dissertation

This dissertation is organized as follows. Chapter 2 offers a literature review of

servant leadership and its effects on employee outcomes in a variety of organizational

contexts, particularly schools. Chapter 3 discusses the research methodology used by the

present researcher and a justification for the selection of systematic review as an

appropriate methodology. Moreover, it discusses the conceptual framework linking the

research variables. Chapter 4 offers an analysis of the research findings and discusses

their implications for educational leaders. Chapter 5 discusses implications for future

research and presents a summary of the dissertation.


Chapter 2: Literature Review

Servant and leader are considered antonymous terms. Robert Greenleaf combined

them into the theory of "servant leadership," which represents a belief that had its roots in

centuries of humanistic and religious teachings (Spears, 1996, p. 33). Greenleaf's

writings about servant leadership were not based on research or even what he referred to

as "conscious logic" (Laub, 1999, p. 5). Instead, they were based on "a keen intuitive

sense of people and their relationships within institutions" (Laub, 1999, p. 5). As such,

the earliest empirical research exploring servant leadership was not conducted until the

1990's, almost a decade after Greenleaf's death (Andersen, 2009). To date, the number of

empirical studies exploring servant leadership is limited due to the lack of consensus on

the dimensionality of the servant leadership construct (Parris & Peachey, 2013). Despite

that, servant leadership is a powerful phenomenon that is practiced in organizations and

boardrooms and has received significant attention from the press (Parris & Peachey,

2013).

This chapter provides a review of existing empirical literature investigating

servant leadership and its effects on employee outcomes in organizations. First, a review

of the effects of servant leadership on a variety of general positive employee outcomes in

presented. Next, specific effects of servant leadership on Organizational Citizenship

Behavior (OCB) and organizational commitment are reviewed. These two outcomes are

discussed separately because of their close relationship with job satisfaction (Daly,

DuBose, Owyar-Hosseini, Baik, & Stark, 2015; Gurbuz, 2009; Zeinabadi, 2010; Chiu &

Chen, 2005), which is the primary outcome explored in the present dissertation. Finally,


effects of servant leadership on employee job satisfaction in a variety of organizational

settings are explored. A summary of information covered concludes this chapter.

General Positive Outcomes

Servant leadership has been shown to have a positive correlation with many

desirable employee outcomes. At the organizational level, servant leadership was shown

to increase team effectiveness (Irving & Longbotham, 2007; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng,

2011; Hu & Liden, 2011) and unit-level and organizational performance (Liden, Wayne,

Chenwei & Meuser, 2014; Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko & Roberts, 2008).

Servant leadership creates a serving culture among employees within an organization,

where employees assist and serve each other (Jaramillo, Grisaffe, Chonko & Roberts,

2009; Liden et al., 2014). Once a behavior becomes embedded as part of the culture of

an organization, it solidifies behavioral norms and expectations (Liden et al., 2014), and

ultimately becomes embodied in an ideology or organizational philosophy (Schein, 2010,

p. 27). Liden, Wayne, Zhao, and Henderson (2008) found that this serving culture

extends to the community outside of the organization, which aligns with what Greenleaf

had envisioned. The development of a culture where employees are encouraged to serve

others outside of the organization is a powerful effect of servant leadership, especially in

an era where people have lost trust in the credibility of corporate leaders due to the

behavior of a few executives. Moreover, this community citizenship behavior is a unique

aspect of servant leadership, which differentiates it from other leadership theories such as

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory and transformational leadership (Liden et al.,

2008; Graham, 1991).


Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

Organizational Citizenship Behavior is defined as “individual behavior that is

discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal rewards system, and that

in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1997, p.

86). Two of the most commonly studied dimensions of OCB are “helping” and

“conscientiousness.” Helping is any form of assistance that is offered to “specific

persons, such as colleagues, associates, clients, or the boss” (Organ, 1997, p. 94).

Conscientiousness refers to a demonstration of high standards for “attendance,

punctuality, conservation of organizational resources, and use of time while at work”

(Organ, 1997, p. 95). Research suggests that OCB increases employee performance,

organizational productivity, efficiency, and customer satisfaction (Podsakoff, Whiting,

Podsakoff & Blume, 2009, p. 122).

Servant leadership has been found to have a positive correlation with OCB at the

individual employee level (Walumbwa et al., 2010), in small teams (Hu & Liden, 2011),

and at the unit level (Ehrhart, 2004). Walumbwa, Hartnell, and Oke (2010) studied the

effects of servant leadership in seven organizations in Kenya and found that servant

leadership had a strong positive correlation with OCB, with the mediating effects of self-

efficacy, commitment to the supervisor, procedural justice, and service climate.

Panaccio, Henderson, Liden, Wayne, and Cao (2015) explained that when servant leaders

fulfill their followers' needs, the psychological contract between the employees and the

organization is fulfilled. As a result, and in light of the social exchange theory,

employees are motivated to “engage in behaviors that go beyond their contractually

defined obligations in the employment relationship” (Panaccio et al., 2015, p. 658),


namely OCB. This positive correlation between servant leadership and OCB was found

across cultures, including the United States (Ehrhart, 2004; Neubert et al., 2008), China

(Hu & Liden, 2011), and Kenya (Walumbwa et al., 2010).

Ehrhart's (2004) research suggests that servant leadership has a positive

relationship with the "helping" and "conscientiousness" dimensions of OCB (p. 63),

whereas Neubert et al. (2008) found servant leadership to have a positive relationship

with helping behavior (p. 1222). Both of these studies were conducted in the U.S.

According to Hofstede, people in the United States are individualistic and short-term

oriented ("The Hofstede Centre," n.d.). Organizational citizenship behavior offers little

immediate benefit to the individual employee but contributes to the long-term well-being

of an organization (Joireman, Kamdar, Daniels & Duell, 2006, p. 1308). Despite the

individualistic and short-term orientation of U.S. employees, servant leadership

encourages quite the opposite behaviors in them, which is a striking result. When leaders

act in ways to fulfill the needs of their subordinates and help them grow, subordinates

slowly become servants themselves (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 90), and in turn, serve other

employees and the organization at large. This helping behavior leads to more

collaboration among employees improves efficiency and productivity.

Organizational citizenship behavior has been linked to job satisfaction. Bateman

and Organ (1983) explained that when people feel satisfied with their jobs because of

their supervisors’ efforts and service, then they reciprocate those efforts by engaging in

organizational citizenship behaviors. Studies have shown job satisfaction to be an

antecedent of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Daly, DuBose, Owyar-

Hosseini, Baik, & Stark, 2015; Gurbuz, 2009; Zeinabadi, 2010; Chiu & Chen, 2005),


especially in school settings (Dixon, 2015; Zehiri, Akyuz, Eren & Turhan, 2013;

Mahembe & Engelbrecht, 2014).

Organizational Commitment

In addition, servant leadership improves employees’ commitment toward their

organization. Studies have shown that servant leadership is positively correlated with

organizational commitment (Liden et al., 2008; Cerit, 2010; Pekerti & Sendjaya, 2010;

Jaramillo et al., 2009). In a systematic literature review of servant leadership and its

effects, Parris and Peachey (2013) concluded that greater organizational commitment

increases employee job satisfaction, which in turn decreases employee turnover (p. 388).

In summary, servant leadership has been found to have a direct positive correlation with

organizational commitment and OCB (Liden et al., 2008; Cerit, 2010; Pekerti &

Sendjaya, 2010; Jaramillo et al., 2009; Walumbwa et al., 2010; Hu & Liden, 2008;

Panaccio et al., 2015).

Despite the positive outcomes, one cannot infer a causal relationship between

servant leadership and employee outcomes. Due to time and budgetary limitations, most

of the studies in the social sciences are cross-sectional (Bynner & Joshi, 2007; Houkes,

Janssen, Jonge, & Bakker, 2003). The observed employee and organizational outcomes

may be a result of other confounding variables (Ladd, 2011; Dale, 2012; Rude, 2006).

Since many of these employee outcomes are long-term, more longitudinal studies are

needed to explore these effects to infer a causal relationship.


Employee Satisfaction

Servant leadership has a positive and significant relationship with employees’

need satisfaction (Mayer, Bardes, & Piccolo, 2008), intrinsic job satisfaction (Herbert,

2004; Cerit, 2009) and overall job satisfaction (Mayer et al., 2008; Herbert, 2004; Cerit,

2009; Chung et al., 2010). The studies referenced above were conducted in the U.S.,

across industries including healthcare (Amadeo, 2008; Jenkins & Stewart, 2010), women-

led small businesses (Braye, 2000), and undergraduate university students who worked

while going to school (Mayer, Bardes, & Piccolo, 2008). Thus, it is reasonable to

conclude that the results of these studies can be generalized across industries.

In addition, Herbert (2004) and Cerit (2009) measured the effects of servant

leadership on both intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction. Interestingly, both researchers

found that the correlation between servant leadership and intrinsic job satisfaction was

stronger than the correlation between servant leadership and extrinsic job satisfaction.

Common indicators among the servant leadership measurement scales used in Herbert’s

(2004) and Cerit’s (2009) studies include (a) valuing employees by putting their needs

first, and (b) enabling employee development and growth. These two servant leadership

behaviors are very similar to Herzberg’s motivation-factors (advancement, growth,

recognition) that cause job satisfaction (Herzberg, 1968, p. 89). Servant leaders put the

needs of their followers first, value them, and enable them to grow in their profession and

skills, which makes them motivated and satisfied with their jobs.

Given that the present research is focused on the effects of servant leadership on

employee job satisfaction in K-12 schools, the servant leadership – job satisfaction


correlation is analyzed more deeply in the educational institutions in this literature

review.

Servant Leadership – Job Satisfaction Correlation in Educational Institutions

In a quantitative study involving 72 faculty members and ten supervisors from

Lithuanian public and private universities, Alonderiene and Majauskaite (2016)

compared the impact of the six leadership styles suggested by Howell and Costley (as

cited in Alonderiene, & Majauskaite, 2016, p. 142) on job satisfaction. These six

leadership styles are: “coach, human relations specialist, controlling autocrat,

transformational visionary, transactional exchange and servant” (Alonderiene, &

Majauskaite, 2016, p. 142). The researchers found that servant leadership had the highest

positive significant impact on job satisfaction of faculty members (Alonderiene, &

Majauskaite, 2016). Controlling autocratic leadership had the lowest impact. The

researchers concluded that servant leaders have the strongest impact on faculty job

satisfaction because of their sense of genuine care for followers’ interests and because of

their efforts in developing followers.

Moreover, Van Tassell (2006) found that servant leadership had a moderate,

positive linear relationship with job satisfaction at a liberal-arts, private, Franciscan-

sponsored University. Van Tassell (2006) used Laub’s (1999) Organizational Leadership

Assessment (OLA) to measure the practice of servant leadership at the university. An

interesting finding of this research was that the university, as an organization, was not a

“servant-minded organization” (Van Tassell, 2006, p. 84). Although the president of the

university was a servant leader, those behaviors had not permeated through the university

or to the surrounding community. The researcher suggested that for the university to


become a servant-minded organization, there needed to be a complete change in mindset

at all levels of the university. He argued that through institutional ongoing conversion,

change could take place over time. Another interesting finding was that there were some

participants who perceived the university's leadership style to be autocratic but had high

job satisfaction (Van Tassell, 2006).

Additionally, Farris (2011) investigated the correlation between servant

leadership and job satisfaction at five regional universities in Alabama. He used Dennis’

(2004) Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument (SLAI) with slight modifications and

defined a servant leader using five attributes: vision, love, humility, empowerment, and

trust. Farris (2011) found that the attribute of “humility” had the strongest correlation

with job satisfaction, followed by “vision” and “love.” To his surprise, “empowerment”

and “trust” had the least correlation with job satisfaction. Moreover, Farris (2011) found

that the correlation between servant leadership and job satisfaction was the strongest for

employees who were older, had more education, and had been working at the university

for a longer period of time. One possible explanation for this result is that this group of

people were more familiar with their work environment and more adaptive to change. As

such, one may expect higher job satisfaction among them (Farris, 2011).

In a similar quantitative study conducted at a Midwest nontraditional college with

about 225 employees, Drury (2004) found a statistically significant, positive and

substantial relationship between servant leadership and job satisfaction of employees. An

interesting find of Drury's (2004) research was that the people in different categories of

employment perceived servant leadership at different levels within the university. In

specific, there was a significant difference in the perception of servant leadership


between hourly employees and full-time faculty. Moreover, Drury (2004) found that

servant leadership is negatively correlated with organizational commitment. This is a

striking finding because much of the empirical literature supports a positive relationship

between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Jinhua, Yanhui, Yan, &

Xiaoyan, 2014; Abu-Shamaa, Al-Rabayah & Khasawneh, 2015; Field & Buitendach,

2011; Rusu, 2013; Cerit, 2010, Liden et al., 2008; Hamilton & Bean 2005; Hale & Fields

2007).

Moreover, Guillaume (2012) conducted a quantitative study at a private university

in Atlanta, Georgia, to explore the correlation between servant leadership and job

satisfaction. Using Barbuto and Wheeler’s (2006) Servant Leadership Questionnaire

(SLQ), Guillaume (2012) found that servant leadership led to a satisfied workforce.

However, the character traits of “altruistic calling” and “emotional healing” were not

associated with job satisfaction of non-faculty members. Moreover, the character trait of

“wisdom” was found to have the strongest correlation with job satisfaction. The

researcher concluded that wisdom is the “ideal of perfect and practical Servant

Leadership skills” (Guillaume, 2012, p. 101). Moreover, for faculty members, the servant

leader construct of “organizational stewardship” had the strongest correlation with job

satisfaction.

In a correlational study conducted at Midwest College, which has an affiliation

with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ECLA), Inabarasu (2008) concluded

that servant leadership has a positive correlation with job satisfaction. Inabarasu (2008)

used Laub’s OLA to measure the servant leadership construct. A striking result of the

study was that the behavior of "Builds community" had the least correlation with job


satisfaction. Specifically, the participants in the study thought that the leaders at Midwest

college did not work alongside with workers, but worked separately from them.

Moreover, they thought that the leaders worked on their own more than working with

others. Inabarasu (2008) concluded that the leaders at Midwest College needed to build a

healthy community within the college where the focus is not on just getting the job done,

but on being concerned about the relationships with the people doing the job (p. 127).

Furthering Inabarasu’s (2008) findings, in a quantitative study conducted at a

church-related college, Thompson (2002) observed that though the college under study

was not a servant organization, there was a statistically significant correlation between

servant leadership and job satisfaction. Thompson (2002) found that 50% of the

variability in job satisfaction could be attributed to servant leadership behaviors, which is

considered a strong association (p. 84). Moreover, there were no significant differences in

the perceptions of servant leadership between institutional leadership, management

levels, and technical levels.

Rubino (2012) conducted a correlational study at faith-based higher education

institutes in the United States and found that job satisfaction was a mediating variable in

the relationship between servant leadership behaviors and the three types of

organizational commitment: affective, normative, and continuance. He concluded that

organizations practicing servant leadership would have improved workforce and

management relations (p. 95). The behavior of "develops people" was found to have the

strongest correlation with job satisfaction, followed by the behavior of "displays

authenticity." Similar to Drury's (2004) and Thompson's (2002) findings, this study


found that servant leadership was experienced across the organizational structure

regardless of employment levels.

Servant leadership is not only applied effectively in brick-and-mortar educational

institutions, but also in distance learning programs. Barnes (2011) explored the effects of

servant leadership on employee job satisfaction in distance learning institutions. He used

the Servant Leadership Behavior Scale (SLBS) developed by Sendjaya, Sarros, and

Santora (2008), because it measures leader behaviors without reference to the physical

environment. As such, Barnes (2011) argued that it was the appropriate measure to use

for distance learning institutions where faculty work remotely. The results of the study

indicated that servant leader behaviors have a strong impact on job satisfaction of faculty.

The researcher found that the servant leader behavior of “transforming” had the strongest

correlation with job satisfaction. Senjaya and Pekerti (2010) explain that people who are

served by servant leaders are transformed in multiple dimensions, including emotionally,

intellectually, socially, and spiritually (p. 649). Moreover, servant leaders derive their

motivation and satisfaction from the growth of their followers, believing that there is

intrinsic value in people beyond their contributions to the work place (Senjaya & Pekerti,

2010).

Finally, Washington (2007) compared the effects of a variety of leadership styles

on job satisfaction. In a study conducted in a multiorganizational sample of 207

employees in southern United States, Washington (2007) found that the perceived effects

of transformational and servant leadership on job satisfaction were very similar. He,

therefore, concluded that both of these styles of leadership prescribe to people-oriented,

inspirational leadership with a focus on developing and empowering followers (p. 45). He


argued that by enabling employees to become more self-actualized and by empowering,

servant leaders improve employee job satisfaction and establish trust based on integrity

and competence (p. 47).

From the above-referenced studies, it can be concluded that servant leadership has

been found to be a stronger predictor of job satisfaction across a variety of organizations

and cultures, especially in educational institutions. Moreover, a common measurement of

servant leadership in organizations is James Laub’s (1999) Organizational Leadership

Assessment (OLA). The next section discusses the theoretical mechanisms that explain

the servant leadership – job satisfaction relationship.

Underlying Theoretical Mechanisms

This section will discuss the theoretical mechanisms that explain the relationship

between servant leadership and job satisfaction. First, this section will present the basic

tenets of the servant leadership theory and how it can lead to job satisfaction. Next, the

theoretical grounding for the servant leadership - job satisfaction relationship will be

discussed in light of Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene (MH) theory and Ryan and Deci's

Self-Determination Theory (SDT). The concept of employee needs satisfaction and

motivation has a long history in social and organizational psychology (Chiniara &

Bentein, 2016). Herzberg’s theory is one of the most replicated studies in the field of job

attitudes (Herzberg, 1968; Wang, 2005). These two theories are two of the most

established theories in the work field and have been extensively used in empirical

literature (Chiniara & Bentein, 2016).


Servant Leadership (Robert Greenleaf)

Robert Greenleaf proposed the servant leadership theory after being inspired by

the novel The Journey to the East by Herman Hesse. In the novel, there is a group of

people on a mythical journey who are accompanied by a servant named Leo. Though

Leo’s main responsibility is to carry out some of their menial chores, he also sustains

them with his song and spirits. Everything goes well until Leo disappears. At that time,

the group “falls into disarray and the journey is abandoned” (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 87).

Based on this, Greenleaf explained that a servant leader is a servant first who focuses on

meeting the highest priority needs of his or her followers. “It begins with the natural

feeling that one wants to serve. Then, conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead”

(Greenleaf, 1977, p. 90). Hence, even though the terms servant and leader are considered

antonyms, servant leadership has emerged as a paradoxical phenomenon.

Greenleaf envisioned that servant leaders strive to satisfy their followers' highest

priority needs to encourage them. Moreover, servant leaders enable their followers to

grow and reach their highest potential. They provide direction and challenging

responsibilities while offering empathy, emotional support, feedback, and resources

(Chiniara & Bentein, 2016), all of which create a climate in which followers feel

important and encouraged to do more and create more. In this process, the followers

become "healthier, wiser, freer, [and] more autonomous" (Greenleaf, 1971, p. 412). In

short, “servant leaders cherish the joy of seeing others succeed” (Russell & Stone, 2002,

p. 151). This sense of encouragement and feeling happy at the growth of followers is

crucial in a teacher-student relationship.


Moreover, servant leaders empower their followers to grow personally and

professionally, which leads to a sense of satisfaction with one’s job. The positive

relationship between servant leadership behaviors and job satisfaction has been

empirically shown in a variety of cultural and organizational contexts (Barbuto &

Wheeler, 2006; Mayer, Bardes, & Piccolo, 2008, Herbert, 2004; Chung, Chan Su, Kyle,

& Petrick, 2010; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). When employees feel loved and

cared for, and when their highest priority personal and professional needs are fulfilled, it

is no surprise that they feel happy and satisfied with their work.

Motivator-Hygiene Theory (Frederick Herzberg)

Herzberg (1968) theorized that the factors that satisfy or dissatisfy employees are

not arranged on a conceptual continuum (McGowan, 1981). He proposed two

independently functioning dimensions, one that drives “satisfaction” and another that

drives “dissatisfaction.” He offered that the factors that drive satisfaction, known as the

growth or motivator factors, include achievement, recognition for achievement, the work

itself, responsibility, and growth or advancement. The presence of these factors produces

job satisfaction, but their absence does not necessarily result in dissatisfaction. On the

other hand, the factors that drive dissatisfaction, known as the hygiene factors, include

company policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal relations, working

conditions, salary, status, and security. When these factors are poor, employees are

dissatisfied. However, when they are good, they do not increase satisfaction (Herzberg,

1968). Herzberg’s theory has been empirically supported in a variety of organizational

settings, including production (Cummings, 1975), hospitality management (Lundberg,

Gudmundson, & Anderson, 2009), nursing (Kacel, Miller, & Norris, 2005), and


educational institutions (Gaziel, 1986; Islam & Ali, 2013). Moreover, Herzberg’s theory

has been applied across cultures, including the United States (Cummings, 1975;

Lundberg et al., 2009, Kacel et al., 2005), Finland (Herzberg, 1965), Israel (Gaziel,

1986), and Pakistan (Islam & Ali, 2013).

A servant leader creates a climate that allows employees to become freer and

more autonomous, and ultimately, grow as persons. Since growth and advancement are

two of the most “deep-seated needs of human beings” (Herzberg, 1968, p. 87), they are

considered the end goals of the growth or motivator factors (Herzberg, 1975). As a result

of servant leader behaviors, followers advance and grow until they reach the highest level

of growth and advancement: becoming servant leaders themselves. Greenleaf (1977)

considered this ultimate growth to be the best test of servant leadership. He said, “Do

those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser,

freer, more autonomous, more likely to become servants?” (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 90).

Hence, servant leaders empower their followers by giving them responsibility and

helping them grow until they reach the highest level of growth and advancement. Having

reached the end goal of the motivator factors, followers feel a high level of job

satisfaction.

The motivator factor of responsibility includes giving a person a complete unit of

work and granting him or her the autonomy to complete it (Herzberg, 1968). In school

settings, lack of autonomy in the classroom is the biggest source of frustration for

teachers in the United States (Philips, 2015). On the other hand, autonomy and

empowerment are symbolic of professional recognition for teachers in the United States

(Pearson & Moomaw, 2005), which is one of the motivator factors (Herzberg, 1968). By


empowering their followers, servant leaders allow the freedom to proceed toward their

goals and allow self-direction and freedom to succeed and fail (Patterson, 2003). This

sense of empowerment and autonomy instills job satisfaction among employees.

Herzberg asserted that the five motivator factors are intrinsic to the job, and hence

lead to an intrinsic sense of satisfaction among employees (Herzberg, 1968). Servant

leadership leads to this intrinsic job satisfaction. Hebert (2004) and Cerit (2009)

measured the effects of servant leader behaviors on both intrinsic and extrinsic job

satisfaction among employees. Both researchers found that the correlation between

servant leadership and intrinsic job satisfaction was stronger than the correlation between

servant leadership and extrinsic job satisfaction. By empowering followers, giving them

responsibility, fulfilling their needs, and helping them grow and advance, servant leaders

give their followers an intrinsic sense of motivation and satisfaction with their work.

Self-Determination Theory (Edward L. Deci and Richard Ryan)

Self-determination theory is a theory of human motivation, which has been

applied to predict human behavior in a variety of settings. It is based on the premise that

human beings are "proactive organisms that have an inherent tendency to shape and

optimize their own life conditions to develop and grow toward their fullest potential"

(Chiniara & Bentein, 2016, p. 126). According to SDT, there are three basic

psychological needs that must be fulfilled for the growth and well-being of human beings'

cognitive structures and personalities (Ryan & Deci, 2002). These universal needs are

competence, relatedness, and autonomy.

Competence refers to the feeling of being effective in one’s interactions with the

social environment and experiencing opportunities to exercise and express one’s


capacities. The need for competence compels people to seek challenges that are optimal

for their capacities and to maintain and enhance those skills through activity (Ryan &

Deci, 2002, p. 7). Relatedness refers to feeling connected with others, caring for and

being cared for by others, and having a sense of belongingness with other individuals and

the community at large (Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 7). Autonomy refers to having choices

and initiating action oneself (Chiniara & Bentein, 2016). Autonomy is considered the

most salient need and is achieved when employees feel that they can make personal

choices in carrying out their duties (Chiniara & Bentein, 2016). Fulfillment of these

needs results in optimal functioning of employees in organizations (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

A servant leader fulfills the three basic needs outlined in the SDT. For example,

servant leaders believe in their employees' unlimited potential and develop their

employees by giving them opportunities to learn and grow (Laub, 1999), which fulfills

the competence need. Moreover, servant leaders strive to fulfill their followers’ highest

priority needs before their own needs; showing love, empathy, and an altruistic sensitivity

toward their followers’ well-being, which fulfills the relatedness need. They empower

employees by allowing them to make their own decisions, and by giving them freedom

and autonomy to handle situations on their own (Liden, Wayne, Zhao & Henderson,

2008), thereby, fulfilling the autonomy need. Chen, Chen, and Li (2013) asserted that

servant leaders emphasize trust and empowerment, which provide followers with a sense

of autonomy and meaningfulness and improve their intrinsic motivation. As a result of

their study on employees from a variety of industries, Chen et al. (2013) found that

servant leader behaviors satisfy various psychological needs of employees and enhance

their autonomous motivation, which leads to improved satisfaction with one's work and a


positive work attitude. Moreover, in a comparative study, Van Dierendonck, Stam,

Boersma, de Windt, and Alkema (2014) compared servant leadership and

transformational leadership regarding their correlation with the fulfillment of the three

psychological needs as outlined in SDT. They found that leaders who show servant

leadership behaviors are better at fulfilling these psychological needs than

transformational leaders.

The fulfillment of the basic psychological needs leads to an overall sense of

satisfaction toward one’s job. When supervisors are autonomy-supportive, which is the

most salient need according to the SDT, then employees are more satisfied with their jobs

(Chang, Leach & Anderman, 2015; Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989). In a recent study,

Chiniara and Bentein (2016) found that servant leadership has a positive correlation with

all three needs outlined in the SDT, and that fulfillment of these three needs leads to

improved job performance. Moreover, the fulfillment of the three basic needs leads to

overall job satisfaction (Graves, 2013; Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Callens, 2007; Deci,

Ryan, Gagne´, Leone, Usunov, & Kornazheva, 2001; Ilardi, Leone, Kasser, & Ryan,

1993; Kasser, Davey, & Ryan, 1992). Chiniara and Bentein (2016) concluded that

organizations would benefit from developing their current leaders into servant leaders

and promoting and hiring such leaders in key positions within the organization. In

summary, servant leadership leads to the fulfillment of the three basic needs as postulated

in the SDT, which in turn makes employees satisfied with their jobs.

Unexplained Aspects of Servant Leadership – Job Satisfaction Relationship

Greenleaf envisioned that as a result of servant leadership, followers grow and

advance until they become leaders themselves. This “virtuous cycle of service” (Monroe,


2013, p. 2) is a unique tenet of the servant leadership theory, which is explained neither

by the MH theory nor SDT. According to the servant leadership theory, this cycle of

service continues with followers growing into servant leaders and serving others in the

organization and the community. In the context of a school, as teachers become servant

leaders, they help students grow as persons and ultimately, become servant leaders

toward their larger society. Hence, the positive effects of servant leadership reach the

community at large. This virtuous cycle of service is depicted in Figure 1 below.

Teacher / Servant Leader

Student / Follower

Motivates followers to grow to their highest potential

Followers grow to highest potential and become servants

Figure 1. The servant leadership virtuous cycle of service (on the basis of Monroe, 2013)


One of the fundamental tenets of the servant leadership theory is that a servant

leader strives to build community. Laub (1999) explains that a servant leader does so by

relating well to others, bringing healing to hurting relationships, working with others, and

valuing differences in people (p. 46). The relationship between this aspect of servant

leadership and job satisfaction is not explained by the MH or SDT theories. Both

theories focus on developing the employees and satisfying their needs but do not consider

the community at large. The SDT discusses relatedness as one of the psychological

needs, which is fulfilled by an employee feeling cared for within the organization.

However, Greenleaf uniquely envisioned the building of community at a broader level.

He states:

All that is needed to rebuild community as a viable life form for large numbers of

people is for enough servant-leaders to show the way, not by mass movements,

but by each servant-leader demonstrating his or her unlimited liability for a quite

specific community-related group (as cited in Spears, 2010, p. 29).

Summary

This chapter reviewed existing literature showing the effects of servant leadership

on employee outcomes across a variety of industries and cultures. Servant leadership was

shown to have a positive correlation with desirable employee outcomes such as

organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, trust, employee

satisfaction, and organizational justice, to name a few. Moreover, this section discussed

the MH and SDT theories as underlying mechanisms explaining the servant leadership-


job satisfaction relationship. The next chapter discusses the research methodology

employed by this researcher to complete his dissertation.


Chapter 3: Research Methodology

This chapter discusses the research methodology that the present researcher

adopted to complete his dissertation. First, the importance of evidence-based

management to answer the research question is discussed. Next, a brief description of

systematic review and a justification for its selection as the research methodology is

discussed. Thirdly, steps taken to conduct the systematic review are presented in detail.

One aspect of this methodology is to obtain feedback from a panel of expert stakeholders,

who may be scholars or practitioners or both. Their insightful feedback on the

management problem, proposed research question, and the research methodology was

instrumental in improving the focus of the dissertation and is included in this discussion.

A summary of information covered concludes this chapter.

Importance of Evidence-Based Management

Evidence-based management (EBM) is the use of scientific evidence that is

gathered through primary studies and business evidence. Evidence is the essence of

knowledge (Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008, p. 481). Research in any field is

formed by, and by extending existing knowledge. Evidence-based management derives

key principles from a variety of research evidence and translates them into management

practices that solve organizational problems (Rousseau, 2006, p. 256). The rapid trend

towards EBM represents a new paradigm of research initiatives. Briner, Denyer, and

Rousseau (2009) define EBM as

…making decisions through the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of four

sources of information: practitioner expertise and judgment, evidence from the


local context, a critical evaluation of the best available research evidence, and the

perspectives of those people who might be affected by the decision (p. 19)

Briner et al. (2009) offer a Venn diagram (see Figure 2) depicting the EBM

process and assert that EBM takes place at the intersection of all four of these sources of

information. The size of each circle and the influence of each may vary with each

situation and must be determined in a conscious and mindful fashion. In all cases, using

any evidence requires critical analysis and judgment about the evidence and its

applicability to the situation at hand (Briner et al., 2009).

As such, the basic premise of EBM is that good quality decisions should be based

on a combination of best available evidence and critical thinking. Many managers tend

to use their personal judgment based on experience, unfounded beliefs, fads (Barends,

Figure 2. “The Four Elements of EGMgt.” From “Evidence-Based Management: Concept Cleanup

Time?” by R. B. Briner, D. Denyer, and D. M. Rousseau, 2009, Academy of Management Perspectives.

Copyright (2009) by Academy of Management. Adapted with permission.


Rousseau & Briner, 2014, p. 4), intuition, and sometimes “gut” instincts” (Leung &

Bartunek, 2012, p. 166) when making management decisions. Such personal judgment is

susceptible to errors due to managers' cognitive and information processing limits and

affects the quality of decisions they make. EBM seeks to improve the quality of

decisions by helping managers critically evaluate the evidence at hand (Barends et al.,

2014). It distinguishes “science from folklore, data from assertions, and evidence from

beliefs, anecdotes or personal opinions” (Barends et al., 2014, p. 3).

Evidence, in its simplest form, refers to information. Such information may be

quantitative, qualitative, or descriptive. It may come from scientific research, local

business or organizational indicators, observation of practice conditions (Barends et al.,

2014), or even from professional experience of practitioners. It is important, however,

that organizational managers use information that is judged to be trustworthy and

relevant. Practitioners are often unaware of key scientific evidence available in their field

of practice. As an example, a survey of 950 human resource practitioners in the United

States showed large discrepancies between what the practitioners thought were effective

practices and what scientific research showed (Rynes, Colbert, & Brown, 2002). Instead

of a scientific understanding of human behavior, many managers continue to rely on their

personal experience as well as the experiences of business consultants to make decisions,

to the exclusion of more systematic knowledge (Rousseau, 2006). As a result of this

discrepancy, billions of dollars are spent on ineffective management practices, some of

which may even be harmful to organizations (Barends et al., 2014). By carefully

analyzing available evidence for relevance, accuracy, and trustworthiness, EBM can


improve management practitioners’ decision making and further their organizational

goals in an effective fashion.

Importance of Systematic Reviews

One of the drawbacks of primary research is that it is often informed by “partial,

haphazard, and opinion-driven synthesis of previous research findings” (Briner &

Denyer, 2012, p. 113). Emphasis on primary research results in a voluminous,

fragmented and contested field of knowledge. In order to advance any field of

knowledge, it is critical to understand what is known and what is unknown about that

area of knowledge. This is exactly what a systematic review helps us do (Briner &

Denyer, 2012, p. 115).

A systematic review is “a review of research literature using systematic and

explicit, accountable methods” (Gough, Oliver, & Thomas, 2012, p. 2). Traditional

literature reviews summarize the findings of existing literature on a specific topic of

interest, without explaining the criteria used to include or exclude certain studies. As a

result, potential studies may not be included because the researchers are unaware of them,

or because they decided to exclude them for unspecified reasons (Gough et al., 2012, p.

5). On the other hand, a systematic review is based on a strict scientific design that

assesses all studies that meet certain inclusion criteria. A systematic review minimizes

biases and ensures reliability across all the studies included in the review (Stevens, 2001,

p. 5301). In other words, systematic reviews are far better than traditional literature

reviews in the quality of synthesized information that is created through the review

process.


There are several reasons behind the selection of systematic review as an

appropriate methodology to answer the present researcher’s research question. A

systematic review adopts a replicable and transparent process that aims to minimize bias

through “exhaustive literature searches of published and unpublished studies and by

providing an audit trail of the reviewer’s decisions, procedures and conclusions”

(Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003, p. 209). Systematic reviews have been argued to

provide the most efficient and highest-quality methodology for identifying, evaluating,

and analyzing existing literature (Tranfield et al., 2003, p. 215). The results of systematic

reviews are regarded as the strongest form of research evidence in policy-making

(Khorsan & Crawford, 2014, p. 1). They provide one of the most useful and powerful

evidence to guide practice (Briner et al., 2009). Since the basic premise of EBM is to

make decisions based on sound evidence, systematic reviews are considered to be at the

heart of evidence-based management and practice.

Additionally, the findings of a systematic review are comprehensive and

generalizable. Individual studies may have limited relevance in terms of their scope and

context (Gough, Oliver, & Thomas, 2012, p. 3). They may be conducted in a specific

setting and hence their findings may have limited external validity. A systematic review

provides a much more comprehensive and stronger picture (Gough et al., 2012) by its

exhaustive literature search and its analysis of a number of studies conducted in different

contexts. Moreover, a systematic review resolves inconsistency between results of

primary studies and establishes generalizability (Stevens, 2001, p. 532).

Finally, a systematic review bridges the gap between scholars and practitioners.

The results of primary studies are not always communicated in a clear and


understandable way for practitioners. Consequently, even if results of a number of

primary studies are consistent, there remains a gap between research and practice. There

are several barriers to research application including lack of clearly stated practical

implications from research findings, unclear research reports, and non-relevance of

research findings for practitioners (Stevens, 2001, p. 531). In short, it is difficult for

scholars and researchers to effectively communicate with managers and practitioners, and

vice versa, in ways they both understand each other (Leung & Bartunek, 2012, p. 165).

By synthesizing knowledge into a manageable summary, a systematic review bridges this

gap and creates a pivotal point for evidence-based practice (Stevens, 2001, p. 532).

Justification for the Selection of Systematic Review for the Present Research

A systematic review exploring servant leadership and its effects on job

satisfaction in K-12 schools can further our knowledge about the tenability and

applicability of servant leadership as a theory. Robert Greenleaf’s foundational texts on

servant leadership were mostly anecdotal in nature (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002, p. 57). He

did not leave us with an empirically validated definition of servant leadership (van

Dierendonck, 2011). Through their systematic review on servant leadership and its

effects in organizational contexts, Parris and Peachey (2013) showed that servant

leadership is no longer an anecdotal phenomenon and that it is being empirically explored

in many organizational contexts. The present systematic review can further the findings

of Parris and Peachey, especially in K-12 schools.

Specifically, this systematic review can generate evidence, or show a lack thereof,

about the effects of servant leadership on job satisfaction in K-12 schools. It can be


argued that school leaders are required to perform some of the activities of a servant

leader due to the nature of their job. Such activities include supporting, developing,

respecting, caring for, and providing a trustable and moral environment for teachers

(Cerit, 2009, p. 615). Additionally, with the emergence of attention to critical humanistic

perspective and ethical dimensions of school leadership (Greenfield, 2004, p. 179), it can

be argued that several aspects of servant leadership are inherent to the nature of a school

leader’s job. Hence, in schools where servant leadership is practiced, there may be other

confounding variables that can explain the observed effects on employee job satisfaction.

A major advantage of conducting a systematic review is that it increases the validity and

power of the cause-and-effect relationship between an intervention and its outcome(s)

(Stevens, 2001, p. 532; Hansen & Rieper, 2009, p. 141). Thus, the present systematic

review can generate evidence, or find an absence thereof (Briner & Denyer, 2012, p. 116)

about the effects of servant leadership on job satisfaction in K-12 schools. Moreover, it

can identify behaviors of servant leaders that have the strongest correlation with job

satisfaction in K-12 schools, so school administrators can focus on practicing those

behaviors in their schools to improve their teachers' job satisfaction.

Steps for Conducting the Systematic Review

The present researcher used the four-step process described by Briner and Denyer

(2012) to complete his systematic review. In addition, the researcher engaged key

stakeholders in the area of servant leadership to solicit their input on the focus and scope

of the researcher's dissertation. The next section provides detailed description of each of

the steps.


Engage Stakeholders

Engaging relevant stakeholders is a critical step in conducting a systematic

review. Stakeholders add to the scrutiny of the review and provide different types of

knowledge and expertise (Gough et al., 2012, p. 24). Systematic reviews benefit from the

specialized knowledge that researchers bring from their academic knowledge, and from

the input of experts who may not have undertaken formal study but have experience in a

field that is relevant to the focus of the systematic review (Gough et al., 2012, p. 25).

The present researcher contacted ten relevant experts in the field of servant

leadership, which included both scholars and practitioners. Six of them responded; five

agreed to take part in the expert panel review process. The five experts were sent a brief

overview of the present researcher’s dissertation including the management problem,

proposed research question, and the research methodology. Additionally, each expert was

sent a questionnaire (see Appendix D) with open-ended questions about the quality of the

researcher’s research question, clarity of the study problem, significance of study, and the

practical value of the proposed research. The experts were given the option to respond to

the questionnaire in writing or via a transcribed phone interview with the researcher.

Three out of the five experts responded and gave their feedback. The three who

responded were:

1. Dr. Robert Liden – a published author from the University of Illinois,

Chicago.

2. Dr. Denise Parris – a published author with a well-cited systematic review on

servant leadership.


3. Ms. Patricia Falotico – Chief Executive Officer of the Robert K. Greenleaf

Center for Servant Leadership.

Feedback from the expert panel improved the focus of the management problem

and research question. In particular, Dr. Liden gave valuable insight on expressing a

clearly articulated rationale behind the research. Moreover, the expert panel provided

guidance on connecting the problem statement, literature review, and the research

question in a coherent fashion. Finally, the expert panel gave suggestions on identifying

gaps in existing literature and effectively positioning the current research to fill such

gaps. Feedback from one of the members of the expert panel was editorial in nature and

did not achieve the intended outcome.

Step 1: Identify the research question. A systematic review seeks to rigorously

address a clear, specific, answerable question (Briner et al., 2009, p. 25). Such specific

question guides the search strategy, identifies relevant primary studies and the necessary

data required to be extracted. The quality of a systematic review is largely dependent on

the quality of the research question. Counsell (1997) aptly suggests, “Ask a poor

question, and you will get a poor review” (p. 381). As such, the quality of a systematic

review is heavily dependent on the quality of the research question.

The present researcher explored the effects of servant leadership behaviors on

employee job satisfaction in K-12 schools. In particular, the present researcher tried to

identify specific aspects of servant leadership that have the strongest correlation with job

satisfaction among school employees. Hence, the research question that guided this

researcher’s dissertation was: “What specific servant leadership behaviors have the

strongest correlation with employee job satisfaction in K-12 schools?”


This research question was developed using the CIMO framework developed by

Denyer and Tranfield (as cited in Briner & Denyer, 2012, p. 119), which includes context

(C), interventions (I), mechanisms (M), and outcomes (O). The context of the research

question was K-12 schools and included teachers, administrators, and administrative

staff. The intervention explored was servant leadership, which has been operationalized

in a variety of ways by various management authors. The mechanisms or the theoretical

lenses through which the researcher analyzed the servant leadership- job satisfaction

correlation were Herzberg’s Motivator-Hygiene theory and Ryan and Deci’s Self-

Determination Theory (SDT). Finally, the outcome explored in this study is job

satisfaction. A conceptual framework depicting this relationship based on the CIMO

framework is presented in Figure 3.

The present researcher determined Laub’s (1999) model of servant leadership to

be the most comprehensive and inclusive of many of the other major models of servant

leadership. Laub was found to the be the third most cited author in defining and

explaining servant leadership (Parris & Peachey, 2013). His Organizational Leadership

Assessment, which he developed to measure the practice of servant leadership in an

organization, was the most commonly used measurement of servant leadership in the

primary studies included in Parris and Peachey's (2013) systematic review on servant

leadership. As such, the present researcher mapped the servant leadership behaviors

discussed in other major models to Laub’s (1999) A more detailed discussion of this

mapping is provided later in this chapter.

Moreover, the present researcher used Herzberg’s Motivator-Hygiene theory and

Ryan and Deci’s SDT to highlight the mechanisms that could explain the link between


servant leader behaviors and job satisfaction. The concept of employee need satisfaction

and motivation has a long history in social and organizational psychology (Chiniara &

Bentein, 2016). Herzberg’s theory is one of the most replicated studies in the field of job

attitudes (Herzberg, 1968; Wang, 2005). These two theories are two of the most

established theories in the work field and have been extensively used in empirical

literature (Chiniara & Bentein, 2016).


Context (C) K-12 School Employees (Teachers, Staff, Administrators)

Intervention (I) Mechanism (M) Outcome (O)

Servant Leadership

Values People

Develops People

Builds Community

Displays Authenticity

Provides Leadership

Shares Leadership

Motivator-Hygiene Theory

Self-Determination Theory

Employee Job Satisfaction

Figure 3. A conceptual framework based on CIMO framework, showing the correlation between servant leadership behaviors – as

defined by James Laub (1999) - and job satisfaction, in light of Herzberg’s (1965) Motivator-Hygiene and Ryan and Deci’s (2002)

Self-Determination theories.


Step 2: Locate and select relevant studies. A systematic review should ideally

include published studies, conference proceedings, and grey literature (Tranfield, Denyer

& Smart, 2003). The aim is to find all studies related to the research question (Briner et

al., 2009). However, such exhaustive search is improbable because the total universe of

all potentially relevant literature on any topic is unknown (Gough et al., 2012, p. 113). As

such, systematic reviews typically have theoretical populations and samples of studies.

The job of a reviewer is to develop a thoughtful and clearly described search strategy,

which includes a description of the search concepts, sources to be searched and the search

limits (Gough et al., 2012, p. 116). Developing a search strategy and expressing it clearly

reduces any publication bias and improves the quality of results (Gough et al., 2012).

The present researcher searched published and nonpublished studies in electronic

databases as well as grey literature available for the doctoral students at the researcher’s

university: University of Maryland University College (UMUC). To avoid any potential

biases, the researcher included studies from refereed and non-refereed journals. The

researcher searched for relevant articles in UMUC’s OneSearch database, which includes

43 journals (see Appendix A), ABI / Inform Global, which includes more than 8,000

journals, and Dissertation and Theses Global, which includes dissertations and theses on

a variety of relevant topics.

The following search string was used, with some variations in the Boolean and

proximity operators depending on individual databases:

(servant n2 leader*) AND ("job satisfaction" OR "work satisfaction" OR

"employee satisfaction" OR "employee morale" OR "employee attitude*")


Inclusion / exclusion criteria. For an article to be included in the researcher’s

systematic review, it had to meet the following criteria:

1. Be in the English language;

2. Involve an empirical study with a quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods or case

study research methodology;

3. Be relevant to the researcher’s research question; and

4. NOT focused primarily on the development of a conceptual model of servant

leadership or on the testing of measuring instruments for the servant leadership-

construct (exclusion criteria)

An initial search of the electronic databases resulted in a total of 434 articles. Four

hundred and fourteen (414) of these articles were published in English and were included

for further review. Twenty-nine (29) of the remaining articles met the second and third

criteria.

In addition, snowballing methods were used to locate additional articles. These

methods “are especially powerful for identifying high-quality sources in obscure

locations” (Greenhalgh and Peacock, 2005, p. 1065). Reference lists of the included

studies were examined to find additional empirical literature. Particularly, reference lists

from the two systematic reviews on servant leadership conducted by Parris and Peachey

(2013) and van Dierendonck (2011) were examined. An additional three (3) empirical

studies on the topic were included for further analysis, for a total of 32 research studies.

After removing duplicates, 21 primary studies remained, which were included for critical

appraisal. A detailed breakdown of the number of studies gathered from each resource,

and the studies included for critical appraisal is provided in Appendix B.


Step 3: Critically appraise the studies. One of the key steps of a systematic

review is the critical appraisal of the quality and relevance of studies. The present

researcher used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) developed at McGill

University to appraise the quality of studies included. Designed by Pluye et al. (2011),

MMAT is used to appraise the methodological quality of quantitative, qualitative, or

mixed-method studies retained for a systematic review. The appraisal tool has two parts.

The first part asks two general screening questions to assess the quality of the study’s

research question and whether or not the selected research method is an appropriate one

to answer the question. If a study satisfactorily meets the criteria mentioned in the

screening questions, then it is further appraised. Otherwise, it is not included for further

appraisal.

For the critical appraisal of each study, the MMAT tool requires the researcher to

answer four questions about the methodological quality of each study. The questions are

primarily polar (yes-no) questions with a third option, “Can’t tell,” if the question cannot

be clearly answered. For each quality criteria met, that is, for each question answered in

the affirmative, the study was given one point. Since there were four questions, studies

with the highest quality were assigned a score of 4. The researcher only included studies

that had a score of 3 or 4. By applying such pre-designed quality criteria and by not

relying on the brand or quality of the journals in which studies were published, the

researcher avoided any potential biases in appraising the studies (Briner & Denyer, 2012,

p. 122). Moreover, including only high-quality studies led to identifying the strongest

evidence for the servant leadership - job satisfaction effects in K-12 schools. The MMAT


appraisal tool along with a detailed explanation for each question in the tool as offered by

its developers (Pluye et al., 2011) are provided in Appendix C.

Step 4: Analyze and synthesize findings from the studies. Systematic reviews

are usually configurative in nature, instead of aggregative. Configurative reviews

predominantly configure or organize data from the included studies to answer a specific

review question (Gough et al. 2012, p. 9). Such reviews explore the salience of existing

theories in particular situations (Gough et al. 2012, p. 52). Examples of configurative

reviews include meta-ethnography (Noblit & Hare, 1983) and thematic synthesis

(Thomas & Harden, 2008). The present researcher chose thematic synthesis for his

dissertation.

Justification for thematic synthesis. A thematic synthesis is a method that brings

together findings from a variety of studies. It uses rigorous methods to bring together

results from primary research in order to provide reliable answers to specific research

questions (Thomas & Harden, 2008, p. 2). A thematic synthesis explores patterns in

primary studies through the lens of the research question (Gough et al., 2012). Since the

present researcher's data set was heterogeneous and included quantitative, qualitative, and

mixed-method studies, a thematic synthesis was an appropriate choice of synthesis.

Moreover, the configurative approach of thematic synthesis addressed the

research question by categorizing and mapping servant leadership approaches to Laub’s

pre-existing model, while at the same time generating additional themes to further

understand the servant leadership - job satisfaction relationship in schools. The process of

thematic synthesis involves explicit recording of the development of themes (Thomas and

Harden, 2008, p. 7), which can be both deductive and inductive in nature. A thematic


synthesis can be largely deductive, in which themes are set up in advance of the synthesis

itself. It can also be inductive in nature, where themes are generated iteratively during the

process of coding (Gough et al., 2012, p. 194).

The present researcher took both a deductive and inductive approach in this

dissertation. The approach was deductive because the researcher specifically explored the

effects of servant leadership behaviors, as defined by Laub (1999), on job satisfaction

among school employees. As shown in Table 1, for consistency in results, if other

operationlizations of servant leadership were used in the included empirical studies, they

were mapped to Laub’s model, whenever possible, depending on the overlap in their

meanings. Additionally, the present researcher used an inductive approach by generating

additional themes from the coding of the included studies. Most thematic syntheses have

elements of both inductive and deductive approaches and the characterization of a

thematic synthesis as inductive or deductive is purely a matter of degree (Gough et al.,

2012, p. 194). The present researcher’s review was no different.

The present researcher took the three steps suggested by Gough et al. (2012) to

conduct the thematic synthesis. A detailed description of these stages and how they were

implemented in the present research is provided below.

Stages one and two: Coding text and developing descriptive themes. In the first

stage, each line of the findings of the included studies was coded. The researcher used

QSR's NVivo to complete this process of generating codes and themes. The use of NVivo

facilitated data analysis for the coding of each study. Qualitative researchers often discuss

rigor within qualitative studies, which could be conceptualized as consistency and

completeness in coding. A range of tools provided in NVivo facilitates this process of


consistency and completeness in coding primary studies (Johnston, 2006). Additionally,

transparency is considered an essential feature of a good systematic review. Providing an

honest account of how the research was conducted increases the credibility of the

researcher. NVivo has a strong feature of exporting detailed coding information to show

how various codes led to the generation of descriptive and analytical themes as discussed

below. This provides the potential to give "unprecedented levels of transparency”

(Johnston, 2006, p. 385) in the systematic review process.

The researcher began with a ‘bank of codes’ (Thomas & Harden, 2008, p. 5),

which was based on the six behaviors of servant leaders as operationalized by Laub

(1999). While coding, the researcher considered two main points. First, wherever one of

the servant leader behaviors as conceptualized by Laub (that is, the bank of codes

described above) was clearly found to be correlated to job satisfaction, it was coded as

such. This round of coding formed the basis of the deductive approach as discussed

above and resulted in multiple associations between the text and these pre-existing

themes.

Second, other text within the findings of the studies was coded as new codes,

which added to the existing bank of codes. The result of this process was 1) multiple

associations between the existing text and the pre-existing codes based on servant leader

behaviors, and 2) generation of multiple new codes for translation in stage two. This

stage also translated of concepts from one study to another (Thomas & Harden, 2008)

and resulted in the generation of 54 nodes in NVivo. A sample of the first stage of coding

is provided in Figure 4.


Figure 4. First stage of coding in NVivo.


In the second stage, all of the nodes, including the pre-existing ones based on

Laub’s model and the newly added ones, were analyzed and categorized into descriptive

themes (Thomas & Harden, 2008). If needed, new descriptive codes were created to

capture the meaning of initial codes. This process resulted in a total of 48 descriptive

themes. Figure 5 depicts a screenshot of the generation of nodes at the end of Stage 2.

Most of the nodes refer to the finding of a correlation between a specific behavior of

servant leader with job satisfaction in K-12 schools.


Figure 5. Examples of the generation of nodes in stage 1 of the coding process.


Stage three: Generating analytical themes. In this final stage of the review

process, the researcher analyzed the 48 descriptive themes generated in Stage 2 and

developed analytical themes. Each of the nodes representing a correlation between a

servant leader behavior and job satisfaction was mapped to one of the six pre-existing

nodes, which represented servant leader behaviors as defined by Laub. This mapping was

based on the overlap in meanings of servant leader behaviors between other models and

Laub’s model. The details of this mapping are provided next and are organized in the

order of the six servant leader behaviors described by Laub (1999).

1. Values people. In Laub’s model, the first of the behaviors of a servant leader is

that he or she “values people” (Laub, 1999, p. 46). Laub (1999) explains that a servant

leader does so by believing in people and their potential, respecting them, accepting them

as they are, trusting them, appreciating them, putting their needs ahead of his or her own

needs, showing love and compassion towards them, and listening to them in a non-

judgmental fashion (p. 46). These behaviors include servant leadership characteristics of

“listening,” “empathy,” and “stewardship,” as described in Spears’ (2010) model.

Moreover, they include “Agapao love,” one of the characteristics of a servant leader in

Dennis’ (2004) Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument. Finally, they include

“Altruistic calling,” one of the servant leader behaviors described in Barbuto &

Wheeler’s (2006) model.

2. Develops people. The second servant leader behavior in Laub’s (1999) model is

“develops people.” According to Laub (1999), a servant leader develops people by

providing opportunities for learning and growth, providing mentor relationships to

people, helping them advance professionally, creating an environment that encourages


learning, modeling, and encouraging followers (p. 46). This concept is similar to the trait

of “empowerment” in Dennis’ (2004) Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument (SLAI),

which includes teaching, modeling, and delegating tasks to followers in order to develop

them (p. 37). Moreover, it is the same as the “commitment to growth of people” as

described by Spears (2010).

3. Builds community. The third servant leader behavior in Laub’s (1999) model is

"builds community." A servant leader builds community by enhancing relationships,

bringing healing to hurting relationships, working collaboratively, facilitating the

building of team and community, and valuing differences of others (p. 47). This behavior

is identical to Spears' (2010) vision of "building community" and "healing." Moreover, it

is similar to the "organizational stewardship" construct in Barbuto and Wheeler’s (2006)

model, which focuses on developing a community spirit in the workplace, and prepares

the organization to make positive contributions to the society (p. 319).

4. Displays authenticity. The fourth servant leader behavior in Laub’s (1999)

model is “displays authenticity.” According to Laub (1999), a servant leader displays

authenticity by being transparent, admitting personal limitations and mistakes, promoting

open communication and sharing of information, being self-aware and open to input from

others, maintaining integrity, demonstrating high integrity and honesty, and maintaining

high ethical standards (p. 47). This behavior is similar to the servant leader virtue of

“humility” as explained by Dennis (2004) in his SLAI.

5. Provides leadership. The fifth servant leader behavior in Laub’s (1999) model

is “provides leadership.” Laub (1999) explains that a servant leader provides leadership

by envisioning the future, using intuition and foresight to see the unforeseeable, taking


initiative, encouraging risk-taking, clarifying goals, and understanding what it takes to

fulfill the vision (p. 48). This behavior is similar to the characteristics of

“conceptualization” and “foresight” as described by Spears (2010), and the traits of

“wisdom” and “persuasive mapping” in Barbuto and Wheeler’s (2006) model.

6. Shares leadership. The sixth and final servant leader behavior in Laub’s (1999)

model is “shares leadership.” A servant leader shares leadership by sharing power and

status with others, leading from personal influence instead of positional authority, and

empowering others. As such, a servant leader encourages participation from followers in

decision-making, and does not make all decisions by himself or herself.

A detailed mapping between different models of servant leadership to Laub’s

model is shown in Table 1 below.


Table 1

Mapping of Servant Leader Characteristics and Behaviors to Laub’s (1999) Model

Laub Spears Dennis Barbuto &

Wheeler

No Scale

Values

People

Listening

Empathy

Stewardship

Agapao love Altruistic Calling

Valuing teachers

Self-sacrificing

behaviors

Empathy

Celebrating

teachers

Trust others

Serving others

Develops

People

Commitment to growth

of people

Empowerment Support

Empower

Builds

Community

Building Community

Healing

Emotional

Healing

Organizational

Stewardship

Caring

Displays

Authenticity

Humility Moral

Authentic

Ethical leadership

Humility

Provides

Leadership

Conceptualization

Foresight

Awareness

Persuasion

Vision Persuasive

Mapping

Wisdom

Visionary

Shares

Leadership

Collaborative in

crafting mission

Participatory

Moreover, three additional analytical themes were generated in this stage. These

themes did not have a clear overlap in meaning with Laub’s (1999) model as described

above and as such, could not be mapped to it. The generation of such analytical themes

leads to a few important conclusions. First, it answered the main research question of the

study and gave insights about the behaviors of servant leaders that are most strongly

correlated to job satisfaction among K-12 school employees. Secondly, it enabled the

researcher to generate additional information and understanding about the servant


leadership- job satisfaction relationship. Figure 6 depicts the six analytical themes as well

as the additional themes generated in this stage.

In addition to the generation of analytical themes, the researcher devised a

mechanism to analyze the strength of correlation between specific servant leadership

behaviors and employee job satisfaction in K-12 schools, as reported in the included

primary studies. This analysis was completed in two stages. First, the researcher

considered all studies where a statistically significant and positive correlation was

reported between servant leader behaviors and job satisfaction. Each time a servant leader

behavior was reported to have the strongest correlation with job satisfaction; it was given

5 points. Any behavior reported to have the second strongest correlation with job

satisfaction was given 4 points; the third strongest correlation was given 3 points, and so

on. If a general relationship between a servant leadership behavior and job satisfaction

was reported without comparisons in the strength of correlation with other behaviors,

then that behavior was given one point. All of these points were added at the end to

Figure 6. Examples of the generation of analytical themes in stage 3 of the coding process.


determine the servant leadership behaviors that were most strongly and frequently

correlated to job satisfaction among K-12 employees.

For example, the servant leader behavior of “Values people” in Laub’s model was

found to have the strongest correlation with job satisfaction in three studies (McKenzie,

2012; Chambliss, 2013; Anderson, 2005) for which it was assigned 15 points (5 points

each). It had the second strongest correlation with job satisfaction in one study

(McManmon et al., 2016) for which it was assigned four points; and had the fourth

strongest correlation in one study (Cerit, 2009) for which it was assigned two points. As

such, the total number of points assigned to this behavior was 21. Similarly, the servant

leadership factor of “organizational stewardship” in Barbuto and Wheeler's (2006) model

was found to have the strongest correlation with job satisfaction in two studies (Zhang et

al., 2016; Al-Mahdy et al., 2016) for which it was given ten points (5 points each) and the

second strongest correlation in one study (English, 2011) for which it was given four

points. As such, the total number of points assigned to this behavior was 14. A detailed

matrix of all servant leader behaviors and points assigned to them is provided in Chapter

4.

The second stage was completed after the researcher mapped servant leader

behaviors described in other models to Laub’s model. For this stage, the points assigned

to each behavior were added to Laub’s mapped behavior. For example, as discussed

above, the behavior “Values people” was assigned 21 points. In addition, several

behaviors or characteristics in other models had similar meanings to “Values people” in

Laub’s model and hence, were mapped to it. As such, the points assigned to those


behaviors in other models were added to “Values people.” A detailed matrix showing the

mapping and addition of points is provided in Chapter 4.

Summary

This chapter discussed the research methodology employed in the present

researcher’s dissertation. The importance of EBM for practitioners was discussed, along

with a discussion of systematic review as one of the most important and powerful

methodologies to evidence-based practice. Given that one of the salient features of

systematic reviews is the transparency in the process, details of how the search was done,

studies were analyzed and included, and information was coded and synthesized were

presented. A mechanism devised by the present researcher to determine the strongest

correlation between servant leader behaviors and job satisfaction was discussed in detail.

In summary, this chapter presented the research methodology used to answer the research

question, along with a detailed justification behind its selection, and discussed the steps

taken to complete the research.


Chapter 4: Findings

This chapter presents key findings from the present systematic review. The

purpose of this research was to identify specific servant-leader behaviors that have the

strongest correlation with employee job satisfaction in K-12 school settings. The

researcher conducted a systematic review including 21 primary studies, using thematic

synthesis as the review methodology.

This chapter starts with a brief descriptive analysis of the primary studies included

in the systematic review. Next, results of thematic synthesis conducted as part of the

research methodology are discussed. A summary of information covered concludes this

chapter.

Descriptive Analysis

Cultural contexts. Of the 21 included studies in this systematic review, 16 (or

76%) were conducted in the United States, two (or 9.5%) in Turkey and one (or 4.7%) in

Oman, Hong Kong, and Canada each. There is a pronounced interest in exploring servant

leadership in the U.S., which is similar to the findings in Parris and Peachey’s (2013)

systematic review. However, servant leadership is a phenomenon that is now widely

researched and implemented across a number of countries and cultures (Parris &

Peachey, 2013; Coetzer, Bussin, & Geldenhuys, 2017). Table 2 shows the division of

studies across these cultural contexts.


Table 2

Cultural Contexts of Included Studies

Cultural Context No. of Studies Percentage References

USA 16 76% Anderson (2005), Bovee (2012),

Brown (2014), Brown (2016),

Caffey (2012), Chambliss (2013),

Eliff (2014), Engelhart (2012),

English (2011), Girard (2000),

McKenzie (2012), McManmon et

al., (2016), Miears (2004), Salie

(2008), Shaw (2014), Svoboda

(2008)

Turkey 2 9.5% Cerit (2009), Güngör (2016)

Oman 1 4.7% Al-Mahdy et al. (2016)

Hong Kong 1 4.7% Zhang et al. (2016)

Canada 1 4.7% Rude (2006)

Religious contexts. Of the 21 included studies in this systematic review, four (or

19%) were conducted in schools that had a religious affiliation. The remaining studies

were conducted in schools who had no religious affiliation or whose religious affiliation

was not disclosed. This result is similar to that of Parris and Peachey’s (2013) where 18%

of the included primary studies were conducted in religious contexts. Several researchers

have connected the principles of servant leadership to centuries-old religious and

humanistic teachings (Svoboda, 2008; Bovee, 2012; Salie, 2008; Brown, 2016;

Anderson, 2005; Aabed, 2006; Elsegeiny, 2005). However, as was seen from the studies

in this systematic review, servant leadership is applied in both religious and non-religious

schools. Table 3 depicts the religious affiliations of schools in the included primary

studies.


Table 3

Religious Affiliations of Schools in Included Studies

Religious Affiliations No. of Studies Percentage References

No religious affiliation 17 81% Al-Mahdy et al. (2016), Brown (2014),

Caffey (2012), Chambliss (2013), Eliff

(2014), Engelhart (2012), English

(2011), Girard (2000), McKenzie

(2012), McManmon et al., (2016),

Miears (2004), Shaw (2014), Svoboda

(2008), Zhang et al. (2016), Rude

(2006), Cerit (2009), Güngör (2016)

Christian Schools 3 14.2% Anderson (2005), Bovee (2012),

Brown (2016)

Islamic Schools 1 4.7% Salie (2008)

Total Religious

Schools

4 19%

Servant leadership models. Servant leadership is considered to be an abstract

phenomenon (Van Dierendonck, 2011) with no consensus among management scholars

on its operationalization (Parris & Peachey, 2013). Much of the earlier studies in servant

leadership were dedicated to the development of a model to measure the servant

leadership construct (Parris & Peachey, 2013). Of the many models that have been

developed, Laub’s (1999) model – known as the Organizational Leadership Assessment

(OLA) – is a comprehensive one that has been used extensively in empirical literature on

servant leadership (Parris & Peachey, 2013).

Of the 21 studies included in the present systematic review, 10 (or 47.6%) of the

studies used Laub’s servant leadership model to determine the correlation between

servant leadership and job satisfaction. Parris and Peachey (2013) conducted a systematic

literature review exploring the mechanisms, outcomes, and impacts of servant leadership

across a variety of cultures and organizations. Laub’s OLA was most frequently used to

study the effects of servant leadership in primary studies included in Parris and Peachey’s

(2013) systematic review. In the present systematic review, three of the primary studies


(or 14.2%) used the servant-leadership framework developed by Barbuto and Wheeler

(2006); two of them (or 9.5%) used the Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument

developed by Dennis and Bocarnea (2005). Two of the studies did not use any of the

servant leadership because they were qualitative studies and depended on inductive

coding from transcripts of interviews conducted during the study. Table 4 depicts the

various servant leadership models used in the included primary studies.

Table 4

Servant Leadership Models Used in Included Studies

Servant Leadership Model No. of Studies Percentage References

Laub’s (1999) OLA 10 47.6% Anderson (2005), Bovee

(2012), Salie (2008), Cerit

(2009), Brown (2014),

Chambliss (2013), Eliff

(2014), McKenzie (2012),

Svoboda (2008)

Barbuto & Wheeler (2006) 3 14.3% Zhang et al. (2016), Al-

Mahdy et al. (2016), English

(2011)

Dennis and Bocarnea’s (2005)

SLAI

2 9.5% Caffey (2012), Miears (2004)

Van Dierendonck and Nuijten’s

(2011) Scale

1 4.8% Güngör (2016)

Spear’s (2005) Model 1 4.8% Girard (2000)

Hunter’s (2004) LSI 1 4.8%

Wong’s (2004) SLP 1 4.8%

No scale 2 9.5%

Laub’s (1999) OLA was the most commonly used measurement of servant

leadership in the present research, as well as in Parris and Peachey’s (2013) systematic

review. As such, the present researcher used Laub’s model of servant leadership as the

point of reference for his research. For all other models used in other primary studies in

this systematic review, the present researcher mapped those overlapping servant-leader

behaviors and characteristics to Laub’s (1999) model.


Another reason that Laub’s model is so frequently used in studies exploring job

satisfaction as an outcome of servant leadership is that the OLA measures the qualities of

servant leadership and job satisfaction in an organization. Laub (1999) asserted that the

higher the score given on the OLA instrument, the higher the job satisfaction in any given

organization. As such, using Laub’s model in studies exploring job satisfaction as an

outcome of servant leadership is a natural choice, since it eliminates the need for an

additional measurement for job satisfaction. As such, Miears (2005) concluded,

"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" (p. v). Table 5 presents a summary of the descriptive

analysis discussed so far in this section.


Table 5

Descriptive Analysis of Included Primary Studies

Reference Religious Affiliation Culture / Country Servant Leadership Measurement

Al-Mahdy, Salah El-Din, & Al-

Harthi (2016). No Religious Affiliation Oman Barbuto & Wheeler

Anderson (2005)

Christian (Church Educational System

of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter

Day Saints) United States Laub’s OLA

Bovee (2012).

Christian (Seventh Day Adventist

Schools) United States

Laub’s OLA

Brown (2014). No Religious Affiliation United States Laub’s OLA

Brown (2016)

Christian: Seventh Day Adventist

Schools

United States

None

Caffey (2012) No Religious Affiliation United States Dennis and Bocarnea’s SLAI

Cerit (2009). No Religious Affiliation Turkey Laub’s OLA

Chambliss (2013). No Religious Affiliation United States Laub’s OLA

Eliff (2014). No Religious Affiliation United States Laub’s OLA

Engelhart (2012) No Religious Affiliation United States Leadership Skills Inventory (LSI)

English (2011). No Religious Affiliation United States Barbuto & Wheeler

Girard (2000). No Religious Affiliation United States Spears

Güngör (2016) No Religious Affiliation Turkey van Dierendonck

McKenzie (2012). No Religious Affiliation United States Laub’s OLA

McManmon, Becht, Chamberland,

Gough, Joseph, & Morris (2016)

No Religious Affiliation United States None

Miears (2004) No Religious Affiliation United States Dennis and Bocarnea’s SLAI

Rude (2006). No Religious Affiliation Canada Servant Leadership Profile (SLP) (Wong)

Salie (2008). Muslim: Muslim Charter Schools United States Laub’s OLA

SHAW (2014).

No Religious Affiliation United States Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument

(SLAI) Dennis

Svoboda (2008). No Religious Affiliation United States Laub’s OLA

Zhang, Lee, & Wong (2016) No Religious Affiliation

Hong Kong Barbuto & Wheeler


Results of Thematic Synthesis

Results of initial coding of servant leadership behaviors. In the first round of

coding, the researcher considered all studies where a statistically significant and positive

correlation was reported between servant leader behaviors and job satisfaction. Each time

a servant leader behavior was reported to have the strongest correlation with job

satisfaction; it was given 5 points. Any behavior reported to have the second strongest

correlation with job satisfaction was given 4 points; the third strongest correlation was

given 3 points, and so on. If a general relationship between a servant leadership behavior

and job satisfaction was reported without comparisons in the strength of correlation with

other behaviors, then that behavior was given one point. All of these points were added at

the end to determine the servant leadership behaviors that were most strongly and

frequently correlated to job satisfaction among K-12 employees.

Results of this initial round showed that out of all the servant leader behaviors and

traits, “Values People” (Laub, 1999) had the strongest correlation with job satisfaction

with 21 points. This behavior was found to have the strongest correlation with job

satisfaction in three primary studies included in the sample, second strongest correlation

in one study, and fourth strongest correlation in one study. “Builds Community” (Laub,

1999) and “Organizational Stewardship” (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006) were the second and

third servant leader behaviors correlated with job satisfaction, with 17 and 14 points

respectively. Table 6 below shows the order of the first six servant leader behaviors that

are most strongly correlated with employee job satisfaction in K-12 schools. A detailed

scoring of all other servant leader behaviors is provided in the Appendix.


Table 6

Servant Leader Behaviors and their Correlation with Job Satisfaction, With References to Primary Studies (Sorted by Strongest

Correlation)

Servant Leader

Behavior

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Second

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Third

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Fourth

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Fifth Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Total

Values People McKenzie

(2012);

Chambliss

(2013); Anderson

(2005)

5x3 =

15

McManmon et

al., (2016)

4 Cerit (2009) 2 15+4

+2 =

21

Builds

Community

Brown (2014) 5 Cerit (2009);

Anderson (2005)

4x2=

8

Girard (2000);

Chambliss

(2013)

2 McKenzie

(2012); Eliff

(2014)

1+1

=2

5+8+

2+2=

17

Organizational

Stewardship

Zhang et al.,

(2016); Al-

Mahdy et al.,

(2016)

5x2 =

10

English (2011) 4 10+4

= 14

Displays

Authenticity

Cerit (2009) 5 McKenzie

(2012);

4 Chambliss

(2013)

3 Anderson

(2005)

1 5+4+

3+1=

13

Wisdom Al-Mahdy et al.,

(2016); English

(2011)

5x2=1

0

Zhang, Lee, &

Wong (2016)

1 10+1

= 11

Altruistic

Calling

Zhang et al.,

(2016)

4 Al-Mahdy et

al., (2016);

English (2011)

3*2=

6

4+6=

10


Results after mapping of servant leader behaviors to Laub’s model. The

second stage was completed after the researcher mapped servant leader behaviors

described in other models to Laub’s model. For this stage, the points assigned to each

behavior were added to Laub’s mapped behavior. For example, as discussed above, the

behavior "Values people" was assigned 21 points. Also, several behaviors or

characteristics in other models had similar meanings to "Values people" in Laub’s model

and hence, were mapped to it. As such, the points assigned to those behaviors in other

models were added to “Values people.”

Results of this round after mapping servant leader behaviors to Laub’s model

revealed that the quality of “Values people” had the strongest correlation with job

satisfaction, with a total of 45 points. Next strongest correlations were found between the

behavior “Builds Community” and “Provides Leadership” with 42 and 39 points

respectively. The servant leader behavior with the weakest correlation with job

satisfaction was “Shares Leadership” with a total of 12 points. Table 7 below shows

servant leader behaviors, after being mapped to Laub’s model, which are most strongly

correlated with employee job satisfaction in K-12 schools.


Table 7

Most Strongly Correlated Servant Leader Behaviors with Job Satisfaction (Second Round

After Mapping to Laub’s Model)

Servant Leader Behavior (Sorted by Laub’s Model) Total

Values People 21

Agapao love 4

Altruistic Calling 10

Valuing teachers 1

Self-sacrificing behaviors 1

Empathy 1

Celebrating teachers 1

Trust others 5

Serving others 1

Total for “Values People” (sum of above points) 45

Develops People 8

Commitment to growth of people 5

Empowerment 3

Support 4

Empower 9

Total for “Develops People” (sum of above points) 29

Builds Community 17

Building Sense of Community 1

Healing 4

Emotional Healing 5

Organizational Stewardship 14

Caring 1

Total for “Builds Community” (sum of above points) 42

Displays Authenticity 13

Humility 7

Moral 3

Authentic 2

Ethical leadership 8

Total for “Displays Authenticity” (sum of above points) 33

Provides Leadership 9

Persuasion 4

Vision 5

Persuasive Mapping 6

Wisdom 11

Visionary 4

Total for “Provides Leadership” (sum of above points) 39

Shares Leadership 7

Collaborative in crafting mission 1

Participatory 4

Total for “Shares Leadership” (sum of above points) 12


Additional Themes

In addition to the pre-existing themes discussed above, the present researcher used

an inductive approach to generate additional themes depicting servant leader behaviors

that could have a positive influence on employee job satisfaction in schools. These

themes could not be mapped to the servant leader behaviors described in Laub’s (1999)

model because of a lack of clear overlap in their meanings. These two additional themes

were: (1) Professional response to employee concerns and (2) Shared beliefs.

Summary

This chapter presented the findings of the systematic review conducted by the

present researcher. The purpose of this research was to identify servant leader behaviors

that had the strongest correlation with job satisfaction in K-12 schools. The servant leader

behaviors of “Values People” (Laub, 1999), “Builds people” (Laub, 1999), and

“Organizational stewardship” (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006) were found to have the

strongest correlation with employee job satisfaction. After mapping the servant leader

behaviors discussed in the sample for this systematic review to Laub’s model, the three

behaviors with the strongest correlation to job satisfaction were (1) Values people, (2)

Builds community, and (3) Shares leadership. Two additional themes generated as a

resulted of the inductive approach taken by the author were (1) Professional response to

employee concerns and (2) Shared beliefs.


Chapter 5: Discussion, Implications, and Conclusion

This chapter discusses the findings presented in Chapter 4 of this dissertation.

First, a brief summary and discussion of the findings are presented. Next, implications of

these findings for K-12 school leaders are discussed. Next, suggestions for future

research are presented. A brief summary of this dissertation concludes this chapter.

Cultural and Religious Contexts of Schools

As presented in Chapter 4 of this dissertation, though most of the studies included

in the present sample were conducted in the United States, servant leadership is

implemented in a variety of cultures across the world. Parris and Peachey (2013) found

that servant leadership was explored in more than 11 countries including China,

Indonesia, New Zealand, Trinidad, and Kenya. Van Dierendonck (2010) argued that

servant leadership is likely to be implemented in cultures that have low power distance

according to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, and have a score high in humane orientation

according to the project GLOBE’s research. However, servant leadership is implemented

in China and Indonesia, both of which are very high on power distance (“The Hofstede

Centre,” n.d.). Hence, it can be concluded that servant leadership is a viable and tenable

approach that can be applied cross-culturally, and not in specific cultures only.

Moreover, servant leadership is practiced and empirically investigated in religious

and non-religious settings. Eighty-one percent (81%) of the K-12 schools included in the

current sample did not have any religious affiliation. This supports the findings of Parris

and Peachey’s (2013) systematic review where only 18% of the organizations in the

sample had a religious affiliation. Several researchers have connected the principles of


servant leadership to centuries-old religious and humanistic teachings (Svoboda, 2008;

Bovee, 2012; Salie, 2008; Brown, 2016; Anderson, 2005; Aabed, 2006; Elsegeiny, 2005).

Bekker (2008) argued that throughout history, servant leadership has been associated

with religion. However, the result of this research as well as Parris and Peachey’s (2013)

systematic review indicate that servant leadership is implemented in religious and non-

religious contexts.

Servant Leader Behaviors with Strongest Correlation with Job Satisfaction

Based on the findings of the present research, the three servant leader behaviors

that have the strongest correlation with job satisfaction are (1) Values people, (2) Builds

community, and (3) Provides leadership. This section offers a brief discussion of these

three behaviors.

Values People

The behavior of “Values people” was most found to be most strongly correlated

with job satisfaction, before and after the mapping of servant leader behaviors from other

models to Laub’s model. According to Laub (1999), a servant leader values people by

believing in them and their ability to excel, serving followers’ needs more than his or her

own needs, and showing love and compassion toward followers. This finding is

consistent with Hebert's (2003) research, who found the behavior of "values people" to be

most strongly correlated with job satisfaction. Employees in a work environment

appreciate when they are valued, respected (Hebert, 2003), and when their needs are met

(Laub, 1999). Gordon and Patterson (2006) found that teachers considered those

principals effective who cared about teachers and recognized them for their


achievements. Principals of K-12 schools showing concern and consideration for teachers

has a stronger effect on teachers’ motivation and job satisfaction than principals leading

teachers in their day to day duties (Everett, 1987; as cited in Cerit, 2009). Sergiovanni

(1966) applied Herzberg’s motivator-hygiene model in his study and found that when

teachers feel a sense of achievement and are recognized for their work, they feel satisfied

with their jobs.

Notably, the servant-leader behavior of “values people” is unique because of its

selfless focus on the follower’s individual growth and development, and not on “inspiring

and engaging followers as the means to attain mission-focused ends through connecting

the [organizational] goals to valued aspects of the followers’ self-concept” (Walumbwa,

Hartnell & Oke, 2010, p. 518). Servant leadership is not just concerned with producing

results, but with “serving for the

inherent value and good in itself” (Rude, 2006, p. 22) According to the motivator-hygiene

theory, when employees are recognized for their achievements and feel valued, their

higher order needs are met, and they feel satisfied with their jobs (Herzberg, 1974).

Moreover, according to the SDT, people have a competence need, which compels them to

seek challenges that are optimal for their capacities and maintain and enhance those skills

through activity (Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 7). By valuing people for who they are,

developing them, and celebrating their accomplishments, a servant leader fulfills their

competence need, thus making employees satisfied with their jobs.

Builds Community

The behavior of “Builds community” was found to be the second strongest

predictor of employee job satisfaction. Laub (1999) asserts that a servant leader builds


community by building strong interpersonal relationships, working collaboratively with

others, and by valuing the differences of others. Greenleaf (1971) emphasized that an

organizational environment of love and service requires a community in which the

“liability of each for the other and all for one is unlimited” (p. 91).

Teachers are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs if their school operates

more like a community than as a regular workplace (Eliff, 2014, p. 116). When an

organization operates as a community, every member of the organization is committed to

each other's success (Taylor, 2002). The building of community within an institution

develops other servant leaders who similarly build communities around them; thus,

fulfilling Greenleaf’s vision of a virtuous cycle of service (Monroe, 2013). Fernandez

(2008) found that job satisfaction is positively related to development-oriented and

relations-oriented leader behavior. Waters and Cameron (2007) (as cited in English,

2011) argue that “Virtually everything in a school occurs within the context of a

community, composed of students, parents, teachers and other school staff personnel, the

school board, other social agencies, and businesses” (p. 53). Since servant leaders show

an altruistic sensitivity to the employee’s well-being, they build meaningful and

trustworthy relationships with employees. This building of community makes employees

feel connected to others and have a sense of belongingness to the organization, which

fulfills the relatedness needs of the employees (Ryan & Deci, 2002); and thus, makes

them satisfied with their jobs (Chiniara & Bentein, 2016).

In line with the behavior of “Builds community,” one of the unique effects of

servant leadership is the development of a “serving culture” among employees in an

organization (Jaramillo, Grisaffe, Chonko & Roberts, 2009; Liden, Wayne, Chenwei &


Meuser, 2014), as well as outside the organization toward the broader community (Liden,

Wayne, Zhao & Henderson, 2008). Once a specific behavior is embedded as a cultural

value in an organization, it solidifies behavioral norms and expectations (Liden et al.,

2014, p. 1435) and ultimately becomes embodied in an ideology or organizational

philosophy (Schein, 2010, p. 27). The development of a serving culture outside of the

organization is a very powerful effect of servant leadership, especially in an era when

people have lost trust in the credibility of corporate leaders as a group, due to the

behavior of a few executives. Moreover, Liden et al. (2008) found that when compared

to transformational leadership and Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory, servant

leadership uniquely explains community citizenship behavior. This finding supports

Graham’s (1991) claim that servant leadership is different from transformational

leadership and LMX theory because it encourages followers to become responsible

agents at work and in the society (p. 113).

Serving the community and society is a cornerstone value of servant leadership.

Larry Spears describes this aspect of servant leadership as “Organizational Stewardship,”

which “involves preparing the organization and its members for great contributions to

society” (as cited in Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006, p. 308). Greenleaf (1977) emphasized the

value of a community in his seminal work, and said:

Where there is not community, trust, respect, and ethical behavior are difficult for

the young to learn and for the old to maintain. Living in community as one’s basic

involvement will generate an exportable surplus of love which the individual may

carry into his many involvements with institutions which are usually not

communities: businesses, churches, governments, schools. (p. 91)


In summary, a servant leader encourages everyone actively pursue opportunities to serve

and lead others; thereby, improving the quality of life within and institution and

throughout the society (Guillaume, 2012, p. 104).

Provides Leadership

The behavior of “Provides leadership” was found to have the third strongest

correlation with job satisfaction in this research. A servant leader provides leadership by

envisioning the future, taking initiative, and clarifying goals (Laub, 1999, p. 83). Servant

leaders can influence others without using their formal authority and power (Barbuto &

Wheeler, 2006). Moreover, servant leaders are very observant and anticipatory in their

functioning (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006), a concept referred to as “wisdom.” Teachers in

school want consistency in leadership and want leaders to be able to set clear goals and

take appropriate actions to achieve those goals. Moreover, a leader must show his or her

staff that they have a clear vision and that they are leading their staff toward the

fulfillment of that vision for the betterment of the staff, students, and teachers (Brown,

2014). When employees have a clear sense of direction and when they are convinced

through rational persuasion and not by force about that direction, they feel motivated and

satisfied with their jobs.

Shares Leadership: A Striking Result

A striking result of this study was that the behavior of “Shares leadership” has the

least correlation with employee job satisfaction in schools. According to Laub (1999), a

servant leader shares leadership by facilitating a shared vision, sharing power and

releasing control, and by sharing status and promoting others (p. 83). The findings of the

present research corroborate Cerit’s (2009) findings, who concluded that there was no


statistically significant correlation between “shares leadership” and job satisfaction in

schools in Turkey. However, Cerit (2009) attributed this striking result to the excessively

bureaucratic and centralized system of education in Turkey, where most of the decisions

are made by the Ministry of Education. As such, teachers are not usually involved in

major decision making in schools. Pearson and Moomaw (2005) also found that general

teacher autonomy did not have a significant correlation with job satisfaction. However,

other researchers have found that teacher autonomy is positively correlated with job

satisfaction (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014; Stein, 2016; Lasseter, 2014).

One possible explanation for this weak correlation between the behavior of

“shares leadership” and job satisfaction was offered by an earlier study conducted by

Sergiovanni (1967), where he applied Herzberg’s Motivator-Hygiene theory in a study

involving teachers and their job satisfaction. One of Herzberg’s hygiene factors is

“supervision,” which includes the willingness or unwillingness of a supervisor to delegate

responsibilities to a teacher (Sergiovanni, 1967). An emphasis on teacher-centered

approach would entail supportive administrative behavior, interpersonal relations, and

effective communications. However, this teacher-centered approach only eliminates the

dissatisfaction factors that Herzberg proposed, without necessarily improving job

satisfaction (Sergiovanni, 1967). As such, when a servant leader shares leadership, it

eliminates job dissatisfaction, but may not necessarily lead to job satisfaction.

Another explanation for this result could be offered from the findings of Kreis and

Brockopp (1986). They asserted that teachers define autonomy that contributes to their

perception of job satisfaction as one that is limited to their classrooms. This means that

they only expect autonomy in their classrooms and assign schoolwide autonomy in


decision-making to school administrators (Kreis & Brockopp, 1986, p. 113). As such,

having autonomy in schoolwide decision making may not necessarily lead to job

satisfaction.

Implications for Management

Based on the findings of the present research, this section presents some

recommendations for action for school leaders. First, school districts and boards should

thoughtfully hire school leaders and administrators who have a genuine desire to serve

people, value them, and help them grow as people. Moreover, school districts and boards

should only hire people as school leaders who are people-oriented and can build strong

and long-lasting relationships with other employees; thus, building a sense of community

within the school. Given that school leadership plays a vital role in employee job

satisfaction (Eldred, 2010; Hulpia et al., 2009; Ladd, 2011; Hudson, 2009; Ismail, 2012),

hiring the right people who can build such effective relationships can improve employee

job satisfaction, and thus, overall student performance. Caffey (2012) aptly suggests,

“Assisting leadership practice in maintaining a quality staff, satisfied in their teaching

position, and holding a high level of motivation would only benefit the school district as a

whole school community” (p. 14). Not only that, such improved student performance can

also lead to significant financial (McKinsey and Company, 2009; Hanushek et al., 2016)

and societal (Hoffmann et al., 2013; Savolainen et al., 2012) impacts.

Second, school districts and boards ought to develop appropriate training

programs for school leaders to improve their practice of servant-leader behaviors. The

emphasis in these programs should be on developing the top three servant leader

behaviors that have the strongest correlation with employee job satisfaction: (1) Values


people, (2) Builds community, and (3) Provides leadership. Moreover, in line with

Greenleaf’s vision of a virtuous cycle of service (Monroe, 2013), training programs

should also develop teachers to become servant leaders so these servant leader behaviors

can be implemented within classrooms as well.

Last, school leaders should conduct a needs assessment to determine the personal

and professional needs of their employees. According to Greenleaf (1998) (as cited in

Chiniara & Bentein, 2016), “servant leaders invest a great deal of time and energy in

understanding follower's interests, capabilities, and career goals, as they are genuinely

concerned and consider subordinates' growth a priority” (p. 127). This needs assessment

could be the starting point for school leaders to proactively meet the needs of their

followers, help them grow personally and professionally, and encourage the building

community within and outside of the school. This needs assessment should be conducted

for teachers, students, and then to the community at large.

Summary

The purpose of this research was to identify specific servant leader behaviors that

have the strongest correlation with employee job satisfaction in K-12 schools. With the

passing of the No Child Left Behind and Every Student Succeeds Act, schools are under

increased pressure to show sustained improvements in students’ academic performance.

On the other hand, high rates of teachers’ job dissatisfaction and the resulting high

turnover rates have a negative impact on student performance, which in turn leads to

long-term societal and economic problems. Additionally, high teacher turnover has

negative financial implications for school districts and the nation at large.


School leadership has a positive effect on employee job satisfaction. Of the

leadership types, servant leadership was found to improve employee job satisfaction in

K-12 schools. Because of a lack of consensus on its operationalization and

dimensionality, servant leadership remains to be an abstract and ambiguous phenomenon.

The present research reduces this ambiguity by identifying servant leader behaviors that

have the strongest correlation with job satisfaction in schools.

Using systematic review as the methodology, the present researcher analyzed 21

empirical studies exploring the correlation between servant leadership and job

satisfaction. The researcher used thematic synthesis to analyze the sample for this

research. The researcher used Laub’s (1999) servant leadership model as the basis and

mapped servant leader behaviors in other models to Laub’s model. For each study, the

servant leader behavior with the strongest correlation with job satisfaction was assigned a

score of 5; the second strongest behavior correlated with job satisfaction was assigned a

score of 4, and so on. If a behavior was reported to correlate with job satisfaction without

any comparative correlation strength, it was assigned a score of 1 by default. In the end,

scores assigned to all behaviors were added to determine the behaviors with the strongest

correlation with job satisfaction.

The presenter researcher found that the behavior of “Values people” had the

strongest correlation with employee job satisfaction in K-12 schools. According to Laub

(1999), it includes believing in people, respecting them, caring for them, putting their

needs first, recognizing them, and showing love and compassion toward them. This

strong correlation is further supported by Herzberg’s Motivator-Hygiene theory, which

postulates that when people feel recognized in their jobs and feel a sense of achievement,


then they feel motivated and satisfied. Moreover, according to the SDT, people have a

competence need, which compels them to seek challenges that are optimal for their

capacities and to maintain and enhance those skills through activity (Ryan & Deci, 2002,

p. 7). Thus, the behavior of “Values people” fulfills the competence need, making

employees satisfied with their jobs.

Moreover, this research found that the behavior of “Builds community” had the

second strongest correlation with employee job satisfaction in K-12 schools. According

to Laub (1999), this behavior includes building strong interpersonal relationships with

people, valuing the differences between people, and working collaboratively with others.

When a servant leader builds community within and outside of the school, he or she

fulfills employees’ relatedness need, which refers to being connected with others, caring

for and being cared for by others, and having a sense of belongingness with other

individuals and the community at large (Ryan & Deci, 2002, p. 7). The fulfillment of the

relatedness need improves employee job satisfaction. Finally, the behavior of “Provides

leadership” was found to have the third strongest correlation with job satisfaction.

Recommendations for Future Research

This research identified servant leader behaviors that have the strongest

correlation with employee job satisfaction in K-12 schools. It provided school leaders

with a concrete set of behaviors that school leaders can implement and be trained on, in

order to improve job satisfaction. Moreover, this research gave a clear picture as to how

servant leadership can be implemented in K-12 schools. Future research can replicate this

study in other educational institutions, including colleges, universities, and other

organizational settings. Moreover, future research can identify specific servant leader


behaviors that are most effective in improving job satisfaction in other organizations to

determine if there are any differences in the effective implementation of servant

leadership in different organizational settings.

Also, future studies could identify if servant leadership is applied differently

across cultures. Though most of the studies included in the present sample were

conducted in the United States, servant leadership is implemented across a variety of

cultures including China, Turkey, Indonesia, New Zealand, Kenya, and Trinidad (Parris

& Peachey, 2013). It would be interesting to explore if certain servant leader behaviors

are more effective in those cultures as compared to the United States.

Moreover, future research can replicate the present research to include other

employee outcomes that are closely related to job satisfaction. For example, servant

leadership is positively correlated to employees’ organizational commitment (Liden,

Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)

(Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010; Ehrhart, 2004; Hu & Liden, 2011), both of which

affect job satisfaction. (Jinhua, Yanhui, Yan, & Xiaoyan, 2014). Due to time limitations,

primary studies exploring the effect of servant leadership on these outcomes were not

included in the present research. Future research can include these broader employee

outcomes to gain a better understanding of how servant leadership can be practiced

effectively in K-12 schools.

Finally, future studies could focus on the effectiveness of what Greenleaf

envisioned to be a virtuous cycle of service and explore if and how students in servant-

led schools become servant leaders themselves. Greenleaf asserted that as a result of

servant leadership, those who are being served would ultimately grow to become


“healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants”

(Greenleaf, 1971, p. 412). Such students would then serve others in the community at

large. Future research can evaluate whether this vision is fulfilled in servant-led schools.

Conclusion

We live in an era where many people have lost trust in the credibility of corporate

leaders because of the behavior of a few executives. Our communities are surrounded by

leaders who have great leadership abilities but huge egos and a strong focus on their

power and control. “What we need most are servant leaders with exceptional abilities

blended with hearts full of humility and love. Such leaders can make this world a better

place and restore people’s hope in the future” (Wong & Davey, 2007, p. 11). Developing

our students as servant leaders will improve our society and the world at large

tremendously by shifting the focus from just “me” to “we” and will lead us to long-term

prosperity instead of short-term profits. As a Chinese proverb stated, “If you want one

year of prosperity, grow grain. If you want ten years of prosperity, grow trees. If you

want one hundred years of prosperity, grow people” (Wong & Davey, 2007, p. 8).


References

Aabed, A. (2005). A study of Islamic leadership theory and practice in K-12 Islamic

schools in Michigan. ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3206991).

Abu-Shamaa, R., Al-Rabayah, W. A., & Khasawneh, R. T. (2015). The effect of job

satisfaction and work engagement on organizational commitment. IUP Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 15(4), 7-27. Retrieved from http://www.iupindia.in/

Aelterman, A., Engels, N., Van Petegem, K., & Pierre Verhaeghe, J. (2007). The well‐

being of teachers in Flanders: The importance of a supportive school culture.

Educational Studies, 33(3), 285–297. doi:10.1080/03055690701423085

Al-Mahdy, Y., Salah El-Din, N., & Al-Harthi, A. (2016). Perceptions of school

principals’ servant leadership and their teachers’ job satisfaction in Oman. Leadership

and Policy in Schools, 1-24. doi:10.1080/15700763.2015.1047032

Alonderiene, R., & Majauskaite, M. (2016). Leadership style and job satisfaction in

higher education institutions. The International Journal of Educational Management,

30(1), 140-164. doi:10.1108/ijem-08-2014-0106

Amadeo, C. A. (2008). A correlational study of servant leadership and registered nurse

job satisfaction in acute health -care settings (Order No. 3350849). Available from

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304315864).

Andersen, J. A. (2009). When a servant-leader comes knocking. Leadership &

Organization Development Journal, 30(1), 4-15. doi:10.1108/01437730910927070

Anderson, K. P. (2005). A correlational analysis of servant leadership and job

satisfaction in religious educational organization. ProQuest Digital Dissertations.

(UMI. No. 3162292).


Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A

motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 2045–2068. doi:10.1111/j.1559-

1816.2004.tb02690.x

Banerjee, N., Stearns, E., Moller, S., & Mickelson, R. A. (2017). Teacher job

satisfaction and student achievement: The roles of teacher professional community

and teacher collaboration in schools. American Journal of Education, 123(2), 203-

241. doi:10.1086/689932

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

of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 300-326.

doi:10.1177/105960110628709

Barnes, L. L. (2011). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment: An empirical

investigation of the effects of servant leadership in distance education programs

(Order No. 3465555). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

(883387097).

Barends, E., Rousseau, D.M., & Briner, R.B. (2014). Evidence-Based Management: The

Basic Principles. Amsterdam: Center for Evidence-Based Management.

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The

relationship between affect and employee “citizenship.” Academy of Management

Journal, 26(4), 587-595. doi:10.2307/255908

Bekker, C. J. (2008). The turn to spirituality and downshifting. In F. Gandolfi & H.

Cherrier, Downshifting: A theoretical and practical approach to living a simple life

(pp. 102-121). Hyderabad, India: ICFAI Press.


Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 662–683.

doi:10.1177/00131610121969460

Bogler, R. (2005). Satisfaction of Jewish and Arab teachers in Israel. The Journal of

Social Psychology, 145, 19-33. doi:10.3200/socp.145.1.19-34

Bovee, J. A. (2012). School leadership retention: A study of servant leadership and

school leader satisfaction (Order No. 3517134). Available from ProQuest

Dissertations & Theses Global. (1031210442).

Briner, R.B., & Denyer, D. (2012). Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a

practice and scholarship tool. In Rousseau, D. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of

Evidence-Based Management pp.112-129. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Briner, R. B., Denyer, D., & Rousseau, D. M. (2009). Evidence-Based management:

Concept cleanup time? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4), 19-32.

doi:10.5465/amp.2009.45590138

Brown Jacobs, M. R. (2016). Principals' servant leadership strategies as perceived by

teachers in North Texas Seventh-Day Adventist schools (Order No. 10192668).

Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1873447483).

Brown, A. B. (2014). Teacher perceptions of the servant leadership characteristics of

one principal in relation to job satisfaction (Order No. 3636447). Available from


Burden, A. K. (2014). Servant leadership and job satisfaction (Order No. 3634201).



Bynner, J., & Joshi, H. (2007). Building the evidence base from longitudinal

data. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences, 20(2), 159-179.

doi:10.1080/13511610701502255

Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). 'Clear as Mud': Toward greater clarity in generic

qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(2), 1-23

doi:10.1177/160940690300200201

Caffey, R. D. (2012). The relationship between servant leadership of principals and

beginning teacher job satisfaction and intent to stay (Order No. 3530849). Available

from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1114502811).

Callens, P. A. (2007). Using self-determination theory to predict employee job

satisfaction in a state psychiatric hospital (Order No. 3296226). Available from

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Cerit, Y. (2009). The effects of servant leadership behaviours of school Principals on

teachers' job satisfaction. Educational Management Administration &

Leadership, 37(5), 600-623. doi:10.1177/1741143209339650.

Cerit, Y. (2010). The effects of servant leadership on teachers’ organizational

commitment in primary schools in Turkey. International Journal of Leadership in

Education, 13(3), 301–317. doi:10.1080/13603124.2010.496933

Chambliss, A. (2013). The relationship between job satisfaction of teachers and the level

of servant leadership of their campus administrators (Order No. 3562276). Available

from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.


Chang, Y., Leach, N., & Anderman, E. M. (2015). The role of perceived autonomy

support in principals’ affective organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Social

Psychology of Education, 18(2), 315-336. doi:10.1007/s11218-014-9289-z

Chen, C., Chen, C., & Li, C. (2013). The influence of leader's spiritual values of

servant leadership on employee motivational autonomy and eudemonic well-

being. Journal of Religion and Health, 52 (2), 418-438. doi:10.1007/s10943-011-

9479-3

Chiniara, M., & Bentein, K. (2016). Linking servant leadership to individual

performance: Differentiating the mediating role of autonomy, competence and

relatedness need satisfaction. Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 124

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.004

Chiu, S., & Chen, H. (2005). Relationship between job characteristics and

organizational citizenship behavior: The mediational role of job satisfaction. Social

Behavior and Personality, 33(6), 523-540. doi:10.2224/sbp.2005.33.6.523

Chuong, D. T. (2008). Teacher attrition: Perceptions of teachers and

administrators (Order No. 3323550). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses

Global. (304603472).

Chung, J. Y., Chan Su, J., Kyle, G. T., & Petrick, J. F. (2010). Servant leadership and

procedural justice in the U.S. National Park Service: The antecedents of job

satisfaction. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 28(3), 1-15. Retrieved

from https://js.sagamorepub.com/jpra

Coetzer, M., Bussin, M., & Geldenhuys, M. (2017). The functions of a servant leader.

Administrative Sciences, 7(1), 5. doi:10.3390/admsci7010005


Counsell, C. (1997). Academia and clinic. Formulating questions and locating primary

studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127(5), 380-

387. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-127-5-199709010-00008

Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods

research. London: Sage. Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research

Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2009). CASP appraisal tools. Retrieved from

www.phru.nhs.uk/pages/PHD/resources.htm

Cummings, P. (1975). Does Herzberg’s theory really work? Management Review, 64(2),

35-37. Retrieved from http://www.amanet.org/

Dale, J. C., Jr. (2012). The correlation of the perceived leadership style of middle school

principals to teacher job satisfaction and efficacy (Order No. 3546181). Available


Daly, P. S., DuBose, P. B., Owyar-Hosseini, M. M., Baik, K., & Stark, E. M. (2015).

Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior in a sample of Korean

manufacturing employees. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management,

15(1), 27-50. doi:10.1177/1470595814552740

Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work

organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580–590. doi:10.1037/0021-

9010.74.4.580

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human

needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01


Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagne, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P.

(2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a

former Eastern Bloc country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930–

942. doi:10.1177/0146167201278002

Dennis, R. S. (2004). Servant leadership theory: Development of the servant leadership

assessment instrument (Order No. 3133544). Available from ABI/INFORM

Collection. (305056102).

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

instrument. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(8), 600–615.

doi:10.1108/01437730510633692

Dixon, D. L. (2015). Servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior:

Predictors of climate. In M. F. DiPaola, W. K. Hoy, M. F. DiPaola, W. K. Hoy (Eds.),

Leadership and school quality (pp. 47-59). Charlotte, NC: IAP Information Age

Publishing.

Donaldson, M. L., & Johnson, S. M. (2011). Teach for America teachers: How long do

they teach? Why do they leave? Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 47-51.

doi:10.1177/003172171109300211

Draugalis, J.R., Coons, S.J., & Plaza, C.M. (2008). Best practices for survey research

reports: a synopsis for authors and reviewers. American Journal of Pharmaceutical

Education, 72(1), e11. doi:10.5688/aj720111

Drury, S. (2004). Employee perceptions of servant leadership: Comparisons by level and

with job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Order No. 3146724). Available



Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit

level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 61-94.

doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02484.x

Eldred, J. A. (2010). A study to determine the relationship between the perceived

leadership styles of school principals and teacher job satisfaction at selected

elementary schools (Order No. 3412477). Available from ProQuest Dissertations &

Theses Global. (743815153).

Eliff, D. (2014). Servant leadership as a predictor of student academic growth,

Faculty/Staff attendance and job satisfaction, and organizational health of the middle

school (Order No. 3582784). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

(1609381720).

Elsegeiny, S. K. (2005) American Muslim school leadership: Principal and teacher

perspectives. ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (UMI. No. 3175817).

Engelhart, E. F. (2012). The relationship of servant leadership on teacher satisfaction

and teacher retention (Order No. 3511317). Available from ProQuest Dissertations &


English, E. M. (2011). Principals' servant leadership and teachers' job satisfaction

(Order No. 3492651). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

(917477129).

Erdem, M., İlğan, A., & Uçar, H. İ. (2014). Relationship between learning organization

and job satisfaction of primary school teachers. International Online Journal of

Educational Sciences, 6(1), 8-20. doi:10.15345/iojes.2014.01.002


Evans, V., & Johnson, D. J. (1990). The relationship of principals' leadership behavior

and teachers' job satisfaction and job-related stress. Journal of Instructional

Psychology, 17(1), 11-18. Retrieved from http://www.projectinnovation.biz

Farris, J. D. (2011). Servant leadership in Alabama's regional public universities: The

president's role in fostering job satisfaction (Order No. 3480202). Available from


Fernandez, S. (2008), “Examining the effects of leadership behavior on employee

perceptions of performance and job satisfaction”, Public Performance & Management

Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 175-205. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576320201

Field, L. K., & Buitendach, J. H. (2011). Happiness, work engagement and organisational

commitment of support staff at a tertiary education institution in South Africa. SAJIP:

South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(1), 68-77.

doi:10.4102/sajip.v37i1.946

Gaziel, H. (1986). Correlates of job satisfaction: A study of the two-factor theory in an

educational setting. The Journal of Psychology, 120(6), 613-626.

doi:10.1080/00223980.1986.9915491

Girard, S. H. (2000). Servant leadership qualities exhibited by Illinois public school

district superintendents (Order No. 9973347). Available from ProQuest Dissertations

& Theses Global. (304624205).

Gordon, J., & Patterson, J. (2006). School leadership in context: Narratives of practice

and possibility. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(3), 205-228.

doi:10.1080/13603120600797831


Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). An introduction to systematic

reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. The

Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 105-119. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(91)90025-W

Graves, L. M. (2013). Self-determination at work: Understanding the role of leader-

member exchange. Motivation & Emotion, 37(3), 518-536. doi:10.1007/s11031-012-

9336-z

Greenfield, W. J. (2004). Moral leadership in schools. Journal of Educational

Administration, 42(2), 174-196. doi:10.1108/09578230410525595

Greenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005). Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in

systematic reviews of complex evidence: Audit of primary sources. British Medical

Journal, 331(7524), 1064-1065. doi:10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68

Greenleaf, R. K. (1971). The servant as leader. Journal of Current Social Issues, 9(5),

4-29. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership. In G. Hickman (Eds.), Leading

Organizations: Perspectives for A New Era (2nd ed.), (pp. 87-95). Washington, DC:

Sage Publications.

Guillaume, O. (2012). Examining the impact of servant leadership on workplace related

outcome (job satisfaction) at a selected private university (Order No. 3531591).


Guin, K. (2004). Chronic teacher turnover in urban elementary schools. Education Policy

Analysis Archives, 12, 42. doi:10.14507/epaa.v12n42.2004


Güngör, S. K. (2016). The prediction power of servant and ethical leadership behaviours

of administrators on teachers' job satisfaction. Universal Journal of Educational

Research, 4(5), 1180-1188. doi:10.13189/ujer.2016.040531

Gurbuz, S. (2009). Some possible antecedents of military personnel organizational

citizenship behavior. Military Psychology, 21(2), 200-215.

doi:10.1080/08995600802574621

Hale, J. R., & Fields, D. L. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A study

of followers in Ghana and the USA. Leadership, 3(4), 397–417.

doi:10.1177/1742715007082964

Hamilton, F., & Bean, C. J. (2005). The importance of context, beliefs and values in

leadership development. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(4), 336–347.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8608.2005.00415.x

Hansen, H. F., & Rieper, O. (2009). The evidence movement: The development and

consequences of methodologies in review practices. Evaluation, 15(2), 141.

doi:10.1177/1356389008101968

Hanushek, E. A., Ruhose, J., & Woessmann, L. (2016). It pays to improve school

quality. Education Next, 16(3), 53. Retrieved from http://www.educationnext.org

Hebert, S. C. (2003). The relationship of perceived servant leadership and job

satisfaction from the follower's perspective (Order No. 3112981). Available from

ABI/INFORM Complete; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Herzberg, F. (1965). The motivation to work among Finnish supervisors. Personnel

Psychology, 18(4), 393-402. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1965.tb00294.x


Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard

Business Review, 46(1), 53. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-02701-9_2

Herzberg, F. (1974). Motivation-Hygiene profiles: Pinpointing what ails the

organization. Organizational Dynamics, 3(2), 18-29. doi:10.1016/0090-

2616(74)90007-2

Higgins, J.P.T. & Green, S. (2008). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of

Interventions - Version 5.0.1 [updated September 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration.

Retrieved on August 26, 2009 from http://www.cochrane-handbook.org

Hoffmann, J. P., Erickson, L. D., & Spence, K. R. (2013). Modeling the association

between academic achievement and delinquency: An application of interactional

theory. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 51(3), 629-660. doi:10.1111/1745-

9125.12014

Houkes, I., Janssen, P. P. M., Jonge, J., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). Specific determinants of

intrinsic work motivation, emotional exhaustion and turnover intention: A

multisample longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 76(4), 427–450. doi:10.1348/096317903322591578

Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An

examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 96(4), 851-862. doi:10.1037/a0022465

Hudson, T. J. (2009). New teacher job dissatisfaction and attrition from 1983-2005: A

meta-analysis (Order No. 3383204). Available from ProQuest Dissertations &

Theses Global.

http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/


Hulpia, H., Devos, G., & Rosseel, Y. (2009). The relationship between the perception of

distributed leadership in secondary schools and teachers' and teacher leaders' job

satisfaction and organizational commitment. School Effectiveness and School

Improvement, 20(3), 291-317. doi: 10.1080/09243450902909840

Ilardi, B. C., Leone, D., Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Employee and supervisor

ratings of motivation: main effects and discrepancies associated with job satisfaction

and adjustment in a factory setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1789–

1805. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01066.x

Inabarasu, J. (2008). Influence of servant -leadership practice on job satisfaction: A

correlational study in a Lutheran organization (Order No. 3349273). Available from


Ingersoll, R. M. (1999). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organization of

schools. A CTP Working Paper. Retrieved from http://www.ctpweb.org

Irving, J. A., & Longbotham, G. J. (2007). Team effectiveness and six essential servant

leadership themes: A regression model based on items in the organizational

leadership assessment. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(2), 98–113.

Retrieved from http://www.regent.edu

Islam, S. u., & Ali, N. (2013). Motivation-hygiene theory: Applicability on

teachers. Journal of Managerial Sciences, 7(1), 87-104. Retrieved from

http://www.qurtuba.edu.pk

Ismail, M. R. (2012). Teachers' perceptions of principal leadership styles and how they

impact teacher job satisfaction (Order No. 3509653). Available from ProQuest



Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2009). Examining the

impact of servant leadership on sales force performance. Journal of Personal Selling

& Sales Management, 29(3), 257-275. doi:10.2753/pss0885-3134290304

Jenkins, M., & Stewart, A. (2010). The importance of a servant leader orientation. Health

Care Management Review, 35(1), 46-54. doi:10.1097/HMR.0b013e3181c22bb8

Jinhua, Y., Yanhui, L., Yan, C., & Xiaoyan, P. (2014). The effect of structural

empowerment and organizational commitment on Chinese nurses' job

satisfaction. Applied Nursing Research, 27(3), 186-191.

doi:10.1016/j.apnr.2013.12.001

Johnston, L. (2006). Software and method: Reflections on teaching and using QSR

NVivo in doctoral research. International Journal of Social Research

Methodology, 9(5), 379-391. doi:10.1080/13645570600659433

Joireman, J., Kamdar, D., Daniels, D., & Duell, B. (2006). Good citizens to the end? It

depends: Empathy and concern with future consequences moderate the impact of a

short-term time horizon on organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1307-1320. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1307

Kacel, B., Miller, M., & Norris, D. (2005). Measurement of nurse practitioner job

satisfaction in a Midwestern state. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse

Practitioners, 17(1), 27-32. doi:10.1111/j.1041-2972.2005.00007.x

Kasser, T., Davey, J., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Motivation and employee–supervisor

discrepancies in a psychiatric vocational rehabilitation setting. Rehabilitation

Psychology, 37, 175–187. doi:10.1037/h0079104


Khorsan, R., & Crawford, C. (2014). External validity and model validity: A conceptual

approach for systematic review methodology. Evidence-Based Complementary &

Alternative Medicine (ECAM), 2014 1-12, doi:2014/694804

Kreis, K., & Brockopp, D. Y. (1986). Autonomy: A component of teacher job

satisfaction. Education, 107(1), 110. Retrieved from

http://www.projectinnovation.biz/index.html

Ladd, H. F. (2011). Teachers' perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of

planned and actual teacher movement? Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis, 33(2), 235-261. doi: 10.3102/0162373711398128

Lasseter, A. (2014). The effects of classroom autonomy, staff collegiality, and

administrative support on teachers' job satisfaction. Dissertation Abstracts

International Section A, 74.

Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the servant

organizational leadership assessment (SOLA) instrument (Doctoral Dissertation).

Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 9921922).

Leung, P., & Bartunek, J.M. (2012). Enabling evidence-based management: Bridging the

gap between academics and practitioners. In Rousseau, D. (Eds). The Oxford

Handbook of Evidence-Based Management pp.165-180. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Levy, A. J., Joy, L., Ellis, P., Jablonski, E., & Karelitz, T. M. (2012). Estimating teacher

turnover costs: A Case Study. Journal of Education Finance, (2), 102. Retrieved from

https://www.press.uillinois.edu


Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership:

Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The

Leadership Quarterly, 19(Multi-Level Approaches to Leadership), 161-177.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Chenwei, L., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leadership and

serving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of

Management Journal, 57(5), 1434-1452. doi:10.5465/amj.2013.0034.

Lundberg, C., Gudmundson, A., & Anderson, T. D. (2009). Herzberg's two-factor

theory of work motivation tested empirically on seasonal workers in hospitality and

tourism. Tourism Management, 30890-899. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2008.12.003

Mahembe, B., & Engelbrecht, A. S. (2014). The relationship between servant

leadership, organisational citizenship behaviour and team effectiveness. South

African Journal of Industrial Psychology, (1), doi:10.4102/sajip.v40i1.1107

Mayer, D. M., Bardes, M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2008). Do servant-leaders help satisfy

follower needs? An organizational justice perspective. European Journal of Work

and Organizational Psychology, 17(2), 180-197. doi:10.1080/13594320701743558

Mays, N., & Pope, C. (1995). Qualitative Research: Rigour and qualitative research.

British Medical Journal, 311(6997), 109-112. doi:10.1136/bmj.311.6997.109

McGowan, J. M. (1981). The application of the Herzberg theory of job satisfaction to

Iowa public school teachers (Order No. 8210015). Available from ProQuest

Dissertations & Theses Global.

McKinsey & Company (2009). The economic impact of the achievement gap in


America’s schools. Retrieved from

http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/achievement_gap_report.pdf

McKenzie, R. A. (2012). A correlational study of servant leadership and teacher job

satisfaction in a public education institution (Order No. 3537800). Available from


McManmon, M. F., Becht, K. A., Chamberland, E., Gough, B., Joseph, M., & Morris, M.

(2016). School and district leadership and the job satisfaction of novice teachers: The

influence of servant leadership (Order No. 10102205). Available from ProQuest


Mertler, C. A. (2002). Job satisfaction and perception of motivation among middle and

high school teachers. American Secondary Education, (1), 43. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org

Miears, L. D. (2004). Servant-leadership and job satisfaction: A correlational study in

Texas Education Agency Region X public schools. ProQuest Digital Dissertations.

(UMI. No. 3148083).

Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (n.d.). McGill University. Retrieved from

https://www.mcgill.ca/familymed/research-grad/research/projects/mmat

Monroe, K. (2013). Servant leadership: A virtuous cycle of service. Retrieved from

https://www.greenleaf.org/servant-leadership-a-virtuous-cycle-of-service/

NCTAF. (2011). The national commission on teaching and America’s future. Retrieved

from http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/NCTAF-Cost-of-Teacher-Turnover-

2007-policy-brief.pdf


Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008).

Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant

leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1220-1233.

doi:10.1037/a0012695

No Child Left Behind. (n.d.). U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml

Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1983). Meta-Ethnography: Issues in the synthesis and

replication of qualitative research. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov

O'Cathain, A., Murphy, E. & Nicholl, J. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in

health services research. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 13(2), 92-

98. doi:10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007074

O'Cathain, A. (2010). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: Towards a

comprehensive framework. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed

methods in social and behavioral research (2nd edition) (pp. 531-555). Thousand

Oaks: Sage.

OECD. (2008). Improving school leadership. Volume 1: Policy and practice. Education

and Training Policy. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up

Time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2008). Improving School

Leadership. Volume 1: Policy and Practice. OECD Publishing.

Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine (2009). Levels of evidence. Retrieved from

http://www.cebm.net/levels_of_evidence.asp

http://www.cebm.net/levels_of_evidence.asp


Pace, R., Pluye, P., Bartlett, G., Macaulay, A., Salsberg, J., Jagosh, J., & Seller, R.

(2010). Reliability of a tool for concomitantly appraising the methodological quality

of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods research: A pilot study. 38th Annual

Meeting of the North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG), Seattle,

USA.

Panaccio, A., Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Cao, X. (2015). Toward

an understanding of when and why servant leadership accounts for employee

extra-role behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, (4), 657.

doi:10.1007/s10869-014-9388-z

Parris, D., & Peachey, J. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership

theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377-393

doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6

Patterson, K. A. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model (Doctoral Dissertation).

Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3082719).

Pearson, L.C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and

stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational Research

Quarterly, 29, 37-53. Retrieved from http://www.erquarterly.org

Pekerti, A. A., & Sendjaya, S. (2010). Exploring servant leadership across cultures:

Comparative study in Australia and Indonesia. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 21(5), 754–780. doi:10.1080/09585191003658920

Philips, O. (2015). Revolving door of teachers costs schools billions every year. NprEd.

Retrieved from http://www.npr.org


Pluye, P., Gagnon, M.P., Griffiths, F., & Johnson-Lafleur, J. (2011). A scoring system for

appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative,

quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies Reviews.

International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(4), 529-46

doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.01.009

Pluye, P., Robert, E., Cargo, M., Bartlett, G., O’Cathain, A., Griffiths, F., Boardman, F.,

Gagnon, M.P., & Rousseau, M.C. (2011). Proposal: A mixed methods appraisal tool

for systematic mixed studies reviews. Retrieved from

http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com

Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual-

and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122-141. doi:10.1037/a0013079

Porta, M. (2008). A Dictionary of Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & Brown, K. C. (2002). HR professionals' beliefs about

effective human resource practices: Correspondence between research and

practice. Human Resource Management, 41(2), 149. doi:10.1002/hrm.10029

Reed, D. E. (1987). Organizational characteristics, principal leadership behavior and

teacher job satisfaction: an investigation of the effects on student achievement (Order

No. 8718972). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student

achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4-36.

doi:10.3386/w17176


Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as "evidence-based

management”? Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 256-269.

doi:10.5465/amr.2006.20208679

Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). Chapter 11: Evidence in

management and organizational science: Assembling the field's full weight of

scientific knowledge through syntheses. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 475-

515. doi:10.1080/19416520802211651

Rubino, M. J. (2012). Descriptions of organizational servant leadership practices, job

satisfaction, and organizational commitment at faith-based higher education

institutions (Order No. 3528063). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses

Global.

Rude, W. J. (2004). The connection between servant leadership and burnout (Order No.

MR15212). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (305051983).

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

a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3), 145–157.

doi:10.1108/01437730210424

Rusu, R. (2013). Organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Buletin

Stiintific, 18(1), 52-55. Retrieved from https://www.scientificbulletin.upb.ro

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An

organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of

self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester

Press.

Salie, A. (2008). Servant-minded leadership and work satisfaction in Islamic


organizations: A correlational mixed study (Order No. 3354212). Available from

ABI/INFORM Complete; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304328097).

Sandelowski, M. (2010). What's in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in

Nursing and Health, 33(1), 77-84. doi:10.1002/nur.20362

Savolainen, J., Hughes, L. A., Mason, W. A., Hurtig, T. M., Ebeling, H., Moilanen, I. K.,

& Taanila, A. M. (2012). Antisocial propensity, adolescent school outcomes, and

the risk of criminal conviction. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(1), 54-64.

doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00754.x

Sawchuk, S. (2012). Teacher turnover: How teacher turnover harms student

achievement. Education Week, (26). Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition based and affect-based

trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 96(4), 863–871. doi:10.1037/a0022625

Schein, E, H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Schwandt, T. (2001). Dictionary of qualitive inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and

application in organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2),

57-64. doi:10.1177/107179190200900205

Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant

leadership behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402-

424. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00761.x

https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20362


Senjaya, S., & Pekerti, A. (2010). Servant leadership as antecedent of trust in

organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31 (7), 643-663.

doi:10.1108/01437731011079673

Sergiovanni, T. (1967). Factors which affect satisfaction and dissatisfaction of teachers.

Journal of Educational Administration, 5(1), 66–82. doi:10.1108/eb009610

Shaw, J. J. (2014). Teacher retention and satisfaction with a servant leader as principal.

Education, 135(1), 101-106. Retrieved from http://www.projectinnovation.biz

Sinha, V. T. (1988). Estimating capital costs from an equipment list: A case study.

Engineering Costs and Production Economics, 14(4), 259–266. doi:10.1016/0167-

188x(88)90030-4

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy:

Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional

exhaustion. Psychological Reports, 114(1), 68-77. doi:10.2466/14.02.PR0.114k14w0

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

& Organization Development Journal, 17(7), 33–35.

doi:10.1108/01437739610148367

Spears, L. C. (2009). Servant Leadership. Leadership Excellence Essentials, 26(5), 20.

Retrieved from http://www.hr.com

Spears, L. (2010). Character and servant leadership: Ten characteristics of effective,

caring leaders. The Journal of Virtues & Leadership, 1(1), 25-30. Retrieved from

http://www.regent.edu/jvl


Stein, M. K. (2014). Factors affecting the job satisfaction of teachers of the gifted: A

mixed methods study (Order No. 3702834). Available from ProQuest Dissertations &


Stevens, K. (2001). Systematic reviews: The heart of evidence-based practice. AACN

Clinical Issues: Advanced Practice in Acute & Critical Care, 12(4), 529-538.

doi:10.1097/00044067-200111000-00009

Strauss, V. (2013). U.S. teachers’ job satisfaction craters – report. The Washington

Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com

Svoboda, S. N. (2008). A correlational study of servant leadership and elementary

principal job satisfaction in Ohio public school districts. Dissertation Abstracts

International Section A, 69, 1247.

Taylor, T. A. (2002). Examination of leadership practices of principals identified as

servant leaders. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (05), 1661. (UMI No.

3052221).

Taylor, D. L., & Tashakkori, A. (1995). Decision participation and school climate as

predictors of job satisfaction and teachers’ sense of efficacy. Journal of Experimental

Education, 63, 217-230. doi: 10.1080/00220973.1995.9943810

The Hofstede Centre (n.d.). China. Retrieved from http://geert-hofstede.com/china.html

The Hofstede Centre (n.d.). United States. Retrieved from

http://geert-hofstede.com/united-states.html

Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative

research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(45), 1–10.

doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45


Thompson, R. S. (2002). The perception of servant leadership characteristics and job

satisfaction in a church-related college (Order No. 3103013). Available from


Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing

evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British

Journal Management, 14(3), 207-222. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Van Dierendonck, D. (2010). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of

Management, 37(4), 1228–1261. doi:10.1177/0149206310380462

Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of

Management, 37(4), 1228-1261. doi: 10.1177/0149206310380462

Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The Servant leadership survey:

Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and

Psychology, (3). 249. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9194-1

Van Dierendonck, D., Stam, D., Boersma, P., de Windt, N., & Alkema, J. (2014). Same

difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and

transformational leadership to follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 25544-

562. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.014

Van Tassell, M. (2006). Called to serve: Servant-leadership perceptions at a Franciscan

sponsored University correlated with job satisfaction. ProQuest Digital

Dissertations. (UMI No. 3229492).

Veres, D. (2016). A phenomenological understanding of the experience of academic

administrators: Motivation, satisfaction, retention, and succession planning (Order


No. 10156423). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

(1836821297).

Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural

justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship

behavior: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 517-529.

doi:10.1037/a0018867

Washington, R. R. (2007). Empirical relationships among servant, transformational, and

transactional leadership: Similarities, differences, and correlations with job

satisfaction and organizational commitment (Order No. 3265529). Available from


Wang, X. (2005). Relationships among organizational learning culture, job satisfaction,

and organizational commitment in Chinese state-owned and privately owned

enterprises (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and

Theses database.(UMI No. AAT3203994).

Wells, G.A., Shea, B., O'Connell, D., Peterson, J., Welch, V., Losos, M., & Tugwell, P.

(2009). The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of non-

randomised studies in meta-analyses. The Cochrane Non-Randomized Studies

Method Group. from

www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm

Wong, P.T. P. (2004). The paradox of servant leadership. Leadership Link: Ohio State

University Leadership Center, Spring, 3-4.

http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm


Zehiri, C., Akyuz, B., Eren, M. S., & Turhan, G. (2013). The indirect effects of servant

leadership behavior on organizational citizenship behavior and job performance:

Organizational justice as a mediator. International Journal of Research in Business

and Social Science, 2(3), 2147-4478. doi:10.20525/ijrbs.v2i3.68

Zeinabadi, H. (2010). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as antecedents of

organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) of teachers. Procedia - Social And

Behavioral Sciences, 5(WCPCG 2010), 998-1003. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.225

Zhang, Z., Lee, J. C., & Wong, P. H. (2016). Multilevel structural equation modeling

analysis of the servant leadership construct and its relation to job satisfaction.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(8), 1147. doi:10.1108/LODJ-

07-2015-0159


APPENDIX

Appendix A

Journals Included in Research Databases

• Academic Search Complete

• America: History & Life

• American Doctoral Dissertations 1933 - 1955

• Books24x7

• Business Insights: Essentials

• Business Source Complete

• CINAHL

• CINAHL Complete

• Computer Database

• Computers & Applied Sciences Complete

• Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text

• eBook Collection (EBSCOhost)

• Education Research Complete

• Encyclopedia, Funk & Wagnalls New World

• Environment Complete

• ERIC

• European Views of the Americas: 1493 to 1750

• Gale Virtual Reference Library

• GPO Monthly Catalog

• GreenFILE

• Health Source - Consumer Edition

• Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition

• Historical Abstracts

• Hoover's

• JSTOR

• Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts

• MasterFILE Premier

• MEDLINE

• Mergent Online

• Military & Government Collection

• Nursing Reference Center

• OAIster

• Oxford Reference Online Premium

• Oxford Scholarship Online

• Political Science Complete

• Primary Search

• Professional Development Collection

• Project Muse

• PsycARTICLES

• Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection

• PsycINFO


• Regional Business News

• ScienceDirect

• SocINDEX with Full Text

• Teacher Reference Center


Appendix B

Database Search Results

Database Search String Scope Date of Search Date Range # Screened English only # Included

OneSearch (servant n2 leader*) AND ("job

satisfaction" OR "work satisfaction"

OR "employee satisfaction" OR

"employee morale" OR "employee

attitude*")

All 6/24/2017 All Dates 299 280 13

ABI/Inform (servant n/2 leader*) AND ("job




attitude*")

Anywhere

except full

text

6/24/2017 All dates 53 53 2

Dissertation and

Theses Global

(servant n/2 leader*) AND ("job




attitude*")

Anywhere

except full

text

6/24/2017 All dates 82 81 14

Grey Literature (servant n/2 leader*) AND ("job




attitude*")

3

Snowballing 3

Total Included 35

Total After Removing Duplicates 21

http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?url=http://www.emeraldinsight.com/search/advanced


Appendix C

Detailed Explanation of the MMAT Methodological Quality Criteria

Types of

mixed

methods study

components

or primary

studies

Methodological quality criteria (see tutorial for definitions and examples) Responses

Yes No Can’t

tell

Comments

Screening

questions

(for all types)

• Are there clear qualitative and quantitative research questions (or objectives*), or a clear mixed methods question (or objective*)?

• Do the collected data allow address the research question (objective)? E.g., consider whether the follow-up period is long enough for the

outcome to occur (for longitudinal studies or study components).

Further appraisal may be not feasible or appropriate when the answer is ‘No’ or ‘Can’t tell’ to one or both screening questions.

1. Qualitative 1.1. Are the sources of qualitative data (archives, documents, informants, observations) relevant to address the research question

(objective)?

1.2. Is the process for analyzing qualitative data relevant to address the research question (objective)? 1.3. Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to the context, e.g., the setting, in which the data were collected? 1.4. Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to researchers’ influence, e.g., through their interactions with participants?

2.

Quantitativ

e

randomized

controlled

(trials)

2.1. Is there a clear description of the randomization (or an appropriate sequence generation)? 2.2. Is there a clear description of the allocation concealment (or blinding when applicable)? 2.3. Are there complete outcome data (80% or above)? 2.4. Is there low withdrawal/drop-out (below 20%)?

3.

Quantita

tive non-

randomi

zed

3.1. Are participants (organizations) recruited in a way that minimizes selection bias? 3.2. Are measurements appropriate (clear origin, or validity known, or standard instrument; and absence of contamination between groups

when appropriate) regarding the exposure/intervention and outcomes?

3.3. In the groups being compared (exposed vs. non-exposed; with intervention vs. without; cases vs. controls), are the participants

comparable, or do researchers take into account (control for) the difference between these groups?

3.4. Are there complete outcome data (80% or above), and, when applicable, an acceptable response rate (60% or above), or an acceptable

follow-up rate for cohort studies (depending on the duration of follow-up)?

4.

Q

ua

nti

tat

ive

de

scr

ipt

ive

4.1. Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the quantitative research question (quantitative aspect of the mixed methods question)? 4.2. Is the sample representative of the population understudy? 4.3. Are measurements appropriate (clear origin, or validity known, or standard instrument)? 4.4. Is there an acceptable response rate (60% or above)?


5. Mixed

methods

5.1. Is the mixed methods research design relevant to address the qualitative and quantitative research questions (or objectives), or the

qualitative and quantitative aspects of the mixed methods question (or objective)?

5.2. Is the integration of qualitative and quantitative data (or results*) relevant to address the research question (objective)? 5.3. Is appropriate consideration given to the limitations associated with this integration, e.g., the divergence of qualitative and quantitative

data (or results*) in a triangulation?

Criteria for the qualitative component (1.1 to 1.4), and appropriate criteria for the quantitative component (2.1 to 2.4, or 3.1 to 3.4, or 4.1 to 4.4), must be also

applied.


Types of mixed methods study components or primary

studies Methodological quality criteria

1. Qualitative

Common types of qualitative research

methodology include: A. Ethnography

The aim of the study is to describe and interpret the shared cultural behaviour of a group of individuals.

B. Phenomenology

The study focuses on the subjective experiences

and interpretations of a phenomenon encountered

by individuals.

C. Narrative

The study analyzes life experiences of an individual or a group.

D. Grounded theory

Generation of theory from data in the

process of conducting research (data

collection occurs first).

1.1. Are the sources of qualitative data (archives, documents, informants, observations) relevant to address the research question

(objective)?

E.g., consider whether (a) the selection of the participants is clear, and appropriate to collect

relevant and rich data; and (b) reasons why certain potential participants chose not to

participate are explained. 1.2. Is the process for analyzing qualitative data relevant to address the research question (objective)?

E.g., consider whether (a) the method of data collection is clear (in depth interviews and/or

group interviews, and/or observations and/or documentary sources); (b) the form of the data is

clear (tape recording, video material, and/or field notes for instance); (c) changes are explained

when methods are altered during the study; and (d) the qualitative data analysis addresses the

question. 1.3. Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to the context, e.g., the setting,

in which the data were collected? * E.g., consider whether the study context and how findings relate to the context or

characteristics of the context are explained (how findings are influenced by or influence the

context). “For example, a researcher wishing to observe care in an acute hospital around the

clock may not be able to study more than one hospital. (…) Here, it is essential to take care to

describe the context and particulars of the case [the hospital] and to flag up for the reader the

similarities and differences between the case and other settings of the same type” (Mays &

Pope, 1995).

The notion of context may be conceived in different ways depending on the approach

(methodology) tradition.


E. Case study

In-depth exploration and/or explanation of

issues intrinsic to a particular case. A case can

be anything from a decision-making process, to

a person, an organization, or a country.

F. Qualitative description

There is no specific methodology, but a qualitative

data collection and analysis, e.g., in-depth

interviews or focus groups, and hybrid thematic

analysis (inductive and deductive).

Key references: Creswell, 1998; Schwandt, 2001;

Sandelowski, 2010.

1.4. Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to researchers’ influence, e.g., through their interactions with participants? *

E.g., consider whether (a) researchers critically explain how findings relate to their perspective,

role, and interactions with participants (how the research process is influenced by or influences

the researcher); (b) researcher’s role is influential at all stages (formulation of a research

question, data collection, data analysis and interpretation of findings); and (c) researchers

explain their reaction to critical events that occurred during the study.

The notion of reflexivity may be conceived in different ways depending on the approach

(methodology) tradition. E.g., “at a minimum, researchers employing a generic approach

[qualitative description] must explicitly identify their disciplinary affiliation, what brought

them to the question, and the assumptions they make about the topic of interest” (Caelli, Ray

& Mill, 2003, p. 5).

*See suggestion on the MMAT wiki homepage (under '2011 version'): Independent reviewers can establish a common

understanding of these two items prior to beginning the critical appraisal.


Types of mixed methods study components or primary studies

Methodological quality criteria

2. Quantitative randomized controlled (trials)

Randomized controlled clinical

trial: A clinical study in which

individual participants are allocated

to intervention or control groups by

randomization (intervention

assigned by researchers).

Key references: Higgins & Green,

2008; Porta,

2008; Oxford Center for Evidence

based medicine,

2009.

2.1. Is there a clear description of the randomization (or an appropriate sequence generation)?

In a randomized controlled trial, the allocation of a participant (or a data collection unit, e.g., a school) into the

intervention or control group is based solely on chance, and researchers describe how the randomization schedule is

generated. “A simple statement such as ‘we randomly allocated’ or ‘using a randomized design’ is insufficient”.

Simple randomization: Allocation of participants to groups by chance by following a predetermined plan/sequence.

“Usually it is achieved by referring to a published list of random numbers, or to a list of random assignments generated

by a computer”.

Sequence generation: “The rule for allocating interventions to participants must be specified, based on some chance

(random) process”. Researchers provide sufficient detail to allow a readers’ appraisal of whether it produces comparable

groups. E.g., blocked randomization (to ensure particular allocation ratios to the intervention groups), or stratified

randomization (randomization performed separately within strata), or minimization (to make small groups closely

similar with respect to several characteristics). 2.2. Is there a clear description of the allocation concealment (or blinding when applicable)?

The allocation concealment protects assignment sequence until allocation. E.g., researchers and participants are

unaware of the assignment sequence up to the point of allocation. E.g., group assignment is concealed in opaque

envelops until allocation.

The blinding protects assignment sequence after allocation. E.g., researchers and/or participants are unaware of the

group a participant is allocated to during the course of the study.

2.3. Are there complete outcome data (80% or above)?

E.g., almost all the participants contributed to almost all measures.

2.4. Is there low withdrawal/drop-out (below 20%)?

E.g., almost all the participants completed the study.


Types of mixed methods study components or primary studies Methodological quality criteria

3. Quantitative non-randomized

Common types of design include (A) non-randomized

controlled trials, and (B-C-D) observational analytic study

or component where the intervention/exposure is

defined/assessed, but not assigned by researchers.

A. Non-randomized controlled trials

The intervention is assigned by researchers, but there is no

randomization, e.g., a pseudo-randomization. A non-random

method of allocation is not reliable in producing alone similar

groups.

B. Cohort study

Subsets of a defined population are assessed as exposed,

not exposed, or exposed at different degrees to factors of

interest. Participants are followed over time to determine if

an outcome occurs (prospective longitudinal).

C. Case-control study

Cases, e.g., patients, associated with a certain outcome are

selected, alongside a corresponding group of controls. Data is

collected on whether cases and controls were exposed to the

factor under study (retrospective).

3.1. Are participants (organizations) recruited in a way that minimizes selection bias?

At recruitment stage:

For cohort studies, e.g., consider whether the exposed (or with intervention) and non-exposed (or without intervention) groups are recruited from the same population.

For case-control studies, e.g., consider whether same inclusion and exclusion criteria were

applied to cases and controls, and whether recruitment was done independently of the

intervention or exposure status.

For cross-sectional analytic studies, e.g., consider whether the sample is representative of the

population. 3.2. Are measurements appropriate (clear origin, or validity known, or standard instrument; and absence of contamination between groups when appropriate) regarding the exposure/intervention and outcomes?

At data collection stage:

E.g., consider whether (a) the variables are clearly defined and accurately measured; (b)

the measurements are justified and appropriate for answering the research question; and

(c) the measurements reflect what they are supposed to measure.

For non-randomized controlled trials, the intervention is assigned by researchers, and so

consider whether there was absence/presence of a contamination. E.g., the control group may

be indirectly exposed to the intervention through family or community relationships.


D. Cross-sectional analytic study

At one particular time, the relationship between health-

related characteristics (outcome) and other factors

(intervention/exposure) is examined. E.g., the frequency of

outcomes is compared in different population sub-groups

according to the presence/absence (or level) of the

intervention/exposure.

Key references for observational analytic studies: Higgins &

Green, 2008; Wells, Shea, O'Connell, Peterson, et al., 2009.

3.3. In the groups being compared (exposed vs. non-exposed; with intervention vs. without; cases vs. controls), are the participants comparable, or do researchers take into account (control for) the difference between these groups?

At data analysis stage:

For cohort, case-control and cross-sectional, e.g., consider whether (a) the most important

factors are taken into account in the analysis; (b) a table lists key demographic information

comparing both groups, and there are no obvious dissimilarities between groups that may

account for any differences in outcomes, or dissimilarities are taken into account in the analysis.

3.4. Are there complete outcome data (80% or above), and, when applicable, an acceptable response rate (60% or above), or an acceptable follow-up rate for cohort studies (depending on the duration of follow-up)?

5


Types of mixed methods study components or primary studies

Methodological quality criteria

4. Quantitative descriptive studies

Common types of design include single-group studies:

A. Incidence or prevalence study without comparison group

In a defined population at one particular time, what is happening in a population, e.g., frequencies of factors (importance of problems), is described (portrayed).

B. Case series

A collection of individuals with similar characteristics are used to describe an outcome.

C. Case report

An individual or a group with a unique/unusual

outcome is described in details.

Key references: Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, 2009;

Draugalis, Coons & Plaza, 2008.

4.1. Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the quantitative research question (quantitative aspect of the mixed methods question)?

E.g., consider whether (a) the source of sample is relevant to the population under

study; (b) when appropriate, there is a standard procedure for sampling, and the sample

size is justified (using power calculation for instance).

4.2. Is the sample representative of the population understudy? E.g., consider whether (a) inclusion and exclusion criteria are explained; and (b)

reasons why certain eligible individuals chose not to participate are explained.

4.3. Are measurements appropriate (clear origin, or validity known, or standard instrument)?

E.g., consider whether (a) the variables are clearly defined and accurately measured;

(b) measurements are justified and appropriate for answering the research question;

and (c) the measurements reflect what they are supposed to measure.

4.4. Is there an acceptable response rate (60% or above)?

The response rate is not pertinent for case series and case report. E.g., there is no

expectation that a case series would include all patients in a similar situation.

6


Types of mixed methods study components or primary studies Methodological quality criteria

5. Mixed methods

Common types of design include:

A. Sequential

explanatory design The quantitative component is followed by the qualitative. The purpose is to explain quantitative results using qualitative findings. E.g., the quantitative results

guide the selection of qualitative data sources and data collection, and the

qualitative findings contribute to the interpretation of quantitative results.

B. Sequential exploratory design

The qualitative component is followed by the quantitative. The purpose is to

explore, develop and test an instrument (or taxonomy), or a conceptual

framework (or theoretical model). E.g., the qualitative findings inform the

quantitative data collection, and the quantitative results allow a generalization

of the qualitative findings.

C. Triangulation design

The qualitative and quantitative components are concomitant. The purpose is

to examine the same phenomenon by interpreting qualitative and quantitative

results (bringing data analysis together at the interpretation stage), or by

integrating qualitative and quantitative datasets (e.g., data on same cases), or

by transforming data (e.g., quantization of qualitative data).

D. Embedded design

The qualitative and quantitative components are concomitant. The purpose is

to support a qualitative study with a quantitative sub-study (measures), or to

better understand a specific issue of a quantitative study using a qualitative

sub-study, e.g., the efficacy or the implementation of an intervention based

on the views of participants.

Key references: Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; O’Cathain, 2010.

5.1. Is the mixed methods research design relevant to address the qualitative and quantitative research questions (or objectives), or the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the mixed methods question (or objective)?

E.g., the rationale for integrating qualitative and quantitative methods to answer the research question is explained.

5.2. Is the integration of qualitative and quantitative data (or results) relevant to address the research question (objective)?

E.g., there is evidence that data gathered by both research methods was brought

together to form a complete picture, and answer the research question; authors

explain when integration occurred (during the data collection-analysis or/and

during the interpretation of qualitative and quantitative results); they explain

how integration occurred and who participated in this integration.

5.3. Is appropriate consideration given to the limitations associated with this integration, e.g., the divergence of qualitative and quantitative data (or results)?


Appendix D Subject Matter Expert Evaluation & Feedback Form

Student: Haroon Baqai

Dissertation Topic: Effects of Servant Leadership on Job Satisfaction of Teachers

Feedback from: ________________________

Please provide your insights and suggestions for each of these topic areas. Comments

and suggestions under each topic are expected and very much appreciated.

Clarity of the Study Problem – Is the topic’s relationship to the field of educational

leadership made clear and explained?

Your observations:

Significance of this Study – To what extent would this study contribute to the practice of

servant leadership in schools? How original is this study?

Your insights (including awareness of similar studies or research that would duplicate

this study):

Scope of this Study – Is the scope of this study made clear? Is it focused on servant

leadership and its relationship to job satisfaction among school employees? Can this

relationship be realistically investigated?

Your observations about its do-ability:

Literature informing this Study – Does the type and relevance of literature reviewed

here provide the proper direction for this study?

Your observations and suggestions literature sources that would be helpful:

Overall Written Quality – Does this study present a clear line of reasoning consistent

with servant leadership research materials you are familiar with?

Your suggestions for overall improvements that can be made to this approach:

Overall Practical Value – Does this study offer a clear and recognizable opportunity to

produce results that would offer practical solutions to school leadership?

Your comments:

Overall Strengths of this study


Your comments:

Overall weaknesses of this study

Your comments:

Reviewer’s Signature / date


Appendix E

Servant Leader Behaviors and their Correlation with Job Satisfaction, With References to Primary Studies

(Sorted by Strongest Correlation)

Servant

Leader

Behavior

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Second

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Third

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Fourth

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Fifth

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Total

Values People McKenzie

(2012);

Chambliss

(2013);

Anderson

(2005)

5x3

= 15

McManmon

et al., (2016)

4 Cerit (2009) 2 15+4+2

= 21

Builds

Community

Brown (2014) 5 Cerit (2009);

Anderson

(2005)

4x2

=8

Girard

(2000);

Chambliss

(2013)

2 McKenzie

(2012); Eliff

(2014)

1+1

=2

5+8+2+

2= 17

Organizational

Stewardship

Zhang et al.,

(2016); Al-

Mahdy et al.,

(2016)

5x2

= 10

English

(2011)

4 10+4 =

14

Displays

Authenticity

Cerit (2009) 5 McKenzie

(2012);

4 Chambliss

(2013)

3 Anderson

(2005)

1 5+4+3+

1=13


Servant

Leader

Behavior

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Second

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Third

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Fourth

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Fifth

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Total

Wisdom Al-Mahdy et

al., (2016);

English (2011)

5x2=

10

Zhang, Lee,

& Wong

(2016)

1 10+1=

11

Altruistic

Calling

Zhang et al.,

(2016)

4 Al-Mahdy et

al., (2016);

English

(2011)

3*2

=6

4+6=10

Empower Rude (2006) 5 McManmon

et al.,

(2016);

Caffey

(2012)

2x2

=4

5+4=9

Provides

Leadership

Brown (2014) 4 Cerit (2009) 3 Anderson

(2005)

2 4+3+2=

9

Develops

People

Chambliss

(2013)

4 McKenzie

(2012)

3 Cerit (2009) 1 4+3+1=

8

Ethical

leadership

Güngör (2016) 5 McManmon

et al., (2016)

3 5+3=8

Humility McManmon,

Becht et al.,

(2016)

5 Caffey

(2012)

2 5+2=7


Servant

Leader

Behavior

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Second

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Third

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Fourth

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Fifth

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Total

Shares

Leadership

Anderson

(2005)

3 McKenzie

(2012)

2 Salie (2008);

Chambliss

(2013)

1x2

= 2

3+2+2 =

7

Persuasive

Mapping

Al-Mahdy et

al., (2016);

Zhang et al.,

(2016);

English

(2011)

2x3

=6

6

Trust others Caffey (2012) 5 5

Commitment to

growth of

people

Girard (2000) 5

Emotional

Healing

Zhang et al.,

(2016)

3 Al-Mahdy et

al., (2016);

English

(2011)

1+1

=2

3+2=5

Vision Caffey (2012) 5 5

Agapao love Caffey (2012) 4 4

Support Caffey (2012) 4 4

Healing Girard (2000) 4 4


Servant

Leader

Behavior

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Second

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Third

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Fourth

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Fifth

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Total

Persuasion Girard (2000) 4 4

Visionary Rude (2006) 4 4

Participatory Rude (2006) 4 4

Empowerment Caffey

(2012)

3 3

Moral

Caffey

(2012)

3 3

Authentic Rude (2006) 2 2

Valuing

teachers

Brown

(2016)

1 1

Self-sacrificing

behaviors

Brown

(2016)

1 1

Empathy Brown

(2016)

1 1

Celebrating

teachers

Brown

(2016)

1 1

Serving others Rude (2006) 1 1


Servant

Leader

Behavior

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Second

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Third

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Fourth

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Fifth

Strongest

Correlation

Pts. Total

Building Sense

of Community

Engelhart

(2012)

1 1

Caring Caffey

(2012)

1 1

Collaborative

in crafting

mission

Brown

(2016)

1 1

running head: servant leadership in schools 1 servant

Documents