Literature suggests that a number of instruments exist that exhibit sufficient psychometric development for measuring servant leadership. Considering such, which instrument would you recommend for my imminent servant leadership research and why? Additionally, what recent research articles would you recommend worth reading that relate to servant leadership measurement?
Dirk van Dierendonk, prof at Rotterdam School of Management and myself developed a survey to measure the qualities of seven leaderships styles, including servant leaderiship. It has not been publisehd
As most empirical data suggests, and I found in my own research, quantitative study using survey methods serves the vast majority of servant leadership measurement. Laub and Greenleaf were foundational in my study, although I wish for time to investigate servant-leadership pioneers such as Herman, Ebener and O’Connell, Savage-Austin and Honeycutt, etc.
http://sahayaselvam.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Paris-Peachey-2013-Sys-Lit-Review-on-Leadership.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9194-1
See the following Questionnaire:
Instructions: Select two people who know you in a leadership capacity such as a coworker, fellow group member, or subordinate. Make two copies of this questionnaire and give a copy to each individual you have chosen. Using the following 7-point scale, ask them to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with the following statements as they pertain to your leadership. In these statements, “He/She” is referring to you in a leadership capacity.
Key: 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Disagree somewhat
4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Somewhat 6 = Agree 7 = Strongly agree
SOURCE: “Servant Leadership: Development of a Multidimensional Measure and Multi-Level Assessment,” by R. C. Liden, S. J. Wayne, H. Zhao, and D. Henderson, 2008, The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161–177.
Dear Respondents,
Thank you greatly for your feedback.
Thank you also for the articles provided - they are interesting reads!
Kind regards
Neale
Leadership is often misunderstood and conflated with first in the field or managerial functions. I have carried out work that defines leadership as a self-negating function that at particular moments serves to point to a different way or state, but recognises that those who follow, do so voluntarily and autonomously with the capacity to opt out, disagree, take on the necessary role themselves, or advocate a different way or state.
This paper examines this concept in relation to workplace safety and the notion of "safety leadership".
Conference Paper Leadership -a negation of agency or an opportunity to develo...
Fascinating discussion. I guess my first question is why servant leadership? I'll assume you find it exceptionally intriguing, engaging and c/w with your study design/question. I'm a fan of transformational leadership, defined as a dynamic developmental process, that brings into accord Maslow, Kohlberg, and Rokeach. I applied it to parenting during my Fuld Fellowship in the late 90's. The MLQ 5X is the instrument.
Dear Neale,
I would strongly recommend Van Dierendonck and Nuijten's Servant Leadership Survey (SLS) that is most recent (2010) and very versatile.
Although the question is related to servant leadership, Kathleen's reply has prompted to ask me one question : Is there any universal leadership model that is applicable to all contexts and provides positive outcomes? Transformational, servant, authoritarian or for that matter any other leadership models have been found to be ineffective in certain contexts.
By focussing on one leadership model or the other, aren't we ignoring the most important factor that defines the effectiveness of leadership practices - the context?
I guess that's what I like about the transformational leadership model. It's been criticised for its monomethod bias. So, additional measures of the "effect" are needed. By context, are you looking for a robust conceptualization? I like the breadth and depth of the science with this one. It has been used to frame studies across industries and countries for decades.
Kathleen, what I am trying to imply is that there is no single leadership model, including the popular transformational leadership, that can be termed as universal. Studies have proven that these models do not give positive results all the time and across contexts.
What I am trying to imply is that leaders need to focus on their own immediate contexts and try to align their practices accordingly. What works in one context may not necessarily work in the other. Context-based practices are the key for effective leadership, irrespective of what leadership model or a combination of models are applied.