Journal

Journal of Leadership Education

...is an international, refereed journal that serves scholars and professional practitioners engaged in leadership education. ...provides a forum for the development of the knowledge base and professional practice of leadership education world wide. ...is made available through the continued support and efforts of the membership of the Association of Leadership Educators.

Copyright 2010 by the Association of Leadership Educators. All rights reserved.

ISSN 1552-9045

i


Volume 9, Issue 2 Summer 2010

Volume 9, Number 2 Summer 2010The Journal of Leadership Education (JOLE) is the official publication of the Association of Leadership Educators. The purpose of JOLE is to provide a forum for development of the knowledge base and practice of leadership education. The journal is intended to promote a dialogue that engages both academics and practitioners. Thus, JOLE has a particular interest in applied research and it is the premise of JOLE that feedback between theory and practice tests both and makes each better. The journal provides several categories for submittals to promote diversity of discussion from a variety of authors. The members and board of the Association of Leadership Educators became aware of the need for a journal about leadership education in the early 1990s. The challenge of educating people about leadership is particularly provocative, complex, and subtle. Other journals with leadership in the title focus primarily on defining and describing leadership, and journals concerning education seldom address the subject of leadership. Indeed, one common argument in society is that leadership is innate (you have it or you dont) and teaching leadership is difficult and often ineffective. This attitude is expressed, perhaps, in the dearth of leadership courses on our university campuses. In this context, JOLE provides a means to test the hypothesis that leadership education is possible. Our journal sits at the nexus of education theory and practice and leadership theory and practice, and from this divide, this mountain pass there is a need to look both ways. Whether leadership education is a discipline of its own is unclear, at least at present. If nothing else, by looking both ways this journal hopes to provide a passageway between two disciplines, enriching both in the process. JOLE is an electronic journal open to all, both as writers and readers. The journal has been conceived as an on-line journal that is available on the world-wide web and is to be self-supporting. To this end, at some time in the future a fee may be charged for publication. At present, all editorial, Board, and reviewer services are provided without cost to JOLE or its members by volunteer scholars and practitioners.

ii



Editorial StaffEditor

Barry Boyd, Texas A & M University

Associate Editor Brent J. Goertzen, Fort Hays State University Editorial Reviewers Scott Allen, John Carroll University Tony Andenoro, Gonzaga University Jill Arensdorf, Fort Hays State University Paul Arsenault, West Chester University Elizabeth Bolton, University of Florida Chester Bowling, Ohio State University Christie Brungardt, Fort Hays State University Curt Brungardt, Fort Hays State University Jackie Bruce, University of Pennsylvania Robert Colvin, Christopher Newport University Marilyn Corbin, Pennsylvania State University Chris Crawford, Fort Hays State University Ken Culp III, University of Kentucky Renee Daugherty, Oklahoma State University Dennis Duncan, University of Georgia Don DiPaolo, University of Detroit Garee Earnest, Ohio State University Chanda Elbert, Texas A&M University Patricia J. Fairchild, University of Nebraska, Lincoln Nancy Franz, University of Illinois Carrie Fritz, University of Tennessee Susan Fritz, University of Nebraska, Lincoln Brent J. Goertzen, Fort Hays State University Mark Grandstaff, Brigham Young University Tracy Hoover, Pennsylvania State University David Jones, North Carolina State University Eric Kaufman, Virginia Tech University Tony Middlebrooks, University of Delaware Jeffery P. Miller, Innovative Leadership Solutions Lori Moore, Texas A&M University Chris Morgan, University of Georgia Martha Nall, University of Kentucky Penny Pennington-Weeks, Oklahoma State University Carolyn Roper, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

iii



John Ricketts, University of Georgia Kris Ricketts, University of Kentucky Manda Rosser, Texas A&M University Richard Rohs, University of Georgia Mark Russell, Purdue University Nicole Stedman, University of Florida Kelleen Stine-Cheyne, Texas A&M University Wanda Sykes, North Carolina State University Laurie Thorp, Michigan State University Jim Ulrich, Antioch University Willis M. Watt, Methodist University Bill Weeks, Oklahoma State University Jennifer Williams, Texas A&M University Larry Wilson, University of Illinois Karen Zotz, North Dakota State University

iv



Table of ContentsFrom the Editors Clipboard Barry Boyd, Texas A & M University Bet you never heard of this leadership trait Joseph J. Thomas, PhD, United States Naval Academy Examining Gender Differences of Servant Leadership: An Analysis of the Agentic and Communal Properties of Servant Leadership Questionnaire John E. Barbuto, Jr., Ph.D., University of Nebraska-Lincoln Gregory T. Gifford, Ph.D., University of Florida Using Achievement Motivation Theory to Explain Student Participation in a Residential Leadership Learning Community Lori L. Moore, Texas A&M University Dustin K. Grabsch, Texas A&M University Craig Rotter, Texas A&M University 4-H Made Me a Leader: A College-Level Alumni Perspective of Leadership Life Skill Development Jessica Anderson, North Carolina State University Jacklyn Bruce, North Carolina State University Lauren Mouton, North Carolina State University Creating Meaningful Environments for Leadership Education Kathy L. Guthrie, Ph.D., Florida State University Sara Thompson, MS, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Transformational Leadership and its Relationship to Adult 4-H Volunteers Sense of Empowerment in Youth Development Settings Pamela Rose, PhD, Oregon State University/Marion County Extension Service viii

1

4

22

35

50

58

v



Students Attitudes and Perceptions of the Use of Cooperative Exams in an Introductory Leadership Class Lori L. Moore, Texas A&M University The Effects of Teaching Methods in Leadership Knowledge Retention: An Experimental Design of Lecture, Experiential, and Public Pedagogy Jennifer Williams, PhD, Texas A&M University Megan McClure, MAL, University of Georgia Impact of Group Development Knowledge on Students Perceived Importance and Confidence of Group Work Skills Natalie Coers, M.A.L., University of Georgia Jennifer Williams, Ph.D., Texas A&M University Dennis Duncan, Ph.D., University of Georgia Serving the Once and Future King: Exploring Servant Leadership in Merlin Laura M. Oliver, Gonzaga University Kae Reynolds, Gonzaga University Interviews: Linking Leadership Theory to Practice Deborah N. Smith, Ph.D., Kennesaw State University Deborah B. Roebuck, Ph.D., Kennesaw State University Developing Life-Long Learners Through Personal Growth Projects Barry Boyd, Texas A&M University Jennifer Williams, Texas A&M University Servant Leadership and Constructive Development: How Servant Leaders Make Meaning of Service Kelly A. Phipps, J.D., Ph. D., Rockhurst University

72

86

101

122

135

144

151

Submission Guidelines Le Culminant

171 173

vi



From the Editors Clipboard Volume 9, Number 2 - Summer 2010What is the power in one little word? We all grew with the adage that Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me. An adage meant to sooth childrens feelings when their peers have said mean things. But the truth is that words do hurt. Words are just that powerful. Ali Edwards has found a way to use the power of one little word to make life more meaningful. Ali writes a weekly blog on scrapbooking, creativity, and life (and the concept of life art). Even if you are not a scrapper, she offers interesting insights into many facets of life, including personal leadership. Her blog is at http://www.aliedwards.com/onelittle-word/ if you would like to check it out. In 2006, Ali chose one word (play) to focus on for that year. As she describes it, "A single word can be a powerful thing. It can be the ripple in the pond that changes everything. It can be sharp and biting, or rich and soft and slow." She reflects on her word daily, incorporating it into every facet of her life. In the last four years, thousands of her followers have adopted this practice of choosing and focusing on a single word for the year. The impact on their lives has been astounding (according to their posts). The concept of one little word can be a great tool for leadership educators. If our goal is the transformation of our students (in whatever form they come in), the one little word concept can become another tool in our arsenal. We have so much going on in our lives, as do our students, that the idea of focusing on one word seems overly simplistic. But that is the strength of this concept. By focusing on one important thing rather than 1,000 less important things, we can make a tremendous impact in our lives. This spring, Manda Rosser chose to use the one little word concept with the students in the Dr. Joe Townsend Leadership Fellows program. Each participant chose their one word and created a collage that visually described its meaning to them. They shared their word at the initial retreat and one Fellow shared their word during the weekly meeting for which they were the host. During the final meeting of the Fellows, participants shared their one little word again and the impact that it had made on them during the semester. The impact on each student was visible to both their peers and the faculty working with the Fellows. One student chose Passion as her word: I chose 'Passion,' because I wanted everything I did to reflect the passion I had for it. Whether it be loving my family, reading a book, camping, leading, learning, photography, etc, I wanted to show passion behind all

vii



that I did. I believe I successfully accomplished that this semester. I hope others can see that. In my opinion, people can have many passions, but to not act on those passions or live out those passions would be a shame and a waste. I consider it a blessing to have found passion/s in my life, and I do not want to waste time on things I am not passionate about or that have not impacted my life. Another student chose Patience. She describes the impact of her word: I have always been known as a bit impatient and so it was very difficult, yet refreshing to remind myself to be patient in all that I did this semester. I started with little things like while I was driving. Instead of getting upset with an individual who made an unwise driving choice, I thought about how maybe their day hadn't been going well or maybe they really didn't see me. I have also implemented this word with my relationships with roommates, family and other friends. My family has noticed a significant difference in my attitude because of my pursuit to have more patience. I plan to continue to use the one little word theory and create a bank of words that I consider on a daily basis to better myself. And yet another chose Confidence: I chose this word because sometimes I find myself holding back class discussions, or other public activities because I am scared to put my opinion out there and have people judge me. I want to work on my confidence to speak up and have no fear in public situations. I also chose confidence because I am getting ready to graduate and go out in the real world, so I want to have the confidence to make the decisions that I need to succeed in my endeavors. How do you or your students implement this one little word idea? First you choose a word. This may require a little reflection or a word may choose you. Define what the word means to you. Identify the areas of your life to which you plan to apply the word. Because pictures are powerful, create some graphic way of describing your word Write about your word. Acting on your word is necessary for making it work. Make a list of actions that you can do today or this week to make your word have impact. Add new actions each week.

Any craftsman will tell you that having the right tool for the job makes a world of difference. It is no different for leadership educators. As we seek to make a

viii



difference in others lives and continue our own growth as leadership educators, we need multiple tools at our disposal. May one little word be the tool that you need to help your students grow in a new way. My word for 2010 is Commit. Issue Information The Journal of Leadership Education (JOLE) continues to strive for excellence in manuscript review and acceptance. Acceptance rates are calculated for each issue and vary depending on the number of submissions. The JOLE acceptance rate for this issue is 58%. The manuscripts were authored by 11 writers. In their review of the submitted documents, representatives of the JOLE Editorial Board provided a juried assessment of a manuscripts scholarly significance and relevance. The Theoretical Features, Research Features, Application and Idea Briefs were peer reviewed and closely scrutinized to ensure selected manuscripts advance the theory and practice of leadership education. See the journal website for a more detailed discussion of these categories (www.fhsu.edu/JOLE/). This issue of JOLE supports scholars in their development of new knowledge in the quest for successful leadership education. Respectfully submitted, Barry L. Boyd, Editor This issue begins with a commentary by Joseph Thomas, U.S. Naval Academy. Thomas comments on curriculum gaps when educating leaders who are involved in a highly technical curriculum. He proposes that in a setting where the curriculum is highly technical, special attention must be paid to the students interpersonal communication skills.

Research FeaturesExamining Gender Differences of Servant Leadership: An Analysis of the Agentic and Communal Properties of Servant Leadership Questionnaire Barbuto and Gifford investigated five servant leadership characteristics by male and female servant leaders. The findings contradict many studies on gender roles in leadership. Using Achievement Motivation Theory to Explain Student Participation in a Residential Leadership Learning Community Moore, Grabsch, and Rotter examined a voluntary residential leadership learning community to discover how achievement motivation theory influenced the

ix



students to join these communities. The researchers found that only two out of the three needs were common motives for the students. 4-H Made Me a Leader: A College-Level Alumni Perspective of Leadership Life Skill Development What motivates 4-H alumni to continue their involvement with that organization? Anderson, Bruce, and Mouton qualitatively examined this as well as the impact of 4-H experiences on college-level 4-H alumnis leadership life skill development. Creating Meaningful Environments for Leadership Education Guthrie and Thompson describe student experiences when institutions create environments that incorporate theory, practice, and reflection of leadership education. The authors discovered that a partnership between Student Affairs and Academic Affairs can provide a learning environment where students experience high quality leadership experiences. Transformational Leadership and its Relationship to Adult 4-H Volunteers Sense of Empowerment in Youth Development Settings Roses research dealt with the sense of empowerment that 4-H volunteers feel in relation to the perceived leadership styles of their 4-H Youth Development Educators. The studys results showed a connection between empowerment of volunteers and transformational leadership. Students Attitudes and Perceptions of the Use of Cooperative Exams in an Introductory Leadership Class Moore investigated the use of cooperative exams in an introductory leadership class. The use of these exams led to advantages and disadvantages from the students perspective, but overall, the students enjoyed the cooperative exams and think that they should continue to be used. The Effects of Teaching Methods in Leadership Knowledge Retention: An Experimental Design of Lecture, Experiential, and Public Pedagogy Williams and McClure examined the impact of three different teaching methodologies. Findings show that lecture is an inferior method of teaching leadership and that public pedagogy has efficient and consistent results. Impact of Group Development Knowledge on Students Perceived Importance and Confidence of Group Work Skills Coers, Williams, and Duncan examined the impact of Tuckman and Jensens group development process on students attitudes towards group work. A positive impact leads the authors to recommend that leadership educators continue using and teaching this process in the classroom and helping students see how the skill transfers to roles outside of the classroom.

x



Application BriefsServing the Once and Future King: Exploring Servant Leadership in Merlin Oliver and Reynolds discover a religiously neutral example of how worldly media can be used to teach ten basic principles of servant leadership. These ten principles can be seen in Merlin, and students can observe these principles as qualities that are still desired today. Interviews: Linking Leadership Theory to Practice Smith and Roebuck describe the impacts of an assignment where students interview a leader in order to apply leadership theories, and to understand the complexities of being a leader. Using a constructivist approach, this assignment has been successful in helping students connect leadership theory to practice. Developing Life-Long Learners Through Personal Growth Projects Boyd and Williams reported on an assignment that is required in a personal leadership development course. The assignment allows students to apply course content while developing the habit of life-long learning.

TheoreticalServant Leadership and Constructive Development: How Servant Leaders Make Meaning of Service Phipps proposes a theoretical framework that examines the subject/object relationship for servant leaders at progressive stages of meaning making, showing how the way leaders make meaning of service evolves with their constructive development.

xi



Bet You Never Heard of this Leadership TraitJoseph J. Thomas, Ph.D. Lakefield Family Foundation Distinguished Military Professor of Leadership and Senior Fellow Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership United States Naval Academy Annapolis, MD [email protected]

AbstractThis is a commentary on educating leaders within the constraints of a highly technical curriculum. The U.S. Naval Academys mission is to produce leaders for the nation. Many things compete for the time and attention of Midshipmen (the Academys students). Greater attention must be paid to interpersonal communications skills in the formal and informal curriculum.

Trait ApproachThere are few things in the study of leadership as polarizing as the trait approach. Widely viewed as anachronistic at best and counterproductive at worst, trait theory is commonly associated with the axiom that great leaders are born that way. Those who rightly view leadership as a process reject the trait approach because they believe it suggests that a few are preordained and the rest of us will never fully get it. I consider this view an oversimplification and an injustice. Leadership is largely about maximizing inherent talents and then combining those talents with experience and education. By applying this combination of inherent traits and developed abilities in accordance with a foundation of values, we all have the opportunity to fulfill our potential as effective leaders. Some may have to work at it a little harder than others, but we can all get there on our own timeline.

Student CriticismWhile I was on a recent speaking engagement in Hawaii a young sailor, just returned from Iraq, shared with me her principal criticism of the graduates of my own institutionthe United States Naval Academy. Of course I was prepared to take all of it with a grain of salt, for whenever anyone paints with such a broad brush as to say all Academy grads do this or all Academy grads think that way then I am instinctively skeptical. To my relief, her criticisms were not pejorative. Rather, she offered observations that were fair and intended to get me thinking about our process. She acknowledged that the technical preparation of Academy grads was beyond reproach, their professionalism was unquestioned,

1



and their potential for higher command unrivaled. She felt the human touch was, unfortunately, lacking. She felt graduates of the Academy seemed to care about their subordinates a little less, were more awkward in social situations, and lacked the essential skills of socialization with varied groups.

Need for Social Skills DevelopmentThis young sailor was making an observation I had heard echoed many times before, that somehow the preparation we provide aspiring officers was incomplete. Perhaps the very rigor, demands on their time, expectation of detached professionalism and technical competence produced the perverse effect of making our graduates socially inept. Was this a consequence of the educational philosophy of the institution? Due primarily to the realities facing all Naval Academy graduates, particularly in a time of war, the technical and practical course of study must continue. Only the most zealous proponent of the Great Works Curriculum would suggest swinging the pendulum in the other direction and embracing the classical liberal arts education. Besides, the Naval Academys next door neighbor, St. Johns College, has that local market cornered. What then should be added to the existing Academy curriculum to address the concern of this young sailor and others who feel similarly?

Savior FaireSelfishly, or perhaps self-deprecatorily, I believe the task falls to my own field of study and department, Leadership and Ethics. The fundamental issue at stake involves personal effectiveness and that is the ostensible starting point of leadership development. Among the attributes graduates of the U.S. Naval Academy require to fulfill their leadership potential is the seemingly unlikely trait of savoir faire. Now I must admit I am neither a Francophone nor necessarily a Francophile, however, the term does capture something the simple English term tact does not. Most people consider tact through its antonyms, the qualities of being blunt or rude. Tact is the absence of blunt and rude behavior. Savior faire is so much more. Savoir faire is polish, it is graceful behavior, it is the ability to do or say just the right thing in virtually any settingfrom counseling an underachieving, grieving, or misguided subordinate to mingling socially with diplomats, contractors, or janitors. Clearly there is no short-cut to the development of savior faire. It has long been considered the product of a proper upbringing and that upbringing surely includes a humanistic education. But given the realities of the technical curriculum of the U.S. Naval Academy and the myriad demands on the time of its students, how do we achieve development of this trait? At risk of sounding like a hopeless reactionary, I submit we must bow to tradition in this regard. The classical, yet moribund, discipline of rhetoric should be our guide. The art of persuasion through the concepts of ethos, pathos, and logos provides the pedagogy. The Academy must assemble people of firm moral competence to serve as models of

2



human interaction (ethos). Those charged with development, both faculty and staff, must maintain the narrative of graceful and gracious behavior (pathos) in and out of class. Finally, the actual technique of effective interpersonal communication must be introduced and reinforced (logos) also in and out of class. To the inevitable detractors who will claim we certainly do not need a finishing school to build Navy and Marine Corps officers, I would simply offer my agreement. The point in developing the trait of savoir faire is less about gentility than it is good old-fashioned leadership effectiveness. The young sailors and Marines who will be led by Naval Academy graduates deserve the best. Being the best leader includes deft handling of human beings. The tried and tested trait of tact is insufficient, as is our apparent ability to inculcate it. By aiming higher at the unlikely quality of savior faire, we correct the real and perceived limitations of our product.

Author BiographyJoe Thomas is a retired Marine whose research interests include experiential leadership development in austere and demanding environments.

3



Examining Gender Differences of Servant Leadership: An Analysis of the Agentic and Communal Properties of the Servant Leadership QuestionnaireJohn E. Barbuto, Jr., Ph.D. Associate Professor of Leadership University of Nebraska-Lincoln 300 Agricultural Hall P.O Box 830709 Lincoln, NE 68583-0709 (402) 472-8736 FAX: (402) 472-5863 [email protected] Gregory T. Gifford, Ph.D. Assistant Professor University of Florida 213 Rolfs Hall P.O. Box 110540 Gainesville, FL 32611-0540 (352) 392-0502 (ext. 239) [email protected]

AbstractThis study examined the use of five servant leadership dimensions including altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and organizational stewardship by male and female servant leaders. Staff members (368) employed in county government offices across a Midwestern state were sampled using the Servant Leadership Questionnaire and a series of demographic questions. Results indicated males and females equally and effectively utilized both communal and agentic servant leadership dimensions. These findings contest prevailing gender role stereotypes in leadership.

IntroductionThe conceptualization of servant leadership has inspired many thought-provoking essays describing a service-first leadership orientation counter to most other perspectives in the field (Buchanan, 2007; Greenleaf, 1970). Spears (1995) identified ten characteristics of servant leaders, which, at the time, was the first multi-dimensional model of servant leadership. Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) clarified the construct and operationalized servant leadership for research with the development of the Servant Leadership Questionnaire. A plethora of research opportunities of servant leadership have resulted from this operationalization.

4



Other scholars have followed with servant leadership constructs and measures (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008; Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008). For the purpose of this research gender is the appropriate term, rather than sex, because this study is testing the socialized difference that make up agentic and communal behaviors. As the concept of servant leadership pervades the field identifying the nature and development of the construct offers timely and necessary lines of inquiry. Avolio, Walumbwa, and Weber (2009) suggested that servant leadership be examined from a follower-centric perspective in an effort to more clearly differentiate servant leadership from similar leadership constructs such as transformational. Workplace issues related to sex and gender have not been empirically evaluated in the servant leadership literature. Several scholars have examined sex differences for other leadership constructs with mixed results (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Eagly & Karau, 1991). Others have tested sex differences for full range leadership behaviors (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Barbuto, Fritz, Matkin, & Marx, 2007), leader-member exchange relationships (Pelled & Xin, 2000), and sources of work motivation (Barbuto & Gifford, 2008). Other studies have used dispositional, biological and psychological variables in comparative examinations of male and female gender role leadership behaviors (Eagly & Carli, 2004). Barbuto et al. (2007) investigated the use of influence tactics and found that less educated female leaders used more pressure influence tactics than less educated male leaders although difference weakened with increased education. Those few studies that have been conducted to date have tested the impacts of servant leadership on positive organizational outcomes (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, & Roberts, 2008). The antecedents of servant leadership have not been tested. Among the plethora of leadership constructs that have been tested in the organizational behavior and applied psychology field, servant leadership is among the few leadership constructs that has yet to be tested for its gender roles and differences. Scholars have called for new research testing followers' perceptions of gender role behaviors of servant leaders (Barbuto et al., 2007). The present study tests these sex differences by examining agentic and communal servant leadership behaviors against positive organizational and follower outcomes.

Servant LeadershipGreenleaf (1970) originally conceptualized servant leaders as those who displaced self-interest in lieu of prioritizing the needs of those being led. Servant leaders bring a service-oriented approach to leadership that is manifested by enabling followers to grow and develop. Servant leaders have been described as having an ability to invoke organizational wisdom, fold experience and knowledge into decision-making to make pro-social choices and also possessing many of the

5



characteristics of transformational leaders but moving beyond those behaviors by aligning motives and values with followers (Bass, 2000; Bierly, Kessler, & Christensen, 2000). More recently, scholars have sought to delineate the behaviors associated with servant leadership. Spears (1995) identified ten characteristics of a servant leader listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth of people and community building. Farling, Stone, and Winston (1999) conceived servant leadership as a hierarchical model operating as cyclical processes, which consist of behavioral (vision, service) and relational (influence, credibility, trust) components. Other scholars have made distinctions between servant leadership and other constructs (Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004). Ehrhart (2004) developed a measure and tested leaderships role in predicting organizational citizenship behavior. The measure appeared to be based on unpublished work and some of the earliest works on the construct. Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) clarified the servant leadership construct with a comprehensive critique of the literature and developed a measure for a revised construct. Two subsequent measures were developed offering alternative constructs to the seminal work (Liden et al., 2008; Sendjaya et al., 2008). Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) identified five dimensions of servant leadership: altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and organizational stewardship. Altruistic Calling Bass (2000) suggested that one of the key differences between transformational leaders and servant leaders was the intent of the leader. Servant leaders are likely to exhibit more altruistic motives. Greenleafs (1970) original conception of servant leaders argued that a conscious choice is made to serve others, which was contrary to the notion that leaders pursue such positions with the intention of leading others. Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) operationally defined altruistic calling as having both desire and willingness to put aside self-interest in order to benefit followers. Emotional Healing Spears (1995) conceptualized healing as the ability of an individual to provide emotional support when another individual fails at a task, dream or relationship. Other scholars have argued that the ability to provide emotional healing to employees is not only a powerful skill for leaders to maintain but also provides for the emotional stability and support for the entire organization (Dacher, 1999; Weymes, 2003). Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) operationalized emotional healing as having the ability to recognize when and how to foster the healing process within others.

6



Wisdom Servant leaders have been described as categorically wise (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2002). Bierly et al. (2000) argued that servant leaders are able to monitor surroundings, understand implications of happenings and anticipate consequences of actions. This ability to invoke wisdom in a variety of settings allows servant leaders to make both altruistic choices and the best possible decision at any given time (Greenleaf, 1970). Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) drew from the concepts of awareness and foresight and defined wisdom as the combination of height of knowledge and utility. Persuasive Mapping The ability to influence others has regularly been regarded as a cornerstone of the ability to lead (Yukl, 2006). Leaders use both sources of power and influence tactics as a means to persuade followers in one direction or another (Yukl & Falbe, 1991). Falbe and Yukl (1992) tested the effectiveness of influence tactics and found that rational influence behaviors were more effective than forceful influence tactics. Mapping lends itself to an inspirational, futuristic approach to rational influence. Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) argued that leaders who utilize persuasive mapping are able to map issues and conceptualize greater possibilities and are compelling when articulating these opportunities. Effective persuasive mapping encourages others to visualize the organizations future in such a way that is persuasive and offers compelling reasons to get followers to engage. Organizational Stewardship Understanding that organizations do not operate within a vacuum and instead can have both positive and negative impacts upon society, servant leaders prepare individuals within an organization to sustain positive effects beyond the organization (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2002). Pro-social and altruistic behaviors have been widely researched within the field of psychology where findings have indicated that such behaviors are often indicative of an individuals attitude towards a situation and can have subsequent effects on observers (Batson, Chang, Orr, & Rowland, 2002). Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) defined organizational stewardship as extending leadership beyond the organization by taking responsibility for the well-being of the community and ensuring that strategies and decisions undertaken reflect the commitment to give back to a larger community.

Leadership and Gender RolesWith increased gender representation in upper management, women should experience fewer hurdles for advancement (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995). However, Eagly and Carli (2007) likened a womans path to leadership as traversing through a labyrinth with unexpected turns, dead ends, roadblocks and

7



confusion. Ely (1995) posited that socially constructed views of female behavior were not congruent with leadership positions. Counter-productive social constructions have led to negative associations with female leadership behaviors as women try to balance behaviors perceived to be more masculine such as authoritative, confident and motivated with socially constructed feminine behaviors such as caring, compassionate and kind (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992). Other work has demonstrated little to no sex difference (Barbuto, Fritz, & Plummer, 2003). Barbuto et al. (2007) reported gender differences only when moderated by education and age. Social role theory suggested that individuals would behave in accordance with preconceived notions about the roles that individuals occupy (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Categorically, individuals, who can be classified into defined roles, will adjust behaviors based upon the norms of that role. Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, and Engen (2003) argued that leaders tend to simultaneously conform to the defined roles both within an organizational hierarchy and within societal gender roles. Gender roles refer to shared expectations (about appropriate qualities and behaviors) that apply to individuals on the basis of their socially identified gender (Eagly, 1987, p. 12). Within the context of social role theory, females have largely been considered to fulfill more supportive and interpersonal roles whereas males are considered more likely to fulfill functional roles such as the primary breadwinner and negotiator (Eagly, 1987). Gender roles have an implicit manifestation in the functionality of an organization (Gutek & Morasch, 1982). Gender roles and stereotypes have been a widely researched topic (Quinn, Macrae, & Bodenhausen, 2007). Research has generalized that most individuals possess assumptions that are biased by gender specific stereotypes (Ely, 1995). This means that certain behaviors are expected based on the gender of leaders and followers. While this pattern of assumptions has been confirmed, the research that would warrant these assumptions has produced mixed results (Barbuto et al., 2007; Eagly et al., 2003; Eagly & Johnson, 1990). This has led to a call for research testing the socialized aspects of gender specific behaviors, which led to differentiations between agentic and communal gender role behaviors (Eagly, 1987). Agentic behaviors refer to give-and-take tendencies (Eagly, 1987). An individual who displays agentic behaviors is likely to be described as assertive and would utilize resources as leverage for obtaining a goal. Agentic behaviors include selfsufficiency, independence, dominant, aggressive and task-oriented (Carli, 2001; Eagly, 1987; Eagly et al., 2003). Men are more likely to display agentic behaviors than their female counterparts (Eagly et al., 2003). Communal behaviors refer to a concern with interpersonal relationships (Eagly, 1987). An individual who displays communal behaviors is likely to be described as caring, empathetic and nurturing. Communal behaviors include showing sympathy, socially oriented, helpful and expressive (Carli, 2001). Eagly et al.

8



(2003) found that women are more likely to display communal behaviors than their male counterparts. Transformational leadership refers to the leaders ability to enhance followers performance beyond personal and the leaders expectations (Bass, 1985). Transformational leadership behaviors include individualized consideration (an identification of the personal needs of each follower), intellectual stimulation (seeking to encourage innovative thinking from followers), inspirational motivation (assisting followers in achieving levels of performance thought to be impossible), and idealized influence (inspiring a charismatic admiration and emulation of the leader by having a genuine purpose and confident vision) (Bass, 1985). In the most recent factor analysis of transformational leadership behaviors, the idealized influence scale was divided into attributed (eliciting respect and pride from followers because of the association with the leader) and behavior (inspiring a buy-in effect to the organizations mission through verbal and nonverbal communication behaviors) (Avolio & Bass, 2002). Judge and Piccolo (2004) examined 87 studies in a meta-analysis and found that leaders who scored higher on the four transformational behaviors were rated as more effective by their followers. These meta-results indicated that transformational leadership consistently led to positive organizational outcomes. Transactional leadership behaviors are characterized by the use of contingencies to reinforce desirable behavior (Avolio, 1999). Transactional leadership behaviors include passive management by exception (using punishment or penalty in response to deviations from desired performance standards), active management by exception (actively looking for deviations from desired standards and taking preventive actions before mistakes are made), and contingent reward (using incentives and other rewards in exchange for meeting desired goals) (Bass, 1996). Finally, laissez-faire leadership is classified as the absence of leadership. This sedentary approach to leadership includes behaviors such as ignoring problems and needs, an inability to recognize followers achievements and an overall lack of responsibility for management duties (Bass, 1996; Yukl, 2006). This category of leadership is described as the most ineffective and passive form of leadership (Avolio, 1999). Eagly et al. (2003) used social role theory as a theoretical basis and hypothesized that female leaders were more likely to be seen as transformational leaders than males. The behaviors associated with transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership have distinct linkages to the masculine behaviors commonly associated with agentic behaviors (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). Eagly et al. (2003) reported that gender roles have spillover effects into the practice of leadership within organizations. Female leaders scored significantly higher in the use of transformational leadership behaviors (with the exception of idealized influencebehavior scale) and the use contingent rewards. Male leaders displayed significantly higher use of passive management by exception, active management by exception and laissez-faire leadership. In contrast with transactional leadership

9



behaviors and laissez-faire leadership, transformational leadership behaviors have shown to produce extra effort from followers as well as increase satisfaction with and perceived effectiveness of the leader (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Eagly et al. (2003) examined these outcomes across sexes and reported female transformational leaders scored significantly higher on effectiveness, extra effort and satisfaction scales. Taken together, considerable evidence indicates that leadership behaviors may be influenced by agentic and communal dynamics.

Implications for Servant LeadershipThis study tests the behavioral differences servant leadership between males and females. As discussed, previous research has indicated somewhat mixed results when analyzing leadership behavioral differences between males and female leaders. In this study, followers perceptions of leaders were examined for behavioral differences of male and female servant leaders as well as the extent that male or female leaders were considered to be more effective. Communal Servant Leadership Behaviors Using Eaglys (1987) differentiation between communal behaviors, which are most commonly associated with females, the servant leadership behaviors that classify as communal behaviors are altruistic calling, emotional healing, and organizational stewardship. Altruistic calling implies a selfless motivation for engaging in leadership activities. Helping behaviors are often associated with an altruistic person (Batson et al., 2002). Such behaviors tend to direct the leaders attention to others within the community or organization. Female leaders are expected to display significantly higher altruistic calling behaviors than male leaders (H1a). Emotional healing behaviors indicate an empathetic approach toward followers. Leaders who utilize emotional healing are able to sense the emotions and feelings of other individuals. Such ability is often associated with females. Eagly (1987) stated that women are often expected to care for the emotional needs of followers. Female leaders are expected to display significantly higher emotional healing behaviors than male leaders (H1b). Organizational stewardship turns the leaders attention to a focus on the community. Stewardship implies preparation for contributions to a larger cause (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2002). Other research on organizational stewardship argued that leaders should be concerned with their legacy and the legacy of the organization within the immediate community and the larger society (Coleman, 1998). Eagly (1987) stated the caring and nurturing aspect of the female role may also be extended to some extent to the problems of the larger community (p. 44). Female leaders are expected to display significantly higher organizational stewardship behaviors than male leaders (H1c).

10



Agentic Servant Leadership Behaviors As previously discussed, agentic leadership behaviors are aligned with a taskfocused orientation, assertiveness, calmness in crises, and strength (Eagly et al., 2003). Such behaviors have been commonly aligned with behaviors displayed by male leaders. Using Eaglys (1987) differentiation between agentic behaviors, which are most commonly associated with females, the servant leadership behaviors that classify as agentic behaviors are wisdom and persuasive mapping. Wisdom is a combination of institutional knowledge as well as the ability to apply such knowledge in appropriate situations (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2002). The ability to apply wisdom from a leadership position within an organization has been found to be most often attributed to male leaders (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Male leaders are expected to display significantly higher wisdom than female leaders (H2a). Persuasive mapping implies and ability to forecast the future and prepare an organization to sustain a course to achieve its goals (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2002). Such skills lend themselves to task-oriented behaviors where the successful completion of one task provides a step forward to the next task and onward to a final goal. Task-oriented behavior is commonly associated with male leaders (Eagly, 1987). Male leaders are expected to display significantly higher persuasive mapping behaviors than female leaders (H2b). Outcomes Outcomes associated with the use of communal and agentic leadership behaviors are also of interest. Eagly et al.s (2003) meta-analysis found that leaders who used more communal behaviors scored higher levels of satisfaction from followers, stimulated greater levels of extra effort from followers and were rated as more effective leaders. Leaders who use communal servant leadership behaviors are expected to receive significantly higher ratings of satisfaction than leaders who use agentic servant leadership behaviors (H3a). Leaders who use communal servant leadership behaviors are expected to receive significantly higher ratings of extra effort than leaders who use agentic servant leadership behaviors (H3b). Leaders who use communal servant leadership behaviors are expected to receive significantly higher ratings of effectiveness than leaders who use agentic servant leadership behaviors (H3c). Ratings of satisfaction, extra effort, and effectiveness were judged by followers.

MethodsData were collected from 75 elected community leaders and 388 raters. Leaders served as treasurers in their respective counties and were elected by eligible voters in those specific counties. Sixty-five percent of the leaders were female with an average age of 51, where 50% had earned a bachelors degree and 20% had

11



earned an advanced degree. Raters were colleagues or subordinates of the leader. Fifty-three percent of the raters were female with an average age of 46 years, where 42% of the raters had earned a bachelors degree and less than 10% had earned an advanced degree. Leaders scores were matched with their individual followers to form a total of 368 usable leader-follower dyads. Servant Leadership Servant leadership behaviors were calculated using the Servant Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ) (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Followers scored leaders on the SLQ instrument. Followers were assured anonymity and returned instruments directly to the primary investigator via United States mail. Each of the five servant leadership subscales achieved acceptable reliability based on Cronbachs alphas ( >.82). A sample item from the altruistic calling subscale includes This person puts my best interests ahead of his/her own. A sample item from the emotional healing subscale is This person is one I would turn to if I had a personal trauma. A sample item from the wisdom subscale is This person is good at anticipating the consequences of decisions. A sample item from the persuasive mapping subscale is This person encourages me to dream big dreams about the organization. A sample item from the organizational stewardship scale is This person believes that the organization needs to play a moral role in society. Outcomes The outcomes affected by leadership behaviors were calculated using the outcomes scales of extra effort, satisfaction, and effectiveness from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Avolio & Bass, 2002). Eagly et al.s (2003) meta-analysis of sex differences across full-range leadership behaviors also analyzed these positive outcome variables. Followers ratings of leaders on each of these three subscales were used in the analysis. All three subscales achieved acceptable reliability with Cronbachs alphas of =.82 and higher. A sample item from the extra effort subscale is This person gets others to do more than what they expected to do. A sample item from the satisfaction subscale is This person uses methods of leadership that are satisfying. A sample item from the effectiveness subscale is This person is effective at meeting others jobrelated needs. Gender Leaders self-reported gender as part of a demographic profile that included age and education. Leaders were asked to choose either male or female to report their gender.

12



ResultsDescriptive statistics and the ANOVA results between groups on the five servant leadership behaviors are reported in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Results indicate that none of the hypothesized relationships were significant. Therefore, both male and female servant leaders displayed equal levels of both communal and agentic servant leadership behaviors. Additionally, no main effects were found on any of the three outcome variables between leaders whose dominant leadership behaviors were communal leadership behaviors as opposed to agentic leadership behaviors. Results of the ANOVA for outcome variables and dominant leadership behavior are reported in Table 3. TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics for Servant Leadership Behaviors and Outcomes Among Male and Female Leaders Women (n=239) Men (n=129) M SD M SD Altruistic Calling 2.68 0.67 2.76 0.80 Emotional Healing 2.45 0.83 2.71 0.97 Wisdom 3.00 0.72 3.25 0.72 Persuasive Mapping 2.50 0.59 2.58 0.81 Organizational Stewardship 3.15 0.52 3.12 0.74 Extra Effort 7.75 1.66 8.58 2.32 Satisfaction 6.17 1.34 6.48 1.49 Effectiveness 9.09 1.87 9.74 2.10

TABLE 2. Analysis of variance for Altruistic Calling, Emotional Healing, Wisdom, Persuasive Mapping and Organizational Stewardship F Source df AC EH Wisdom PM OS Gender 1 0.11 0.72 1.51 0.12 0.02 Within Group 367 (0.63) (0.94) (0.51) (0.64) Note. Values in parentheses represent mean square errors. AC=Altruistic Calling, EH=Emotional Healing, PM=Persuasive Mapping, OS=Organizational Stewardship

(0.54)

13



TABLE 3. Analysis of variance for Extra Effort, Satisfaction and Effectiveness F Source df Extra Effort Satisfaction Effectiveness 1 1.50 0.54 1.02 Dom Behav Within Group 367 (5.33) (2.20) Note. Values in parentheses represent mean square errors. Dom Behav=Dominant Behavior

(4.39)

DiscussionThis study tested the gender differences in servant leadership and found no significant differences. This means that males and females are equally capable of utilizing both agentic and communal leadership behaviors. This lack of difference is counter to prior work that found agentic and communal behavioral differences for transformational leadership (Eagly et al., 2003). This disparity in findings speaks to the credibility of separating transformational from servant leadership (Barbuto & Wheeler. 2006; Smith et al., 2004). Gender differences have previously been found with transformational leadership but were not found with servant leadership in this study. Altruistic calling, emotional healing and organizational stewardship were operationalized as communal behaviors for this study. Wisdom and persuasive mapping were operationalized as agentic behaviors for this study. Since results found no significant differences it is evident that male leaders are equally capable of effectively exercising altruistic calling, emotional healing and organizational stewardship behaviors, which would be more commonly associated with female gender roles. Likewise, female leaders are equally capable of effectively exercising both wisdom and persuasive mapping, which would be more commonly associated with male gender roles. The lack of gender differences speaks well to the potential of all leaders to develop capacity to exhibit each of the five dimensions of servant leadership, regardless of their agentic or communal properties. This also provides reason for caution in making agentic and communal assumptions about leaders. These findings are counter to prior work testing the spillover effect of gender role norms to positions of leadership. It appears that servant leaders are able to effectively embrace counter-stereotypes often associated with gender norms (Eagly et al., 2003). It is possible that the altruistic nature of servant leaders allows these leaders to serve followers in the best possible manner, which leads to a reduction in the implementation of standard gender roles while in positions of

14



leadership. This assertion requires empirical inquiry before generalized beyond the population sampled in this study. Most importantly, no differences were found on the outcome variables of extra effort, satisfaction and effectiveness, which indicate that servant leaders are efficiently using both agentic and communal behaviors to achieve these outcomes. The lack of findings appears to contradict prior research that found that communal leaders were rated significantly higher when compared with agentic leaders (Eagly et al., 2003). One explanation of this finding may be that the altruistic motive of servant leadership diminishes the negative effects previously associated with agentic behaviors. However, this conclusion would need to be tested to determine if altruism neutralizes these relationships. Additionally, the ability of both male and female servant leaders to find an acceptable balance between agentic and communal behaviors may explain the trend towards positive outcomes. This sample included more female than male leaders. While homogeneity of variance tests found the groups to be acceptable for comparison, a sample with more equal male representation could strengthen this line of research. The sample was drawn from public officials who, by the nature of the position, have accepted a role serving the public. Further investigation drawing samples from a variety of vocations would merit future inquiry. This work demonstrated that men and women have equal ability to develop and demonstrate both agentic and communal characteristics of servant leadership as measured on the Servant Leadership Questionnaire. The two more recent measures of servant leadership constructs should also be tested for any of these agentic or communal patterns. An important line for future research is to consider a multi-study, multi-population research design to fully access gender differences of servant leadership across a variety of contexts. Such an endeavor may provide a more in-depth analysis of the gender differences or lack thereof described in this study.

ConclusionThis study examined the servant leadership behaviors employed by men and women in the workplace by delineating between agentic servant leadership behaviors and communal servant leadership behaviors. The effect of agentic and communal leadership behaviors on followers satisfaction with leadership, extra effort and ratings of leaders effectiveness was also examined. No differences were found between men and women in the utilization of communal and agentic servant leadership behaviors. This result contradicts many previous findings on leadership gender roles, which have reported that men utilized more agentic leadership behaviors and women utilized more communal leadership behaviors (Eagly et al., 2003). Additionally, followers did not discriminate on the outcomes

15



of extra effort, satisfaction and effectiveness regardless of the leaders use of agentic servant leadership behaviors or communal servant leadership behaviors. Servant leadership performed differently than transformational leadership when tested for agentic and communal properties. This difference warrants additional work to replicate these findings and also to test other leadership constructs such as LMX, authentic leadership, shared leadership and charismatic leadership for their agentic and communal influences. Future research may also test multiple leadership constructs together in the same research design to account for possible differences between constructs, their antecedents, and impacts. Avolio et al. (2009) argued that research should seek to differentiate servant leadership from other leadership constructs. The present study contributes to this research direction for servant leadership and offers insight into the uniqueness of servant leadership. To the extent that the focus of servant leaders is on the needs and concerns of the followers, the altruistic nature of servant leadership that sets it apart from other leadership models allows leaders to step out of gender role norms and provide the most appropriate leadership for followers.

16



ReferencesAntonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295. Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2002). Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X). Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden. Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology,60, 421-449. Barbuto, J. E., Fritz, S. M., Matkin, G. S., & Marx, D. B. (2007). Effects of gender, education, and age upon leaders use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviors. Sex Roles, 56, 71-83. Barbuto, J. E., Fritz, S. M., & Plummer, B. A. (2003). Sex differences among five sources of motivation in the motivation sources inventory: Preliminary findings. Psychological Reports, 93(1), 47-48. Barbuto, J. E., & Gifford, G. T. (2008). Motivation and Leader-Member Exchange: Some Evidence Counter to Similarity Attraction Theory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Academy of Management, Washington, DC. Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2002). Becoming a servant leader: Do you have what it takes? NebGuide G02-1481-A. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, Nebraska Cooperative Extension. Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 300-326. Bass, B. M. (1985). Performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1996). A new paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into transformational leadership. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 7, 18-34.

17



Batson, C. D., Chang, J., Orr, R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes, and action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 16561666. Bierly, P. E., Kessler, E. H., & Christensen, E. W. (2000). Organizational learning, knowledge and wisdom. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13, 595-618. Buchanan, L. (2007, May). In praise of selflessness: Why the best leaders are servants. Inc., 29(5), 33-35. Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 725741. Coleman, A. (1998). Legacy leadership: Stewardship and courage. Health progress, 42, 28-30. Dacher, E. S. (1999). Loving openness and the healing relationship. Advances in Mind-Body Medicine, 15(1), 32-43. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2004). Women and men as leaders. In J. Antonakis, A.T. Cianciolo & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 279-301). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 781-797. Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing men and women. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569-591. Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233-256. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685-710.

18



Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3-22. Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61-94. Ely, R. J. (1995). The power in demography: Womens social constructions of gender identity at work. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 589-634. Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 638-653. Farling, M. L., Stone, A. G., & Winston, B. E. (1999). Servant leadership: Setting the stage for empirical research. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6, 49-72. Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. (1995). Good for business: Making full use of the nations capital: The environmental scan: A fact-finding report of the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Indianapolis, IN: Greenleaf Center. Gutek, B. A., & Morasch, B. (1982). Sex-ratios, sex-role spillover, and sexual harassment of women at work. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 55-74. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901-910. Liden, R., Wayne, S., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multi-dimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161-177. Neubert, M., Kacmar, K., Carlson, D., Roberts, J., & Chonko, L. (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. Pelled, L. H., & Xin, K. R. (2000). Relational demography and relationship quality in two cultures. Organizational Studies, 21, 1078-1094.

19



Quinn, K. A., Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2002). Stereotyping and impression formation: How categorical thinking shapes person perception. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 68-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behavior in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402-424. Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-91. Spears, L. C. (1995). Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleafs theory of servant-leadership influenced todays top management thinkers. New York: John Wiley. Weymes, E. (2003). Relationships not leadership sustain successful organizations. Journal of Change Management, 3, 319-332. Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in Organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Yukl, G. A., & Falbe, C. M. (1991). The importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 416423.

20



Author BiographiesJohn E. Barbuto, Jr. (Jay) is an Associate Professor of Leadership in the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication. He teaches courses in foundations of leadership, leadership development, motivation, and power/influence. His current research projects include transformational advising, dramaturgical teaching, servant leadership, work motivation, emotional intelligence, cross-cultural and diversity issues, and antecedents of leadership. He has published over 70 journal articles and 150 conference proceedings in the leadership, organizational behavior, and social psychology field. His work has been published in journals such as Journal of Leadership Education, Leadership Quarterly, Sex Roles, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Group & Organization Management, Journal of Agricultural Education, and Journal of Social Psychology. Gregory T. Gifford is an Assistant Professor of Leadership Education in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication at the University of Florida. He teaches courses in interpersonal leadership, leadership for groups and teams, and motivation. Dr. Giffords research interests include diversity in leadership and organizations, social justice and social role theory, work motivation and the integration of social psychological perspectives with leadership theory and practice. He has been published in the Journal of Leadership Education, International Journal of Leadership Studies, Psychological Reports and has received nominations for outstanding paper awards from the Eastern Academy of Management and the American Association of Agricultural Education.

21



Using Achievement Motivation Theory to Explain Student Participation in a Residential Leadership Learning CommunityLori L. Moore Assistant Professor Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communications Texas A&M University 2116 TAMU 143 Scoates Hall College Station, TX 77843-2116 (979) 845-1295 [email protected] Dustin K. Grabsch Undergraduate Student Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communications Texas A&M University 2116 TAMU College Station, TX 77843-2116 Craig Rotter Coordinator of Residence Life Leadership Education Department of Residence Life Texas A&M University 1253 TAMU College Station, TX 77843-1253 (979) 862-3158 [email protected]

AbstractThis study sought to examine student motives for participating in a residential leadership learning community for incoming freshmen using McClellands Achievement Motivation Theory (McClelland, 1958, 1961). Eighty-nine students began the program in the Fall 2009 semester and were administered a single, researcher-developed instrument. Responses to an open-ended question that asked students what their primary motive for participating in the voluntary, residential leadership learning community were analyzed using deductive content analysis techniques (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009; Patton, 2002) and categorized according to McClellands Achievement Motivation Theory as the need for Achievement, the need for Power, the need for Affiliation, or any combination thereof. Results demonstrated that while all three needs were found within the responses, the need

22



for Achievement and the need for Affiliation were more common motives for joining the voluntary, residential leadership learning community.

IntroductionAccording to the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) (2002), students are flocking to college because the world is complex, turbulent, and more reliant on knowledge than ever before (p. viii). Teaching these students about leadership and their development as leaders is becoming increasingly more important to colleges and universities across the country (Cress, Astin, Zimmerman-Oster, & Burkhardt, 2001). However, some would argue that our education practice has emphasized information transfer without a great deal of thought given to the meaning, pertinence, or application of the information in the context of the students life (Keeling, 2004, p. 10). In other words, academic learning and student development have often been viewed separately from each other (Keeling). This notion is supported by Minor (1997) who noted that faculty often think of courses taking place only in traditional classroom settings while residence hall programs focus on dimensions of student development. What is needed is the view of learning as a comprehensive, holistic, transformative activity that integrates academic learning and student development (Keeling, 2004, p. 4). In his book Achieving Educational Excellence, Alexander Astin describes learning communities as small sub-groups of studentscharacterized by a common sense of purposethat can be used to build a sense of group identity, cohesiveness and uniqueness that encourages continuity and the integration of diverse curricular and co-curricular experiences (Minor, 1997, p. 21). Minor noted that while students who are coenrolled in common courses, a typical practice in learning communities, might exhibit many characteristics that describe learning communities as defined by Astin, the potential for their success is significantly enhanced by making use of a location where a majority of freshman spend most of their time the residence halls (p. 21). Keeling (2004) described student affairs and academic affairs partnerships, such as residential learning communities in which students are all enrolled in one or more of the same classes and live together, as an example of a transformative learning opportunity for students. According to Keeling, these powerful partnerships, jointly planned, combine knowledge acquisition and experiential learning to promote more complex outcomes (p. 20). Residential learning communities require that faculty members and student affairs professionals come together for the overriding purpose of the college experience: educating the same students together (Gablenick, MacGregor, Matthews, & Smith, 1990, p. 91). Researchers have studied learning communities developed specifically for freshmen students (Minor, 1997; Nahavandi, 2006; Stedman, Arnold, & Rotter, 2006) and have examined their impact on various factors (Staub & Finley, 2007; Zhao & Kuh, 2004). A study involving Freshmen Interest Group (FIG) students at

23



the University of Oregon (cited in Gabelnick, et al., 1990) discovered that FIG students differed from other freshman only in being a little more anxious about making friends and having slightly more elevated expectations about their academic success at the university (p. 62). Gabelnick, MacGregor, Matthews, and Smith (1990) also discussed a study of 1000 students enrolled in learning communities and comparable traditional classes at 12 community colleges in Washington that was conducted by the Washington Center for Undergraduate Education during the 1997-1988 academic year which found that students in both groups were similar in average age and gender break-down; all were highly oriented to completing a four-year college degree, although this was slightly more true of students in learning communities (p. 62). Similarly, in a meta-analysis of more than 300 studies, Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (Cited in Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005) found learning communities foster development of supportive peer groups, greater student involvement in the classroom learning and social activities, perceptions of greater academic development, and greater integration of students academic and nonacademic lives (p. 423). Gabelnick et al. (1990) ultimately identified eight themes related to what students value about their experiences in a learning community including friendships and a sense of belonging, learning collaboratively, intellectual energy and confidence, appreciation of other students perspectives, discovering texts, the building of intellectual connections, embracing complexity, and new perspectives on their own learning process. Fewer studies, however, have been found that explored the motives behind why students participate in learning communities. At some universities, such as Dickinson College, participation in a first-year seminar is required (Staub & Finley, 2007). In 2003 Dickinson began linking similar first-year seminars into residential learning communities that contained out-of-the-classroom educational experiences. Zhao and Kuh (2004) found in their study of 80,479 randomly selected first-year and senior students from 364 four-year colleges and universities who completed the National Survey of Student Engagement in the Spring of 2002, Zhao and Kuh (2004) that native students (as opposed to transfer students), students of color, members of fraternities and sororities, full-time students, students in preprofessional majors, and those with two or more majors were most likely to participate in learning communities. When looking only at the first-year students, Zhao and Kuh concluded that students from families with lower levels of parental education and students who lived on campus were more likely to participate in learning communities. The question must be asked, What motivates first-year students to participate in optional residential learning communities that require both in-class and out-ofclass experiences? This study sought to explore the motives behind student participation in a voluntary, residential learning community that focused on leadership at Texas A&M University. The students were all traditional-aged, incoming first-year students, and in addition to enrolling in a one-credit academic

24



class focused on leadership each semester of their first year, they also agreed to live on the same floor of an on-campus residence hall.

Theoretical FrameworkThe theoretical framework for this study was rooted in McClellands Achievement Motivation Theory. Achievement Motivation Theory attempts to explain and predict behavior and performance based on a persons need for achievement, power, and affiliation (Lussier & Achua, 2007, p. 42). The Achievement Motivation Theory is also referred to as the Acquired Needs Theory or the Learned Needs Theory. Daft (2008) defined the Acquired Needs Theory as McClellands theory that proposes that certain types of needs (achievement, affiliation, power) are acquired during an individuals lifetime (p. 233). The Achievement Motivation Theory evolved from work McClelland began in the 1940s. In 1958 McClelland described human motives in the Methods of Measuring Human Motivation chapter of Atkinsons book, Motives in Fantasy, Action, and Society. At that point, McClelland identified human motives related to the achievement motive, the affiliation motive, the sexual motive, and the power motive. In his later work, The Achieving Society (McClelland, 1961), however, McClelland focused his attention on only need for Achievement, the need for Affiliation, and the need for Power. In essence, McClellands theory postulates that people are motivated in varying degrees by their need for Achievement, need for Power, and need for Affiliation and that these needs are acquired, or learned, during an individuals lifetime (Daft, 2008; Lussier & Achua, 2007). In other words, most people possess and will exhibit a combination of three needs. Need for Achievement McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, and Lowell (1958) defined the need for Achievement (n Achievement) as success in competition with some standard of excellence. That is, the goal of some individual in the story is to be successful in terms of competition with some standard of excellence. The individual may fail to achieve this goal, but the concern over competition with a standard of excellence still enables one to identify the goal sought as an achievement goal. This, then, is our generic definition of n Achievement (p. 181). McClelland et al. (1958) went on to describe that competition with a standard of excellence was most notable when an individual was in direct competition with someone else but that it can also be evident in the concern for how well one individual performs a task, regardless of how someone else is doing. According to Lussier and Achua (2007), the need for achievement is the unconscious concern for excellence in accomplishments through individual efforts (p. 42). Similarly, Daft (2008) stated the need for Achievement is the desire to accomplish something difficult, attain a high standard of success, master complex tasks, and

25



surpass others (p. 233). Individuals who exhibit the need for Achievement seek to accomplish realistic but challenging goals. Need for Power McClelland (1961) defined the need for Power as a concern with the control of the means of influencing a person (p. 167). Lussier and Achua (2007) defined the need for Power as the unconscious concern for influencing others and seeking positions of authority (p. 42). Similarly, Daft (2008) defined the need for Power as the desire to influence or control others, be responsible for others, and have authority over others (p. 233). Individuals who exhibit the need for Power have a desire to be influential and want to make an impact. Need for Affiliation When defining the need for Affiliation, McClelland (1961) stated, Affiliationestablishing, maintaining, or restoring a positive affective relationship with another person. This relationship is most adequately described by the word friendship (p. 160). Therefore, the need for affiliation is the unconscious concern for developing, maintaining, and restoring close personal relationships (Lussier & Achua, 2007, p. 43). Daft (2008) defined the need for Affiliation as the desire to form close personal relationships, avoid conflict, and establish warm friendships (p. 233). Individuals who exhibit the need for Affiliation are seeking interactions with other people.

PurposeThe purpose of this study, conducted as part of a larger study, was to explore why students participated in a voluntary, residential learning community focused on leadership. More specifically, this study intended to determine if students were motivated to participate because of their need for Achievement, need for Power, or need for Affiliation. Therefore, the guiding research question for this study was What was your primary motive for participating in the Leadership Living Learning Community?

MethodologyThe population frame for this study was a census of students who participated in the Leadership Living Learning Community (L3C) at Texas A&M University during the 2009-2010 academic year. The program was developed as a partnership between the Department of Residence Life and the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communications and is now in its fifth year. Invitations to apply for the 5th cohort of students were sent to all freshmen accepted to the university. Initially, 145 of the 15,158 students accepted into the university submitted applications to be considered for the program. Some applicants were not eligible to participate in this residential learning community

26



due to the specific programmatic requirements. Eighty-nine of the 145 students who applied accepted invitations to participate. Therefore, the population frame for this study consisted of the 89 students who began the program in the Fall 2009. In an effort to sample the entire population frame, all 89 participants were administered a single, researcher-developed instrument designed to collect data related to why participants applied and agreed to participate in the L3C and their expectations of themselves as learners, their expectations of the instructors within the program, and their expectations of the L3C program as a whole. Data used in this study came from a single, open-ended question that asked participants to identify their primary motivation for participating in the residential learning community focused on leadership. All 89 students completed the instrument for a response rate of 100%. This study employed deductive content analysis where data from the open-ended question responses were analyzed according to an existing framework (Patton, 2002), in this case, McClellands Achievement Motivation Theory. Content analysis is a technique that enables researchers to study human behavior in an indirect way, through an analysis of their communications (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009, p. 472). Responses to the open-ended question were analyzed according to the three needs within McClellands Achievement Motivation Theory by the researchers. The determination of themes based on previous knowledge, theory, and/or experience, prior to data analysis is an acceptable procedure used in content analysis studies (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009). Because the Achievement Motivation Theory (McClelland, 1958, 1961) postulates that most people possess and exhibit a combination of the need for Achievement, the need for Power, and the need for Affiliation, the researchers used these three needs as the themes to code the data. Data from the responses were unitized such that only one of the key themes was found within each unit of data (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993). The researchers coded both the manifest content and the latent content of each unit of data (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009). To ensure consistency of the codes, the three members of the research team coded the responses collectively. According to Fraenkel and Wallen, there are two common methods of interpreting content analysis data: the use of frequencies and the percentage and/or proportion of particular occurrences to total occurrences and the use of codes and themes to help organize the content and arrive at a narrative description of the findings. This study employed both methods. Representative quotes from participants written in their own words are included in the findings. The researchers, as human instruments in the study, employed prolonged engagement and persistent observation as strategies to enhance the credibility of the findings (Erlandson et al., 1993; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Lincoln and Guba (1985) noted that, if prolonged engagement provides scope, persistent observation provides depth (p. 304).

27



ResultsContent analysis of the responses revealed incoming freshmen students were motivated to participate in the L3C primarily because of the need for Achievement and the need for Affiliation. While all three needs were detected in the student comments, the need for Power was not as pervasive in the comments as the need for Achievement and the need for Affiliation. The need for Achievement was evident in the statements written by the students. Within this need, common phrases included wanting to gain leadership skills, expand leadership abilities, and to learn how to become a better leader. Student comments demonstrating the need for Achievement are included: I wanted to further myself in as a leader in all aspects of my life, but also because I plan on being a teacher and want to be as affective a leader as possible. (87) My primary motivation was improving my leadership skills which I believe are essential in my life. (12) I also wanted to enhance my leadership abilities. (82) I wanted to challenge myself as a person step outside my comfort zone and better understand what it takes to be a good leader. (89) To further and better my leadership skills. (30) Forty of the 89 students (44.94%) demonstrated the Need for Achievement in their responses. The need for Affiliation was also often identified within the statements. Within this need, phrases such as students desire to meet people, establish friendships, and develop a sense of community were common. Student comments demonstrating the need for Affiliation are included: My primary motivation for joining the L3C was so I could be a part of a close-knit community my first year of college. (13) I thought be a good way to meet fellow freshmen and grow good relationships with them. (65) The Leadership Learning Community sounded like a close-knit family, and what I really needed to feel safer at such a big university was people who had things in common with me. (55) One of the primary reasons was that being a part of L3C would help facilitate my networks as I begin college life. Along with having people who I can depend on if I fall short on anything. (59) I wanted to have a smaller community of people that I could get close to in such a huge university. (66) Thirty-nine of the 89 students (43.82%) demonstrated the need for Affiliation in their responses.

28



The need for Power was less evident in the responses to the open-ended question. Students who expressed the need for Power included in their responses the desire to serve in leadership roles or positions. I have always been involved and loved leadership positions. The reason for joining L3C is to become active in leadership roles and events my first year at Texas A&M. (4) I was a big fish in a little pond in high school, so I felt that joining the L3C would give me leadership roles during my first year at TAMU. I felt that it would also help give me an instant group once I arrived on campus. (10) I want to learn how to be a better leader and be able to organize people in a productive way without breeding contempt. (29) Only eight of the 89 students (8.99%) demonstrated the need for

Journal

Documents

Transcript of Journal