Leadership & Organization Development JournalEmerald Article: Servant leadership versus transformational leadership in voluntary service organizationsSherry K. Schneider, Winnette M. George

Article information:

To cite this document: Sherry K. Schneider, Winnette M. George, (2011),"Servant leadership versus transformational leadership in voluntary service organizations", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 32 Iss: 1 pp. 60 - 77

Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731111099283

Downloaded on: 13-11-2012

References: This document contains references to 53 other documents

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA

For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Servant leadership versustransformational leadership involuntary service organizations

Sherry K. SchneiderDepartment of Psychology, University of West Florida, Pensacola,

Florida, USA, and

Winnette M. GeorgePoint Fortin, Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies

Abstract

Purpose – The major purpose of this research is to test the application of two leadership models to avoluntary service club. Servant leadership was predicted to better explain the attitudes andcommitment of service organization members than transformational leadership. Both leadership styleswere hypothesized to be mediated by empowerment.

Design/methodology/approach – At eight clubs of a national voluntary service organization, itwas investigated whether transformational and “servant” leadership were positively related to clubmember satisfaction, commitment and intentions to stay in the club. A sample of 110 participantscompleted either a printed or an online survey on the leadership style of their current club presidentand their attitudes toward the club in general. The club presidents completed the leadership surveys.

Findings – While perceptions of transformational leadership and servant leadership styles werehighly correlated, servant leadership was identified as a better predictor of the voluntary clubmembers’ commitment, satisfaction, and intentions to stay. Club members’ perceptions ofempowerment mediated the relationship between servant leadership and satisfaction, commitment,and intentions to stay in the volunteer service organizations.

Practical implications – Leaders of service clubs may wish to adopt a servant leader style. Theseservant leaders may find it practical to provide empowering experiences to encourage volunteers toperform service club activities effectively. More generally, leaders who provide volunteers withpositive, meaningful experiences may be able to maintain their interest in their volunteer positions.

Originality/value – It is believed that this is the first paper to compare directly servant versustransformational leadership in a voluntary organization.

Keywords Leadership, Transformational leadership, Empowerment, Voluntary organizations

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionA study by the Urban Institute based on a sample of 3,000 charities identified severalshortcomings, such as lack of adequate leadership and communication, that affect theability of non-profit organizations to manage volunteer workers (Hager and Brudney,2004). There is a rich body of research on volunteer motivation (e.g. Carlo et al., 2005;Clary et al., 1998). However, little empirical literature exists regarding the leadership oftraditional civic clubs devoted to community service, such as the Lions Club, Jaycees,and Rotary International.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

This research was supported by a UWF Faculty Scholarly and Creativity Summer ResearchGrant.

LODJ32,1

60

Received April 2009Revised July 2010Accepted August 2010

Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment JournalVol. 32 No. 1, 2011pp. 60-77q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0143-7739DOI 10.1108/01437731111099283

Previous studies have used popular leadership constructs, such as transformationalleadership (Dvir et al., 2002) and, more recently, servant leadership (Ehrhart, 2004;Whetstone, 2002), to establish the relationship between leadership and performance intraditional organizations. According to Alatrista and Arrowsmith (2004), thesuccessful transfer of traditional methods of management could prove highlyeffective in service organizations, charities, and other volunteer groups.

The major purpose of this research was to test whether transformational or servantleadership theory best explains the attitudes and commitment of individuals whovolunteer their time in the service of others. We expected both transformationalleadership (Kark et al., 2003) and servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977) to successfullytransfer from traditional organizations to organizations primarily comprised ofvolunteers. To see which leadership style best predicted member satisfaction,commitment, and intentions to stay in community organizations, two competingmodels (see Figures 1 and 2) were tested. Based on the leadership literature (e.g. Spears,1998), servant leadership was expected to better predict service club members’subsequent attitudes of satisfaction, commitment, and intentions to stay in theorganization. Furthermore, empowerment was hypothesized to serve as a mediatorbetween both leadership styles and service club members’ subsequent attitudes (e.g.Avolio et al., 2004).

1.1 Transformational leadershipTransformational leadership is the ability to motivate and to encourage intellectualstimulation through inspiration (Avolio et al., 2004; Dvir et al., 2002). McColl-Kennedyand Anderson (2005) further defined transformational leadership style as “guidancethrough individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirationalmotivation, and idealized influence” (p. 116). They were referring to the reliable andvalid measure of this leadership style often used research (e.g. Dvir et al., 2002; Dvirand Shamir, 2003; Jung and Sosik, 2002; Smith et al., 2004), the Multifactor LeadershipQuestionnaire (MLQ; Bass and Avolio, 1997). Rafferty and Griffin (2004) viewed vision

Figure 1.Club member perceptions

of transformationalleadership as mediated by

empowerment

Servant versustransformational

leadership

61

as the main characteristic of transformational leaders. Vision and inspiration activate atransformation process within the follower (Scandura and Williams, 2004) – that is, arelationship or sense of identification with the leader develops, which results inacceptance of the leader’s vision and values, and goal achievement becomes the norm(Gillespie and Mann, 2004). Transformational leaders inspire followers to exert effortbeyond self-interest in favor of collective group accomplishment (Berson and Avolio,2004). Recently, Parolini et al. (2009) identified four major categories of potentialdifferences between transformational leadership and servant leadership:

(1) moral priority;

(2) (member) development;

(3) focus of outcomes; and

(4) style of influence.

Parolini et al. (2009) concluded that transformational leaders are more likely thanservant leaders to focus on the organization’s goals and to use charismatic methods ofinfluence such as vision and inspiration.

Transformational leader practices influence followers to achieve goals, and increaseconfidence, commitment, and job performance (Bono and Judge, 2003). A large body ofresearch on transformational leadership has documented its positive association withcommitment, satisfaction and intentions to stay (e.g. Avolio et al., 2004; Bliss andFallon, 2003; Epitropaki and Martin, 2005; Fleishman, 1998; Jaskyte, 2003;McColl-Kennedy and Anderson, 2005; Walumbwa and Lawler, 2003). Brown andYoshioka (2003) contend that leadership and job satisfaction are the most effectivepredictors of intentions to leave non-profit organizations.

Avolio et al. (2004) reported that transformational leadership’s relationship tocommitment was mediated by empowerment, which is similar to the model proposed inFigure 1. Other researchers (Dionne et al., 2004; Jung and Sosik, 2002) also concluded

Figure 2.Club member perceptionsof servant leadership asmediated byempowerment

LODJ32,1

62

that the transformational leadership is significantly related to team commitment andan empowered team environment.

1.2 Servant leadershipGreenleaf (1977) introduced the concept of the servant leader in the popular literatureon management and organizations. Servant leadership is defined as a leader’s desire tomotivate and guide followers, offer hope, and provide a more caring experiencethrough established quality relationships (Greenleaf and Spears, 2002). Whetstone(2002) argued the imperative of servant leaders to serve the needs and desires offollowers must supersede the leader’s personal interests. Servant leaders demonstrate asense of moral responsibility and respect for followers as they inspire followers to growand to develop (Greenleaf, 1997).

Although the concept of servant leadership has developed a wide following since itsinception, reliable means to measure it have been developed only recently (e.g. Ehrhart,2004; Sendjaya et al., 2008). Ehrhart (2004) proposed that servant leadership involvestwo main constructs:

(1) ethical behavior; and

(2) concern for subordinates.

The servant leader behaves ethically, and encourages and empowers subordinates togrow and succeed, both personally and professionally (Ehrhart, 2004; Farling et al.,1999; Russell and Stone, 2002).

Ehrhart (2004) proposed that servant leadership and transformational leadershipshare many similar characteristics. However, there are marked differences in that thefocus of servant leaders is not only to achieve organizational and personal goals, butalso to accept a moral responsibility to serve all stakeholders, especially subordinates(Graham, 1991; Stone et al., 2003). Parolini et al. (2009) recently concluded that servantleaders are more likely than transformational leaders to make service to their followerstheir first priority. Although Turner et al. (2002) did report a correlation betweentransformational leadership and moral reasoning, such underlying moral imperativesare largely absent from the transformational framework.

Spears (1998) theorized that servant leadership would be a more appropriate andeffective style of leadership than transformational leadership for non-profitorganizations. As the volunteer relationship does not involve the traditionalexchange of performance for compensation, more effort is required to entice unpaidworkers (Spears, 1998). Given that volunteer rewards are primarily intrinsic (e.g.feelings of altruism) and are deemed more important than extrinsic motivators (e.g.monetary compensation; Alatrista and Arrowsmith, 2004), volunteers need to feel thattheir skills and contributions are valued (Wisner et al., 2005). Spears (1998) concludedthat servant leaders are more involved in the personal circumstances of volunteers;therefore, such leaders are more likely to attract the loyalty of volunteers.

1.3 Empowerment as a mediatorMenon (1999, p. 161) described empowerment as a “cognitive state characterized by asense of perceived control, competence, and goal internalization”. Chen and Bliese(2002) further defined empowerment in terms of self-determination. In a review of theempowerment literature, Robbins et al. (2002) argued that the construct is a majorantecedent of both individual and organizational performance. Other researchers(Liden et al., 2000; McColl-Kennedy and Anderson, 2005) found that empowerment

Servant versustransformational

leadership

63

correlated significantly with work satisfaction, commitment, and improved jobperformance. Considerable empirical evidence exists on the relationship betweentransformational leadership and empowerment ( Jung et al., McColl-Kennedy andAnderson, 2005; Masi and Cooke, 2000; Richardson and Vandenberg, 2005). Kark et al.(2003) found that when transformational leaders empowered employees, workersreported greater self-efficacy. Such feelings of self-efficacy, in turn, fostered greaterlevels of satisfaction, commitment, effectiveness, and high performance in theorganization (Kark et al., 2003).

While researchers have yet to define the relationship between servant leadershipand empowerment, empowerment is implied in the definition of the concept, as one ofthe primary objectives of servant leadership is to develop the potential of followers (e.g.Sendjaya et al., 2008). When followers recognize a leaders’s genuine concern for theirdevelopment, they may feel more empowered, thus resulting in greater commitment tothe organization.

Transformational leadership and servant leadership share many characteristics(Sendjaya et al., 2008; Stone et al., 2003); therefore, it was hypothesized that a positiverelationship exists between servant leadership and empowerment. This relationship isof fundamental importance since empowerment is expected to affect the quality of thevolunteer experience with regard to feelings of satisfaction, commitment, andintentions to stay with the organization.

2. HypothesesAs both transformational and servant leadership are leadership styles previouslyshown to be related to organizational commitment and other positive outcomes (e.g.Avolio et al., 2004; Stone et al., 2003), national service club members’ survey ratings oftheir club presidents’ transformational and servant leadership styles were expected tobe associated with member satisfaction, commitment, and intentions to stay in theclub. In Avolio et al. (2004), empowerment was found to mediate the effects oftransformational leadership on other positive organizational outcomes. Therefore, inthis study, empowerment was hypothesized to serve as a mediator between clubmembers’ ratings of transformational leadership style and subsequent satisfaction,commitment, and intentions to stay in the club (see Figures 1 and 2). As servantleadership shares many characteristics with transformational leadership (Sendjayaet al., 2008; Stone et al., 2003), empowerment was also expected to mediate therelationship between servant leadership and these outcomes. As the two styles havemany commonalities, the ratings of transformational and servant leadership wereexpected to be positively correlated. However servant leadership was hypothesized tobetter predict the attitudes of service club members due to its moral component(Ehrhart, 2004; Stone et al., 2003), which is a better fit with the values and goals of thevolunteer club membership.

3. Method3.1 ParticipantsPresidents and members of all eight service clubs within the metropolitan area of aSouthern city were invited to participate in an online or a paper survey; all clubsagreed. Club size ranged from as few as 20 members to approximately 200 members.Club presidents serve one-year terms and are not paid for their efforts. They areexpected to develop long-range goals for the organization, provide training, maintainopen lines of communication, involve all members in club activities, and arrange club

LODJ32,1

64

meetings. A Board of Directors forms the club’s governing body and includes thepresident and adjutant officers.

Respondents completed 110 surveys (66 paper surveys and 44 online surveys). A 33percent response rate was calculated for the paper surveys. As it was unknown howmany club members who were present at meetings had access to the internet,calculating a response rate for the online sample was not meaningful.

3.1.1 Demographics. For all clubs, respondents included 25 females (22.7 percent)and 85 males (77.3 percent). Over half of the participants (58.2 percent) were betweenthe ages of 46 and 65 years. A sizeable minority of the sample (20 percent) was retired.Most in the sample (93 percent) were college-educated (with a minimum of anundergraduate degree). Participants were predominantly European American (86percent), with 10 percent reporting “other”, and 4 percent not reporting. The averagenumber of years as a club member was 10.32 (SD ¼ 9:63). The reported averagenumber of hours spent on club activities in a two-week period was 4.19 (SD ¼ 2:64).The demographics of the sample broken down by the eight clubs are shown in Table I.

3.2 MeasuresThe survey was divided into four sections. Club members answered standarddemographic questions first, as well as questions concerning the number of years ofmembership in the club and the number of hours spent volunteering for club activitieswithin the last two weeks (or, if the last two weeks were atypical, the last typicaltwo-week period). The demographics section was followed by the transformationalleadership and servant leadership scales which asked for club members’ perceptions oftheir club president. The empowerment, satisfaction, commitment, and intention tostay items were presented in the third section of the survey in a standardized randomorder with seven-point Likert response scales which ranged from 1 (strongly disagree)to 7 (strongly agree).

A Cronbach’s a internal reliability analysis was performed on each of the scalesmeasuring the outcome variables, as well as on the empowerment, transformationalleadership, and servant leadership scales.

3.2.1 Transformational leadership. The reliable and valid 20-item (MLQ) Form 5XShort (Bass and Avolio, 1997) was used to measure transformational leadership. Bassand Avolio’s 20-item scale measures five dimensions of transformational leaders:

Club(Total n)

Male(%)

Female(%)

Years26-35(%)

Years36-45(%)

Years46-55(%)

Years56-65(%)

Yearsover 65

(%)

1 (18) 72.2 27.8 27.8 11.1 27.8 16.7 38.92 (8) 6.2 1.8 0 25.0 12.5 62.5 03 (11) 81.8 18.2 0 27.3 27.3 45.5 04 (15) 60.0 40.0 6.3 25.0 31.3 37.5 05 (12) 89.5 10.5 13.3 0 46.7 40.0 06 (11) 81.8 18.2 8.3 33.3 25.0 8.3 25.07 (19) 89.5 10.5 9.1 9.1 18.2 27.3 36.48 (16) 62.5 37.5 5.3 10.5 21.1 26.3 36.8Average percentage 6.4 16.4 27.3 30.9 19.1

Note: n ¼ 110

Table I.Survey respondents

based on gender and age

Servant versustransformational

leadership

65

(1) inspirational;

(2) motivation;

(3) intellectual stimulation;

(4) idealized influence; and

(5) active contingent management.

The items were rated on a five-point scale of 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently, if not always).Cronbach’s a on the MLQ Scale reported in a previously published study was 0.93 (Dvirand Shamir, 2003). The Cronbach’s a coefficient of the MLQ Scale for our study was 0.96.

3.2.2 Servant leadership. Ehrhart’s (2004) 14-item scale was used to measure servantleadership qualities. Ehrhart identified two subscales in the study:

(1) ethical behaviors; and

(2) concern with subordinates’ overall wellbeing.

The items were rated on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (to a very small extent) to 5(to a great extent). A sample item from the ethical dimension is “My club presidentholds volunteer employees to high ethical standards”. An example from the concerndimension is “My club president spends the time to form quality relationships withvolunteers”. The reported Cronbach’s a reliability for the scale was 0.98 (Ehrhart,2004). Ehrhart noted that the scale highly correlated with Bass and Avolio’s MLQ. Inour study, the empowerment scale was high, a ¼ 0:93.

3.2.3 Satisfaction. Two satisfaction items were adapted from Cammann et al. (1983)satisfaction instrument. The reported Cronbach’s a reliability coefficient for the scalewas 0.83 (Cammann et al., 1983). In our study, a ¼ :73. The two items “In general, I likeworking with this club”, and “All in all, I am satisfied with my membership in thisclub” were combined for future analyses.

3.2.4 Commitment. The nine-item short form of the Organization CommitmentQuestionnaire (OCQ; Mowday et al., 1979) was used to measure organizationalcommitment. A sample commitment item is “I talk up this club to my friends as a greatorganization to belong to”. The reported Cronbach’s a reliability coefficient for thescale was 0.93 (Mowday et al., 1979). In our study, the OCQ a ¼ 0:83.

3.2.5 Intention to stay. For purposes of this study, we used the single positive itemfrom Cook et al. (1981) three-item intentions to leave scale: “The likelihood of mycontinued membership in this club is high.” The item was measured on a seven-pointLikert format.

3.2.6 Empowerment. A nine-item psychological empowerment scale (Menon, 1999)was used. The scale comprises three subscales:

(1) goal internalization;

(2) perceived control; and

(3) perceived competence.

A sample item for perceived control is “I can influence the way work is done in myclub”; for goal internalization, “I am inspired by the goals of the organization”; and forperceived competence, “I have the competence to work effectively” (Menon, 1999).Menon (1999) reported the overall Cronbach’s a for the scale to be 0.83. In our study,the empowerment scale a ¼ 0:84.

LODJ32,1

66

3.3 ProcedurePermission to conduct the survey was granted by the Board of Directors at each of theselected clubs. The researchers attended a club meeting at each of the eight clubs withinthe metropolitan area over the course of three months. At the club meetings, the clubpresidents announced the study, introduced the researcher, and invited members toparticipate after the meeting was over. The online survey was advertised on postcardsand distributed at the club meetings along with the surveys. The survey link was alsopublished in the club’s monthly bulletin or newsletter. To retain participant anonymity, asealed drop-box was placed at each clubhouse. Alternatively, participants could mail thecompleted surveys directly to the university in the prepaid envelopes we provided. Theresponses on the electronic database could not be matched to any particular respondent.Club presidents rated themselves on the transformational leadership and servantleadership scales, but they did not complete the rest of the survey.

4. Results and discussion4.1 Ratings of leadership of club presidentsFor club president servant leadership style, the average rating for members from alleight clubs was M ¼ 4:34 (SD ¼ 0:61) on a scale from 1 to 5. The average rating fortransformational leadership was M ¼ 2:74 (SD ¼ 0:62) on a scale from 0 to 4. Analysisof differences in ratings between clubs is described in the Appendix. In Table II, weillustrate the differences between leaders’ self-rating and members’ ratings of theirleader. As Table II indicates, club members rated their leaders slightly higher on bothtransformational leadership and servant leadership than the leaders rated themselves.These results are congruent with previous research on self-report, which suggests thatindividuals typically rate themselves lower than others rate them (Baldwin, 2000).

4.2 Relationships among the study variablesMeans and standard deviations for the major study variables are presented in Table III.Pearson’s correlations among the study variables are presented in Table IV.

As shown in Table IV, the expected correlation between perceptions oftransformational and servant leadership was significant (r ¼ 0:52, p , 0:01), whichsupports that transformational leadership and servant leadership share many similarcharacteristics (Ehrhart, 2004).

4.2.1 Survey mode. In three separate one-way analyses of variance, survey type(online versus paper) was used as the independent variable and satisfaction,commitment, or intentions to stay were considered the dependent variables. There

Ratings

Transformationalleadershipmember

Transformationalleadership self

Servantleadershipmember

Servantleadership

self

Transformational leadership memberrating –Transformational leader self-rating 0.25 * –Servant leadership member rating 0.52 * * 0.23 * –Servant leader self-rating 0.28 * 0.43 * * 0.22 * –

Note: *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01 (two-tailed)

Table II.Correlations between

leaders’ self-ratings andmembers’ ratings of

leaders

Servant versustransformational

leadership

67

were no differences between the electronic and paper versions of the survey on thesethree variables, so the data for the two modes were combined for subsequent analyses.

4.2.2 Local club. A more conservative approach would have been to analyze theresults at the club level (Kenny and La Voie, 1985) or include the club as a second levelin hierarchical linear modeling. This strategy proved to be unnecessary, because,overall, club membership did not significantly affect the three major outcomemeasures. Therefore, data was combined across clubs for subsequent analyses.

4.2.3 Demographic variables. In a simultaneous multiple regression analysis, clubmember gender, retirement status, age, and education did not predict satisfaction,commitment, or intentions to stay in the club. Therefore, these four demographicvariables were not controlled for in subsequent analyses.

4.3 Mediation hypothesis testingAccording to Baron and Kenny (1986), mediation is supported when threeconditions are met. In the first condition, the mediator variable (in this case,empowerment) must be significantly related to the independent variable (leadershipstyle). Second, Baron and Kenny (1986) contend that the direct relationship betweenthe predictor (leadership) and outcome (e.g. satisfaction) in step 1 of a hierarchicalregression should be significant. Third, when the mediator (empowerment) is addedin step 2 of the equation, the b for the mediator should be significant, and b for theindependent variable should decrease by an amount that is statistically significant(DR 2). Full mediation requires that, in the presence of the mediator, the relationshipbetween the predictor and the outcome is no longer significant in step 2 of theregression.

According to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) test of mediation, the predictor variables (i.e.leadership styles) must be significantly related to the outcome variables and themediator variable. Except for commitment, this requirement is met (Tables IV and V).As expected, servant leadership ratings were significantly positive correlated with allthree outcome variables (Table IV). Ratings of transformational leadership showedsignificant positive correlations with satisfaction and intention to stay in the club but,surprisingly, they were not correlated with commitment (Table IV).

Empowerment was significantly positive correlated with the ratings of bothleadership styles, the three outcome variables, and hours volunteered in the last twoweeks (Table IV). The highest correlation was between empowerment and satisfaction(r ¼ 0:59, p , 0:01). This result was not surprising as autonomy is thought to be

Ratings n M SD

Transformational leadership 109 2.74 0.62Servant leadership 110 4.33 0.61Empowerment 102 5.90 0.76Commitment 102 6.14 1.05Satisfaction 102 6.52 0.63Intention to stay 102 6.70 0.67Hours volunteered in last two weeks 106 4.19 2.64Years in club 107 10.34 9.63

Note: Transformational leadership ratings varied from 0 to 4, servant leadership varied from 1-5, andremaining scales varied from 1 to 7

Table III.Descriptive statistics ofmajor scales andvariables

LODJ32,1

68

Mea

sure

TL

SL

Em

pow

erm

ent

Com

mit

men

tS

atis

fact

ion

Inte

nti

onH

ours

/tw

ow

eek

s

Tra

nsf

orm

atio

nal

lead

ersh

ip(T

L)

–S

erv

ant

lead

ersh

ip(S

L)

0.52

**

–E

mp

ower

men

t0.

25*

0.37

**

–C

omm

itm

ent

0.18

0.30

**

0.36

**

–S

atis

fact

ion

0.31

**

0.34

**

0.59

**

0.49

**

–In

ten

tion

tost

ay0.

220.

27*

*0.

41*

*0.

37*

*0.

67*

*–

Hou

rsv

olu

nte

ered

/tw

ow

eek

s2

0.07

20.

040.

30*

*0.

24*

0.21

*0.

16–

Note:

* p,

0:05

;*

* p,

0:01

(tw

o-ta

iled

).n¼

102

Table IV.Correlations among

predictor and outcomevariables

Servant versustransformational

leadership

69

highly related to employee satisfaction in organizations (Chen and Bliese, 2002;Robbins et al., 2002). The percentage of variance explained by empowerment variedfrom a low of 5 percent for transformational leadership to a high of 34 percent forsatisfaction (Table V).

Except for transformational leadership’s relationship with commitment, all of Baronand Kenny’s (1986) conditions for partial or full mediation were met for both servantlearning and transformational leadership.

4.3.1 Transformational leadership and satisfaction. Empowerment partiallymediated the effect of transformational leadership on satisfaction. As shown inTable VI, when the mediator empowerment was added to the hierarchical regression inStep 2, the 28 percent change in R 2 was significant, and empowerment was asignificant predictor (b ¼ 0:55, p , 0:001). The b for transformational leadership inStep 1 was (b ¼ 0:31, p , 0:01) was reduced significantly after empowerment wasadded in Step 2 (b ¼ 0:17, p , :05). From these results, it appears that when atransformational leader empowers volunteers, the latter may be more satisfied with thevolunteer experience.

4.3.2 Transformational leadership and commitment. Because transformationalleadership did not significantly predict commitment (Table VI), a condition formediation set forth by Baron and Kenny (1986) was not met. Therefore, in this sample,empowerment was not a mediator of the relationship between transformationalleadership and commitment.

These results are noteworthy because earlier studies found a positive relationshipbetween transformational leadership and commitment (e.g. Avolio et al., 2004;Richardson and Vandenberg, 2005). Perhaps, because all club members had previouslycommitted to attend at least one meeting a week, there was a ceiling effect on ratings ofclub members’ commitment in this sample. However, this pledge does not account for thesignificant relationship between servant leadership and commitment (see Table IV).Perhaps club members’ attitudes simply responded more positively to the servantleadership style. This reasoning is congruent with the contention that servant leadershipis better suited for volunteer organizations than is transformational leadership (Spears,1998).

Outcome/predictor b R2adj F

Empowerment 0.06 Fð1; 99Þ ¼ 6:73 *

Transformational leadership 0.25 *

Empowerment 0.13 Fð1; 100Þ ¼ 15:39 * * *

Servant leadership 0.37 * * *

Satisfaction 0.34 Fð1; 100Þ ¼ 54:05 * * *

Empowerment 0.59 * * *

Commitment 0.12 Fð1; 100Þ ¼ 14:94 * * *

Empowerment 0.36 * * *

Intention to stay 0.16 Fð1; 100Þ ¼ 20:08 * * *

Empowerment 0.41 * * *

Hours volunteered 0.08 Fð1; 96Þ ¼ 9:14 * *

Empowerment 0.30 * *

Note: *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01; * * *p , 0:001

Table V.Regression analyses ofservant leadership andtransformationalleadership andempowerment

LODJ32,1

70

4.3.3 Transformational leadership and intention to stay. Empowerment fully mediatedthe effects of transformational leadership on intention to stay. Transformationalleadership predicted intention to stay (Table VI). When empowerment was added tothe equation in Step 2, the 13 percent change in R 2 was significant, as was the b for themediator empowerment (b ¼ 0:38, p , 0:001). Finally, the significant b fortransformational leadership in Step 1 (b ¼ 0:22, p , 0:05) was no longer significantwhen the mediator was added (Table VI).

From these results, it appears that perceptions of transformational leadershipbehaviors that engender empowerment encourage volunteers to remain with theirservice clubs. Previous research has established that employees’ perceptions ofleadership style are critical in predicting withdrawal behaviors such as turnover(Fleishman, 1998; Walumbwa and Lawler, 2003).

4.3.4 Servant leadership and satisfaction. Empowerment was a full mediator of theeffects of servant leadership on satisfaction. Servant leadership significantly predictedsatisfaction in Step 1 (see Table VII). When empowerment was added to the equation inStep 2, it was a significant predictor, b ¼ 0:54, p , 0:001. The 25 percent change in R 2

from Step 1 to Step 2 was also significant. Finally, the b for servant leadership in Step 1(b ¼ 0:34, p , 0:001) was no longer significant in Step 2 when mediator empowermentwas added to the equation (see Table VII).

Perceptions of servant leadership were related to high levels of satisfaction in clubmembers. Perhaps servant leaders provide the support and guidance necessary forvolunteers to be more satisfied with the leader and thus with the organization (Ehrhart,2004).

4.3.5 Servant leadership and commitment. Empowerment fully mediated the effectof servant leadership on commitment. Servant leadership predicted commitment inStep 1 (Table VII). When empowerment was added to Step 2, the 7 percent change in

b R2adj DR 2 F/DF

SatisfactionStep 1 Leadership 0.09 – 10.53 * * *

Transformational 0.31 * * *

Step 2 With empowerment 0.37 0.28 44.54 * * * *

Transformational 0.17 * *

Empowerment 0.55 * * * *

CommitmentStep 1 Leadership 0.02 – 3.23 *

Transformational 0.18 *

Step 2 With empowerment 0.12 0.11 12.20 * * * *

Transformational 0.09Empowerment 0.34 * * *

Intention to stayStep 1 Leadership 0.04 – 5.17 * *

Transformational 0.22 * *

Step 2 With empowerment 0.17 0.13 16.14 * * * *

Transformational 0.13Empowerment 0.38 * * * *

Notes: * p , 0:10; * *p , 0:05; * * *p , 0:01; * * * *p , 0:001

Table VI.Hierarchical regression of

member perceptions oftransformational

leadership on attitudeswith empowerment as

mediator

Servant versustransformational

leadership

71

R 2 was significant, and empowerment was a significant predictor (b ¼ :29, p , 0:01).Servant leadership was significant in Step 1 (b ¼ 0:30, p , 0:01), but was no longersignificant when empowerment was added in Step 2 (Table VII).

Servant leaders who empowered club members increased follower commitment.This finding is congruent with prior research that has found that servant leadership’semphasis on the needs of volunteers enhances volunteer loyalty and commitment(Wisner et al., 2005).

4.3.6 Servant leadership and intention to stay. Empowerment was a full mediator ofthe effects of servant leadership on intention to stay. Servant leadership significantlypredicted intention to stay in Model 1 (Table VII). When empowerment was introducedin Step 2, the 11 percent change in R 2 was significant, as was the b for empowerment,b ¼ 0:36, p , 0:001. Finally, the b for servant leadership (b ¼ 0:27, p , 0:01) inModel 1 was no longer significant in Step 2 when empowerment was added (Table VII).

As noted previously, perceptions of leadership style may be critical in the predictionof intention to stay or to withdraw (Fleishman, 1998; Walumbwa and Lawler, 2003).Servant leaders who empower their volunteers may be able to convince them tocontinue service with the organization.

4.4 Hierarchical regression of leadership stylesTable VIII describes a hierarchical analysis with both leadership styles addedsimultaneously in Step 1 and empowerment as the mediator in Step 2. The resultsclearly show that when servant leadership is in the regression equation along withtransformational leadership, transformational leadership no longer affects the threedependent variables, nor are there any significant relationships with empowerment(Table VIII). It is unlikely that this absence of effects of transformational leadership

b R2adj DR 2 F/DF

SatisfactionStep 1 Leadership 0.11 – 13.40 * *

Servant 0.34 * * *

Step 2 With empowerment 0.36 0.25 8.52 * *

Servant 0.15Empowerment 0.54 * * *

CommitmentStep 1 Leadership 0.08 – 10.13 * *

Servant 0.30 * * *

Step 2 With empowerment 0.15 0.07 8.52 * * *

Servant 0.20Empowerment 0.29 * *

Intention to stayStep 1 Leadership 0.06 – 7.56 * *

Servant leadership 0.27 * *

Step 2 With empowerment 0.17 0.11 13.61 * * *

Servant 0.13Empowerment 0.36 * * *

Note: *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01; * * *p , 0:001

Table VII.Hierarchical regression ofmember perceptions ofservant leadership onattitudes withempowerment asmediator

LODJ32,1

72

when servant leadership is in the equation is due to multicollinearity, as the correlationis not sufficiently high enough to cause concern.

5. Research implications and limitationsOne of the strengths of this research was the measurement of perceptions oftransformational and servant leadership the volunteer setting, and the effects of theseleadership styles on the attitudes of club members. Researchers have recognized a needfor more research on effective management of volunteer workers (Martinez and McMullin,2004), and more empirical studies on servant leadership are needed. Our study, therefore,should be particularly useful in understanding the reactions of volunteers to differentstyles of leadership in organizations whose primary mission is service.

As anticipated, volunteer empowerment had a tangible, positive effect oncommitment, satisfaction, and intentions to stay in the organization, includingself-reports of number of hours volunteered. One of the most noteworthy findings of thisstudy is the verification of the strength of empowerment as a mediator of the perceptionsof leadership style on volunteer attitudes (Avolio et al., 2004). Empowerment fullymediated the relationship between servant leadership and all three primary outcomevariables. Feelings of empowerment also fully mediated the relationship between clubmember perceptions of transformational leadership and their intentions to stay in theclub, and partially mediated the relationship with satisfaction. As expected,

b R2adj DR 2 F/DF Partial r Semi-partial r

SatisfactionStep 1 Leadership 0.12 – 7.95 * *

Servant 0.26 * 0.22 0.22Transformational 0.15 0.13 0.13

Step 2 With empowerment 0.17 0.11 8.52 * *

Servant 0.08 0.08 0.06Transformational 0.13 0.13 0.10Empowerment 0.53 * * * 0.53 0.49

CommitmentStep 1 Leadership 0.08 – 5.62 * *

Servant 0.33 * * 0.27 0.27Transformational 20.02 20.02 20.02

Step 2 With empowerment 0.15 0.07 8.10 * * *

Servant 0.24 * 0.20 0.18Transformational 20.04 20.03 20.03Empowerment 0.28 * * 0.28 0.26

Intention to stayStep 1 Leadership 0.07 – 4.59 *

Servant 0.24 * 0.20 0.20Transformational 0.08 0.07 0.07

Step 2 With empowerment 0.17 0.11 12.79 * * *

Servant 0.12 0.10 20.09Transformational 0.06 0.06 20.05Empowerment 0.35 * * 0.34 20.33

Notes: *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01; * * *p , 0:001

Table VIII.Hierarchical regression of

member perceptions ofservant leadership and

transformationalleadership on attitudeswith empowerment as

mediator

Servant versustransformational

leadership

73

transformational and servant leadership were positively correlated, but servantleadership appeared to be the better predictor of club members’ attitudes. The fact thatthe effects of transformational leadership essentially disappear when servant leadershipis in the regression equation (Table VIII) is particularly powerful evidence.

Although servant leadership was developed by Greenleaf in 1977, it had notreceived much attention in the empirical literature until recently, when the conceptstruck a chord among researchers. In the last five years, at least five new servantleadership scales have been developed (Sendjaya et al., 2008), and empirical work hasbegun on discriminating between transformational and servant leadership (Paroliniet al., 2009). More research is necessary to examine the long-term differential effects ofthese two leadership styles on behavior in both non-profit and for-profit organizations.

Although all of immediate area chapters of the service club studied participated inthis research, future research would benefit from a larger sample size. Recruiting alarger, more diverse sample of service clubs and volunteer organizations would expandthe scope of the current findings and further the discussion on the impact of leadershipon the volunteer experience. It would also be interesting to see if servant leadership hasmore impact than transformational leadership in for-profit organizations.

Head-to-head competition between the two leadership models using structuralequation modeling was not possible in this study due to sample size restrictions(Loehlin, 1992). Expanding this study to larger clubs in a wider geographical areawould solve this issue.

As in most studies using self-report data, common method variance may haveaffected the survey results (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In this research, we believe that theimportance of leadership was in how individual perceptions of the leader affected aparticular volunteer’s attitudes. Therefore, we deemed the individual level of analysismost appropriate to test the hypotheses addressed in this particular study.

6. Implications for leadersOur research has shown that while transformational leadership and servant leadership arerelated constructs, servant leadership may be uniquely suited to the managementchallenges of volunteer organizations. For example, in our study, it appears that volunteerswho worked with servant leaders did feel more empowered within the service club setting.

Our study identified empowerment as a mechanism that leaders may be able toleverage to effectively manage the volunteer workforce. According to our findings,servant leaders may find it practical to provide empowering experiences to encouragevolunteers to effectively perform service club activities. More generally, leaders whoprovide volunteers with positive, meaningful experiences may be able to maintain theirinterest in their volunteer positions. Researchers should continue to explore whetherand how servant leaders may help service clubs and other non-profit organizationsreach their goals, while they simultaneously meet the needs of their volunteers.

References

Alatrista, J. and Arrowsmith, J. (2004), “Managing employee commitment in the not-for-profitsector”, Personnel Review, Vol. 33 Nos 5/6, pp. 536-48.

Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W., Koh, W. and Bhatia, P. (2004), “Transformational leadership andorganizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderatingrole of structural distance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 951-68.

LODJ32,1

74

Baldwin, W. (2000), “Information no one else knows: the value of self-report”, in Stone, A.A. (Ed.),The Science of Self-report: Implications for Research and Practice, Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 3-7.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.

Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1997), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Manual, Mind Garden,Palo Alto, CA.

Berson, Y. and Avolio, B.J. (2004), “Transformational leadership and the dissemination oforganizational goals: a case study of a telecommunication firm”, Leadership Quarterly,Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 625-46.

Bliss, J.P. and Fallon, C.K. (2003), “The effects of leadership style and primary task workload onteam performance and follower satisfaction”, International Journal of Applied Aviation,Vol. 3, pp. 259-76.

Bono, J.E. and Judge, T.A. (2003), “Self-concordance at work: toward understanding themotivational effects of transformational leaders”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 46, pp. 554-71.

Brown, W.A. and Yoshioka, C.F. (2003), “Mission attachment and satisfaction as factors inemployee retention”, Nonprofit Management & Leadership, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 5-18.

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D. and Klesh, J. (1983), “Assessing the attitudes andperceptions of organizational members”, in Seashore, S., Lawler, E., Mirvis, P. andCammann, C. (Eds), Assessing Organizational Change: A Guide to Methods, Measures andPractices, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 5-6.

Carlo, G., Okun, M.A., Knight, G.P. and de Guzman, M.T. (2005), “The interplay of traits andmotives on volunteering: agreeableness, extraversion and prosocial value motivation”,Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 38, pp. 1293-305.

Chen, G. and Bliese, P.D. (2002), “The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self andcollective efficacy: evidence for discontinuity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3,pp. 549-56.

Clary, E.G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R.D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A.A., Haugen, J. and Miene, P. (1998),“Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: a functional approach”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 1516-30.

Cook, J.D., Hepworth, S.J., Wall, T.D. and Warr, P.B. (1981), The Experience of Work, AcademicPress, London.

Dionne, S.D., Yammarino, F.J., Atwater, L.E. and Spangler, W.D. (2004), “Transformationalleadership and team performance”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 17No. 2, pp. 177-93.

Dvir, T. and Shamir, B. (2003), “Follower developmental characteristics as predictingtransformational leadership: a longitudinal field study”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14,pp. 327-44.

Dvir, T., Eden, E., Avolio, B.J. and Shamir, B. (2002), “Impact of transformational leadership onfollower development and performance: a field experiment”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 735-44.

Ehrhart, M.G. (2004), “Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-levelorganizational citizenship behavior”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 61-94.

Epitropaki, O. and Martin, R. (2005), “From ideal to real: a longitudinal study of the role ofimplicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 4, pp. 659-76.

Servant versustransformational

leadership

75

Farling, M.L., Stone, A.G. and Winston, B.E. (1999), “Servant leadership: setting the stage forempirical research”, The Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 6 Nos 1/2, pp. 49-72.

Fleishman, E.A. (1998), “Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances andturnover: some post hoc reflections”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 825-34.

Gillespie, N.A. and Mann, L. (2004), “Transformational leadership and shared values:the building-blocks of trust”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 588-607.

Graham, J.W. (1991), “Servant-leadership in organizations: inspirational and moral”, LeadershipQuarterly, Vol. 2, pp. 105-19.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1977), Servant Leadership, Paulist Press, New York, NY.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1997), “The servant as leader”, in Vecchio, R.P. (Ed.), Understanding theDynamics of Power and Influence in Organizations, University of Notre Dame Press, NotreDame, IN, pp. 429-38.

Greenleaf, R.K. and Spears, L.C. (2002), Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature ofLegitimate Power and Greatness, 25th anniversary edition, Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ.

Hager, M.A. and Brudney, J.L. (2004), Volunteer Management Practices and Retention ofVolunteers, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC.

Jaskyte, K. (2003), “Assessing changes in employees’ perceptions of leadership behavior, jobdesign, and organizational arrangements and their job satisfaction and commitment”,Administration in Social Work, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 25-39.

Jung, D.I. and Sosik, J.J. (2002), “Transformational leadership in work groups, the role ofempowerment, cohesiveness and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance”,Small Group Research, Vol. 33, pp. 313-36.

Kark, R., Shamir, B. and Chen, G. (2003), “The two faces of transformational leadership:empowerment and dependency”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 246-55.

Kenny, D.A. and La Voie, L. (1985), “Separating individual and group effects”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 339-48.

Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J. and Sparrowe, R.T. (2000), “An examination of the mediating role ofpsychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships,and work outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 407-16.

Loehlin, J.C. (1992), Latent Variable Models: An Introduction to Factor, Path and StructuralAnalysis, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

McColl-Kennedy, J.R. and Anderson, R.D. (2005), “Subordinate-manager gender combination andperceived leadership-style influence on emotions, self-esteem and organizationalcommitment”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 115-25.

Martinez, T.A. and McMullin, S.L. (2004), “Factors affecting decisions to volunteer innongovernmental organizations”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 112-26.

Masi, R.J. and Cooke, R.A. (2000), “Effects of transformational leadership on subordinatemotivation, empowering norms, and organizational productivity”, International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 16-47.

Menon, S.T. (1999), “Psychological empowerment: definition, measurement, and validation”,Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 161-4.

Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979), “The measurement of organizationalcommitment”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 224-47.

Parolini, J., Patterson, K. and Winston, B. (2009), “Distinguishing between transformationalleadership and servant leadership”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal,Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 274-91.

LODJ32,1

76

Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases inbehavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journalof Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.

Rafferty, A.E. and Griffin, M.A. (2004), “Dimensions of transformational leadership: conceptualand empirical extensions”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 329-54.

Richardson, H.A. and Vandenberg, R.J. (2005), “Integrating managerial perceptions andtransformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee involvement”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 561-89.

Robbins, T.L., Crino, M.D. and Fredendall, L.D. (2002), “An integrative model of theempowerment process”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 419-43.

Russell, R.F. and Stone, A.G. (2002), “A review of servant leadership attributes: developing apractical model”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 145-57.

Scandura, T.A. and Williams, E.A. (2004), “Mentoring and transformational leadership: the roleof supervisor career mentoring”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 448-68.

Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J.C. and Santora, J.C. (2008), “Defining and measuring servant leadershipbehaviour in organizations”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 402-24.

Smith, B.N., Montagno, R.V. and Kuzmenko, T.N. (2004), “Transformational and servantleadership: content and contextual comparisons”, Journal of Leadership & OrganizationalStudies, Vol. 10, pp. 80-91.

Spears, L.C. (1998), “Tracing the growing impact of servant leadership”, in Block, P., Blanchard, P.K.,Wheatley, M. and Autry, J.A. (Eds), Insights on Leadership: Service, Stewardship, Spirit, andServant-leadership, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 1-12.

Stone, A.G., Russell, R.F. and Patterson, K. (2003), “Transformational versus servant leadership:a difference in leader focus”, Leadership &Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4,pp. 349-61.

Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V. and Milner, C. (2002), “Transformationalleadership and moral reasoning”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 304-11.

Walumbwa, F.O. and Lawler, J.J. (2003), “Building effective organizations: transformationalleadership, collective orientation, work-related attitudes and withdrawal behaviours inthree emerging economies”, International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, Vol. 14No. 7, pp. 1083-101.

Whetstone, J.T. (2002), “Personalism and moral leadership: the servant leader with atransforming vision”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 385-92.

Wisner, P.S., Stringfellow, A., Youngdahal, W.E. and Parker, L. (2005), “The servicevolunteer-loyalty chain: an exploratory study of charitable not-for-profit serviceorganizations”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 143-61.

About the authorsSherry K. Schneider is a Faculty Member in Industrial/Organizational (I/O) Psychology at theUniversity of West Florida. Her research interests are in leadership, organizational identity, andgroup processes. Sherry K. Schneider is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:sschneider@uwf.edu

Winnette M. George received her MA at the University of West Florida, and is currentlyworking in Trinidad as a consultant.

Servant versustransformational

leadership

77

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints