Masterplate_QN version 14.1 - CiteSeerX

A CORRELATIONAL ANALYSIS OF

SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CLIMATE

by

Glenda Lee Black

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX

December 2007

UMI Number: 3309254

33092542008

Copyright 2007 byBlack, Glenda Lee

UMI MicroformCopyright

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

All rights reserved.

by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

ABSTRACT

Using a mixed-method research design, a measure of servant leadership was correlated

with a measure of school climate to identify whether there was a relationship between

principals’ and teachers’ perceived practice of servant leadership and principals’ and

teachers’ perception of school climate. The study employed a mixed-method approach by

first administering two validated quantitative instruments: Laub's (1998) OLA and Hoy et

al.’s (1991) OCDQ-RE. These instruments were administered to a randomly selected

sample of 231 full-time teachers and 15 principals working in a Catholic school board in

Ontario. Upon completion of the quantitative data analysis, focus group interviews were

conducted with 10% of the sample. The data revealed a significant positive correlation

between servant leadership and school climate.

v

DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to my husband, Rick Black, sons Tanner and Patrick,

daughter Brittany, and my mom and dad, Merle and Kevin Gavin who provided the love

and encouragement I needed to push forward.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to acknowledge five groups of people as contributors to my achievement.

The first group whom I owe a debt of gratitude is to the professors and instructors at the

University of Phoenix who provided a quality doctoral program. My appreciation to Dr.

Karen Johnson, my mentor, who used humor and a shoulder to get through the tough

times. My committee members, Dr. Martine Bates and Dr. Linda Crawford demonstrated

an eagerness to assist and commitment to the process.

Second, I wish to thank the staff of my study organization. My appreciation to

Lou Piovesan, John Langill, Larry Clifford, and Jim Rowles who exemplify servant

leadership and who welcomed and supported my study with total commitment. Dr. Erica

Roosmalen believed in my study and provided direction and guidance. John Volek

willingly shared his technical expertise. Most especially, my appreciation to the

principals and teachers, models of servant leadership, who participated in the study.

The third group lent support for the surveys. I express my gratitude to Tanvir

Quadir for his assistance with the statistical process of the study. Thank you to Dr. James

Laub for the use of the OLA instrument and Dr. Hoy for the use of the OCDQ-RE

instrument. The fourth group I owe a debt of gratitude is my learning team members,

Elena Bogardus, Cheryl Szyarto, and Lora Lee who became my lifeline throughout the

entire program. We became more than collegiate comrades, we became friends.

Finally, to my family, I owe everything. The road along my dissertation journey

was lined with my extended family from Kirkland Lake, Sudbury, and Orillia, Ontario,

and Wetaskiwin, Alberta supporting me with their applause and encouragement. Thank

you all for being.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................xiii

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................xv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION..............................................................................1

Background of the Problem .......................................................................................2

Statement of the Problem...........................................................................................4

Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................5

Significance of the Problem.......................................................................................6

Significance of the Problem to the Field of Leadership ............................................7

Nature of the Study ....................................................................................................7

Research Questions....................................................................................................8

Hypothesis..................................................................................................................9

Theoretical Framework..............................................................................................9

Servant Leadership.....................................................................................................9

Elements of School Climate.....................................................................................11

Definition of Terms..................................................................................................11

Assumptions.............................................................................................................12

Scope of the Study ...................................................................................................12

Limitations ...............................................................................................................13

Delimitations............................................................................................................14

Summary ..................................................................................................................14

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ..................................................16

Documentation.........................................................................................................16

viii

Ontario Catholic Schools .........................................................................................17

Foundation of Catholic Schools........................................................................17

Canadian Catholic Schools ...............................................................................18

Ontario Catholic Schools..................................................................................22

Formation of Catholic Schools in Ontario........................................................23

Current Student Enrollment..............................................................................26

Teachers and Administrators ............................................................................27

Training of Educators in Catholic Schools.......................................................28

School Climate.........................................................................................................28

Organizational Climate as an Emerging Concept.............................................29

Theoretical Constructs of School Climate........................................................30

The Appearance of School Climate..................................................................33

Relevant School Climate Research...................................................................36

Servant Leadership...................................................................................................37

Overview of Major Leadership Theories..........................................................38

Servant Leadership According to Greenleaf.....................................................46

Servant Leadership in Academic and Popular Literature .................................50

Servant Leadership Principals and School Climate..........................................58

Servant Leadership in Biblical Teachings ........................................................59

Criticism of Servant Leadership .......................................................................60

Servant Leadership and School Climate...........................................................61

Conclusion ...............................................................................................................63

Summary ..................................................................................................................64

ix

CHAPTER 3: METHOD .........................................................................................65

Research Design.......................................................................................................65

Appropriateness of Design.......................................................................................67

Research Questions..................................................................................................71

Population ................................................................................................................71

Sampling Frame .......................................................................................................73

Informed Consent.....................................................................................................73

Confidentiality .........................................................................................................73

Geographic Location................................................................................................74

Instrumentation ........................................................................................................75

Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) ................................................75

Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire-Revised (OCDQ-RE) ......77

Post-Survey Qualitative Focus Group Interviews ............................................79

Data Collection ........................................................................................................80

Data Analysis ...........................................................................................................82

Validity and Reliability............................................................................................88

Internal Validity................................................................................................89

External Validity...............................................................................................90

Summary ..................................................................................................................90

Conclusion ...............................................................................................................91

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS.........................................................................................92

Research Questions..................................................................................................92

Missing Data ............................................................................................................93

x

Data Analysis Procedures ........................................................................................93

Findings....................................................................................................................97

Demographic Statistics ............................................................................................97

Age....................................................................................................................98

Gender...............................................................................................................99

Years Working with Research Study’s School Board......................................99

Years Working at Current Assignment...........................................................100

Quantitative Data ...................................................................................................101

Canonical Correlation Analysis......................................................................101

Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) ..............................................105

Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire-Revised (OCDQ-RE) ....105

Qualitative Data .....................................................................................................107

Values People .................................................................................................108

Develops People .............................................................................................110

Builds Community..........................................................................................111

Displays Authenticity .....................................................................................112

Provides Leadership........................................................................................113

Shares Leadership...........................................................................................115

Supportive Principal Behavior........................................................................116

Collegial Teacher Behavior ............................................................................117

Intimate Teacher Behavior .............................................................................118

Summary ................................................................................................................120

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................121

xi

Summary ................................................................................................................122

Quantitative Data ...................................................................................................123

Canonical Correlation Analysis......................................................................123

Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) ..............................................124

Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire-Revised (OCDQ-RE) ....125

Qualitative Data .....................................................................................................126

Triangulation..........................................................................................................128

Conclusions............................................................................................................129

Implications............................................................................................................129

Global Leadership...........................................................................................130

Organizational Leadership..............................................................................130

Recommendations..................................................................................................131

Conclusion .............................................................................................................132

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................135

APPENDIX A: ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP ASSESSMENT

INSTRUMENT......................................................................................................165

APPENDIX B: ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE DESCRIPTION

QUESTIONNAIRE ...............................................................................................170

APPENDIX C: DOCUMENTATION...................................................................173

APPENDIX D: INFORMED CONSENT FORM .................................................177

APPENDIX E: LETTER OF INTRODUCTION..................................................179

APPENDIX F: PERMISSION TO USE OLA.......................................................181

xii

APPENDIX G: PERMISSION TO USE ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE

DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE-REVISED ..................................................183

APPENDIX H: PERMISSION TO USE PREMISES...........................................185

APPENDIX I: DETAILED EXPLANATION OF LAUB’S 6 CATEGORIES....187

APPENDIX J: CANONICAL CORRELATION ANALYSIS: THE CANCORR

PROCEDURE........................................................................................................195

APPENDIX K: SUMMARY OF CORRELATIONAL ANALYSIS....................197

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Teachers and Administrators in Ontario Schools – Full-Time Equivalent

(FTE) 2004-05 .........................................................................................................27

Table 2 Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients and Leadership Practices of the OLA ......77

Table 3 Alpha Coefficients and Dimensions of School Climate as Measured in

OCDQ-RE ................................................................................................................81

Table 4 Laub’s Six Organizational Categories and OLA Score Ranges .................83

Table 5 OCDQ-RE Subtest Scores Converted to Categories ..................................84

Table 6 Principal Component Analysis .................................................................103

Table 7 Correlations between the VAR Variables and Canonical Variables of the

WITH Variables .....................................................................................................104

Table 8 Correlations between the WITH Variables and Canonical Variables of

WITH Variables .....................................................................................................104

Table 9 Comparison of Teachers’ and Principals’ Perception Scores on Six OLA

Constructs ..............................................................................................................105

Table 10 OCDQ-RE: Principals’ Perceptions ......................................................106

Table 11 OCDQ-RE: Teachers’ Perceptions ........................................................107

Table 12 Responses to Servant Leadership Construct Values People...................109

Table 13 Responses to Servant Leadership Construct Develops People...............110

Table 14 Responses to Servant Leadership Construct Builds Community ............112

Table 15 Responses to Servant Leadership Construct Displays Authenticity .......113

Table 16 Responses to Servant Leadership Construct Provides Leadership ........114

Table 17 Responses to Servant Leadership Construct Shares Leadership............115

xiv

Table 18 Responses to School Climate Dimension Supportive Principal

Behavior .................................................................................................................116

Table 19 Responses to School Climate Dimension Collegial Teacher Behavior ..117

Table 20 Responses to School Climate Dimension Intimate Teacher Behavior....119

xv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Graphic representation of research process .............................................66

Figure 2. Comparison between teachers’ and principals’ summary statistics of

age. ...........................................................................................................................98

Figure 3. Comparison between teachers’ and principals’ summary statistics of

age. ...........................................................................................................................99

Figure 4. Teachers’ and principals’ summary statistics: Years of service with

school board. ..........................................................................................................100

Figure 5. Teachers’ and principals’ summary statistics: Years of service at

current assignment. ................................................................................................101

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

As the demands of our public educational system have become greater, student

motivation and new methods of attaining student academic achievement have become

increasingly elusive. A generation of research has provided evidence demonstrating

improved academic achievement goals can be attained by effective school leaders

attending to the needs of school organizations (Coral & Castle, 2005; Kelley, Thornton,

& Daugherty, 2005; Mulford, Silins, & Leithwood, 2004; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty,

2004). Visionary, creative, knowledgeable, principled, and inspiring educational leaders

are vital to building and fostering a positive school environment to help meet public

education goals in the 21st century (Simonson, 2005). Belief in the tenets of servant

leadership as a practical operational approach for school communities has gained

momentum among scholars and practitioners in the past twenty years (Sendjaya &

Sarros, 2002).

Greenleaf (1970) introduced servant leadership as an emerging leadership

approach to meeting society’s challenges and expectations. The model of servant

leadership is based upon leaders putting others peoples’ needs, interests, and aspirations

above their own. A servant leader makes a conscious choice to serve others by

prioritizing service first, then leadership (Greenleaf, 1977).

Twenty-first century scholars presented the servant leader as one moving beyond

being transformational. These servant leaders possess the intent of transforming those

served to grow personally and professionally, become more autonomous, and increase the

likelihood of becoming servants themselves (Spears & Lawrence, 2004). Studies have

shown a relationship between implementing principles of servant leadership and positive

2

organizational climate (Ehrhart, 2004; Hunt, 2002; McCowan, 2004). The current study

investigated and extended prior studies of the servant leadership and school climate

relationship within the Ontario Catholic elementary school system.

The current study outlined a significant contribution to the body of knowledge

related to educational leadership theory, particularly concerning the theory of servant

leadership (Greenleaf, 1970). The acquired knowledge provided much-needed empirical

evidence (Russell & Stone, 2002; Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002) to assist leaders in

establishing training programs and other support systems to promote servant leadership.

Chapter 1 introduces the background of the problem, statement of the problem, purpose

of the study, significance of the study, and the nature of the study. In addition, the chapter

considers the research questions, hypothesis, theoretical framework, definitions,

assumptions, scope of the study, limitations, and delimitations.

Background of the Problem

The role of elementary school principals has changed significantly over the past

decade (Brown, 2006; DiPaola, 2003; Ferrandino, 2001; Mulford et al., 2004; Ontario

Ministry of Education, 2005; Rayfield & Diamantes, 2004). Reforms in educational

standards and accountability have made principalship more challenging in the 21st

century (DiPaola, 2003; Ferrandino, 2001; Mulford et al., 2004; Rayfield & Diamantes,

2004; Whitaker, 2003). The roles principals play are further complicated by adding the

responsibility of addressing larger societal issues (Fullan, 2003).

Following 10 years of research, The National Center for School Leadership

(NCSL) identified five fundamental areas of principals’ responsibilities: “(a) defining and

communication of school’s educational mission, (b) coordinating curriculum, (c)

3

supervision and supporting teachers, (d) monitoring student progress, and (e) nurturing a

positive learning climate” (Ferrandino, 2001, ¶ 1). These responsibilities have expanded

the principal’s roles to include being an instructional, community, and visionary leader

(DiPaola, 2003). Twenty-first century principals are required to have more than a

compendium of skills for building management; principals must be skilled leaders.

The Ontario Ministry of Education (OME) acknowledged principalship is more

challenging today than any other time in Ontario’s history (OME, 2005). At the same

time, the OME asserted, principals “are the single most significant influence upon

students, after the individual classroom teachers” (OME, 2005, p. 1). The modern

principal must build and facilitate a learning community (OME, 2005). As the core

instructional leader, the principal coaches, teaches, develops, and “cultivates leadership

within the school” (OME, 2005, p. 2). A shared leadership model supporting

collaboration, consultation, and consensus building is the most suitable within the school

setting (OME, 2005).

Critical to the principal’s role is developing and sustaining a professional,

collaborative environment with teachers and professionals affecting policy and practices

that, in turn, improve student achievement (OME, 2005). The school principal’s role as

instructional leader is to create an authentic learning environment, encouraging the

development of teachers and others in the school community as leaders (Beattie, 2002).

Servant leadership, as established by Greenleaf (1970), is an apt leadership model for the

principal’s new and evolving role in the educational environment. As a servant leader, a

principal assumes a non-focal position within a group, providing resources and support

without expectation of acknowledgement. The servant leader fosters an overall strategy

4

for the organization, one originating from the group and developed through the process of

exploration, listening, encouraging, and assisting the individual or group in a continuous

review of direction, purpose, and vision (Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004).

Limited attention was provided to servant leadership by educational researchers,

though servant leadership is easily applied to the principal’s role. Blanchard and Hodges

(2003) suggested leaders must implement a vision with a clear, compelling purpose; one

in concert with the demands of various school community constituents. In the context of

a school, the vision can assist in creating a positive school environment. The current

study adds to the empirical research base on servant leadership in the educational setting.

Statement of the Problem

Ineffective leadership behaviors of elementary school administration directly

affect the climate of the school and negatively influence student achievement (Halverson,

2004; Johnson & Uline, 2005; Norton, 2003; Quinn, 2002). The demand for a greater

number and variety of effective leadership skills, combined with administrators’ belief in

servant leadership’s ability to transform educational leadership has fueled the growth for

a servant leadership style (Bass, 2000; Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). A key impediment to

the continued growth of servant leadership is the lack of a fully established relationship

between servant leadership principles and school climate in the research literature.

Using a mixed-method research design, a measure of servant leadership was

correlated with a measure of school climate to identify the relationship between the

practice of servant leadership and perception of school climate. First, the research study

consisted of gathering quantitative survey data from a sample of elementary school

principals and teachers. Second, post-survey qualitative data were gathered from 10% of

5

the sample, as determined by implementing a nonprobability sampling technique or until

no new theme emerged. Educational leaders may directly benefit from the current study,

as it provides guidance and information regarding specific areas of servant leadership

training principles, which create a positive school climate.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the current mixed-method study was to correlate a measure of

servant leadership with a measure of school climate to identify whether there was a

relationship between principals’ and teachers’ perceived practice of servant leadership

and principals’ and teachers’ perception of school climate within a Catholic school board

in Ontario, Canada. The study employed a mixed-method approach by first administering

two validated quantitative instruments: Laub's (1998) OLA (see Appendix A) and Hoy et

al.’s (1991) OCDQ-RE (see Appendix B). These instruments were administered to a

randomly selected sample of 375 full-time principals and teachers working in one of the

29 Catholic school boards in Ontario.

Upon completion of the quantitative data analysis, post-survey, qualitative, focus

group interviews were conducted with 10% of the sample. The subset of the sample was

determined by using a nonprobability sampling technique, or until no new themes

emerged. The purpose of the qualitative component was to help ensure accurate

interpretation of the data through triangulation. The independent variable was the

principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of servant leadership principles implemented by the

principals in elementary schools in a Catholic school board in Ontario. The dependent

variable was the climate of the same schools.

6

Significance of the Problem

The best leadership practices can promote exemplary standards of excellence,

both in the academic achievement of students and the professional growth of staff

members. In pursuit of these goals, many leadership theories, models, and styles have

been subjected to extensive quantitative and qualitative analyses. Researchers recognized

the need for servant leadership to be exposed to considerable critical analysis, in order to

provide sufficient empirical data to translate the theory into an acceptable level of

academic credibility (Anderson, 2005; Herbst, 2003; Milligan, 2003; Sendjaya & Sarros,

2002; Taylor, 2002).

The empirical data collected from the present research study have the potential to

contribute to the practical application of a theoretical dialogue regarding servant

leadership in several key areas. First, correlational analysis from the current study

provides insight into practical implications for how principals might implement servant

leadership principles to affect a positive school climate. Second, the study provides

insight into areas of emphasis for individuals responsible for developing effective

leadership programs using servant leadership principles. Third, the current research can

contribute to the construction of the concept of servant leadership. Fourth, correlational

analyses using the OLA assessment instrument may provide greater confidence in the

validity of the instrument and may either strengthen or refute claims the OLA accurately

assesses servant leadership principles (Anderson, 2005; Laub, 1998; Miears, 2004;

Thompson, 2002).

7

Significance of the Problem to the Field of Leadership

Current and future school leaders face significant challenges, including high-

stakes evaluation programs, reduced fiscal and staffing resources, as well as increased

public expectations for student achievement. Kerfoot (2005) noted the complex and ever-

evolving organizations of today need leaders intimately allied with those they lead.

Servant leaders have the potential to bring about the much needed alliance.

Bass (2000) found servant leadership has a place in educational organizations in

the new millennium because its style is based on teamwork and community, “involving

others in decision-making, is strongly based in ethical and caring behavior, and enhances

the growth of people in the learning organization” (p. 33). As author and speaker John

Maxwell pointed out in reference to traditional styles of leadership, “If you think you are

leading and no one is following you, then you are just having a nice walk” (Frisina, 2005,

p. 1). The current research study may contribute to the theoretical foundation of servant

leadership.

Nature of the Study

To enhance both reliability and validity, the current study employed a mixed-

method approach of conducting research. The strength of a mixed-method design is

through implementing the best features of both types of data collection. “That is,

quantitative data provides for generalizability, whereas qualitative data offers information

about the context or setting” (Creswell, 2005, p. 515).


servant leadership with a measure of school climate to quantify the relationship between


8

teachers’ perception of school climate within a Catholic school board in Ontario, Canada.

The quantitative portion of the current study measured the perceived practice of servant

leadership, and was correlated with a measure of school climate.

The sample of 375 full-time teachers and principals was too large when

implementing traditional qualitative designs. The qualitative focus group interviews

allowed the researcher to probe deeper into items of interest based on the survey. The

purpose of using a mixed-method design was to provide triangulation of the data, offering

a broader perspective than using a single methodology and enhanced confidence in the

findings. When conclusions support data collected from multiple sources, validity is

enhanced (Creswell, 2005).

Research Questions

The research questions of the current research project explored a potential

correlation between elementary principals’ and teachers’ perceived practice of servant

leadership and school climate. The current study addressed the following research

questions:

1. What is the correlation, if any, between perceptions of servant leadership practices and

perceptions of school climate by elementary principals and full-time teachers of a

Catholic school board in Ontario?

2. What types of experiences, if any, do elementary principals and full-time teachers have

that indicate the perception of servant leadership practices and perception of school

climate?

9

Hypothesis

Research to date has not established clear correlations between elementary

principals’ servant leadership practices and school climate. A number of researchers

(Laub, 1999; Russell & Stone, 2002; Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002; Thompson, 2002) are

advocates for the effectiveness of the servant leadership model. Research is limited in

direct assessment of the relationship between servant leadership practices and school

climate in Catholic elementary schools. Despite the gap in the research, one hypothesis

was forwarded.

H1o: There is no correlation between perceptions of servant leadership practices

and perceptions of school climate by elementary principals and full-time teachers

of a Catholic school system in Ontario.

H1A: There is a correlation between perceptions of servant leadership practices

and perceptions of school climate by elementary principals and full-time teachers

of a Catholic school system in Ontario.

Theoretical Framework

The current study contributes to the field’s empirical data in terms of theories of

leadership and current research. Two key issues formed the theoretical framework for the

current study: the model of servant leadership and the elements contributing to school

climate. Each of these issues is discussed below.

Servant Leadership

The servant leadership model formed the main portion of the theoretical

framework for the current study. The leadership section constitutes a brief consideration

of the principles and history of servant leadership, including citations from the seminal

10

works of Greenleaf (1970, 1977). According to servant leadership principles, leaders take

care of their followers (Ehrhart, 2004).

Followers of a servant leader are only effective when their needs are met; an

effective servant leader understands and is sensitive to the followers’ needs (Rowe,

2003). By removing obstacles, a servant leader enables followers to concentrate on their

tasks (Polleys, 2002). The surest way for a servant leader to succeed is to put others first

(Rowe, 2003).

Greenleaf (1970) introduced the philosophy of servant leadership by emphasizing

the importance of a leader’s motivation to serve or to lead as an identification of servant

leadership. His 1977 seminal book entitled, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the

Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness, introduced the term servant leadership and he

has been given the title, grandfather of servant leadership (Polleys, 2002). Greenleaf

(1977) described servant leadership as follows,

The servant-leader is servant first . . . It begins with the natural feeling that one

wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead.

He or she is sharply different from the person who is leader first, perhaps because

of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions.

For such it will be a later choice to serve – after leadership is established. (p. 52)

There is a significant difference between those choosing leadership before service

(Greenleaf, 1977; Russell & Stone, 2002; Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). According to

Greenleaf (1977), one way to identify servant leaders is to test whether their followers

grow as people by becoming more autonomous. He hypothesized these leaders become

11

more of a servant. Servant leadership has the potential to improve the academic

achievement of students by positively influencing the school’s school climate.

Elements of School Climate

Extensive research has identified components of school climate (Halpin, 1966;

Hoy et al., 1991; Hoy & Miskel, 2001; Hoy, Smith, & Sweetland, 2002; Hoy & Tarter,

1997; John & Taylor, 1999; McIntyre, 2004; Rogers-Gerrish, 2005). School leaders are

demarked as the most critical component of an effective learning environment (Coral &

Castle, 2005; Kelley et al., 2005; Mulford et al., 2004; Waters et al., 2004). Effective

leadership behaviors of school principals are critical to the climate of the school, as their

choices influence student achievement (Halverson, 2004; Johnson & Uline, 2005;

Norton, 2003; Quinn, 2002).

Cohen (2006) underscored the significance of a positive school environment in

“meeting the academic, emotional, and social needs of students” (p. 201). Research

supported the relationship between a positive school climate and the promotion of student

academic achievement (Cohen, 2006). As a result of these findings, the U.S. Department

of Justice and state agencies actively encouraged educators to foster emotionally,

socially, and physically safer school communities (Cohen, 2006).

Definition of Terms

Definitions ensure shared meaning. The following terms were used operationally

throughout the current study.

Principal: According to The Education Act of 1990, a principal is an appointed

teacher by the school district to perform the duties of instructional leader and regulations

as outlined in the Act (Markle, 2006).

12

School board: A school board is a school district or authority (Markle, 2006).

School climate: The quality, frequency, and consistency of interpersonal

relationships are the salient constructs when conceptualizing the definition of school

climate (Furlong et al., 2005).

Servant leadership: Servant leadership is a course where a leader serves

followers, not vice-versa (Greenleaf, 1977). Servant leadership stresses increased service

to others and encourages the personal, professional, and spiritual growth of followers

(Greenleaf, 1977).

Assumptions

Assumptions are elements of a research study the researcher does not attempt to

control. First, it was assumed principals participating in the current study responded to

the instruments in an honest and truthful manner. The second assumption was teachers

felt free to complete the OLA and OCDQ-RE instruments in an honest and truthful

manner. The basis for the second assumption was that, due to the confidentiality of the

study, teachers did not feel influenced against rating their principals’ leadership low

because of loyalty or potential repercussions.

Scope of the Study

Using a mixed-method research design, a measure of servant leadership was

correlated with a measure of school climate to identify the relationship between



A mixed-method approach was employed by first administering two validated

quantitative instruments: Laub’s (1998) Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA,

13

see Appendix A) and Hoy et al.’s (1991) Organizational Climate Description

Questionnaire-Revised (OCDQ-RE, see Appendix B). These surveys were administered

to a randomly selected sample of 375 full-time principals and teachers working in one of

the 29 Catholic school boards in Ontario.

Other factors contributing to school climate were not investigated. The findings

may or may not be applicable to other Catholic elementary schools in Ontario. There was

precedence for studying servant leadership and school climate in the context of the

elementary school (Anderson, 2005; Lambert, 2004; Miears, 2004). Other researchers

had explored servant leadership attributes and high school principals (Anderson, 2005;

Herbst, 2003; Jennings, 2002; Lambert, 2004; Miears, 2004; Taylor, 2002).

Limitations

There were uncontrollable limitations within the parameters of the current study,

potentially weakening the validity of the results. First, although the study implemented a

sample, it is possible only those with strong opinions, either positive or negative, filled

out the survey. Second, geographically, the current study was limited to a randomly

selected sample of 375 full-time teachers and principals working in one of the 29

Catholic school boards in Ontario, impacting generalizability. Finally, the validity of the

current study relied heavily on the reliability and validity of the OLA and OCDQ-RE

instruments. These tests have performed well in past studies (Anderson, 2005; Cantwell,

2003; Laub, 1999; McIntyre, 2004; Miears, 2004; Rogers-Gerrish, 2005; Thompson,

2005).

14

Delimitations

Delimitations in a research study are factors specifically not included or intended

in the study to narrow the scope of the study (Creswell, 2005). The purpose of

delimitation is to reduce variables and corresponding geographic or population scope.

The current study contained several delimitations. First, the current study focused on a

single school board; limiting generalizability of the results to other similar school boards,

as there was no corroborating findings from dissimilar school boards. Second, the current

study only included permanent contract teachers assigned to a specific school. Limiting

participants to employees assigned to a specific school eliminated potential variability

resulting from the differing nature of the duties or attitudes itinerant or volunteer teachers

possess.

Summary

The current mixed-method study identified servant leadership practices of school

principals and their relationship to school climate by surveying elementary school

principals and teachers of a Catholic elementary school board in Ontario. Educational

leaders can benefit from the current study, as it guides and informs specific areas of

training in servant leadership principles, assisting in creating positive school climates.

The role of the elementary school principal has evolved in the past decade. A generation

of research provided evidence principals possess the single most significant influence on

the school climate and, after the classroom teacher, has the most influence on students.

The Ontario Ministry of Education recognized the role of the principal is of

facilitator and catalyst for promoting learning and teaching through the development of

other leaders in schools. The principal’s new leadership role is in line with the philosophy

15

of servant leadership, by empowering followers. Introduced by Greenleaf (1970), servant

leadership is a leadership model placing serving others before oneself. Servant leaders

assume a non-focal position within a group, providing resources, support, and

encouragement to their followers to reach their personal and professional potentials. The

current research may provide insight into the practical implications of how principals can

implement servant leadership practices to affect their schools’ climate and contributes to

the construction of the concept of servant leadership.

16

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Chapter 1 provided an overview of the background of the problem and indicated

the lack of research concerning the relationship between servant leadership and school

climate. The current mixed-method study correlates a measure of servant leadership with

a measure of school climate. The correlation identifies the relationship between



The purpose of chapter 2 is to present an in-depth analysis of the theoretical

literature serving as the basis of the current study. The review includes (a) a description

of the Ontario Catholic school system; (b) an exploration of school climate, a primary

variable of the study; and (c) a detailed examination of the model of servant leadership,

including an overview of leadership theories and a section detailing criticisms of servant

leadership. The literature review begins with an explanation of the sources included in the

literature review.

Documentation

Multiple sources were sought when compiling the review of the literature. The

variables of servant leadership principles and school climate provided the primary queries

for the title searches. Various foundational theories and contributing theories surfaced

during the literature review were included in the extensive title search. The search is

summarized in Appendix C, as are the databases used to locate the articles.

The literature review used only articles relevant to the research topic. No books or

popular press periodicals are included in Appendix C; nevertheless, numerous scholarly

books cited throughout the research were located through researching materials originally

17

accessed in these sources. Books reviewed included those written by Greenleaf, the

creator of servant leadership, publications by the Greenleaf Center for Servant

Leadership, other past and current scholars and proponents of the theory of servant

leadership, and Hoy, the creator of the Organizational Climate Description

Questionnaire-Revised (OCDQ-RE).

Ontario Catholic Schools

Foundation of Catholic Schools

The Catholic social tradition comes from the Scriptures and canon of Church

teachings and can serve as a guide for Christian social living in modern society. Catholic

social teaching provides direction for Christian life in society. Catholics study the

Church’s social tradition to affect its message with their personal, professional, social,

and political lives (Merkle, 2004). Catholic education is one of the Church’s most

effective venues for study and practice of the Catholic Social Principles. The Catholic

school system arose from the Church’s vision of integrating faith and life in society

(Merkle, 2004; Walch, 2003).

The Second Vatican Council members (1965), in their Declaration on Christian

Education, affirmed the importance of the Catholic school in developing relations

between faith and human culture (as cited in Merkle, 2004). More recently, in a pastoral

letter on Catholic schools, Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozie of Toronto (2001) noted Catholic

schools are committed both to developing students’ intellectual capacities and to

affirming the dignity of the whole child rooted in the Catholic community (as cited in

Mulligan, 2002). The vision of the Catholic school system is different from its public

school counterparts. Although Catholic schools are part of the publicly funded school

18

system, they are different in their teaching of Church’s social doctrines (Mulligan, 2002).

Catholic schools provide a holistic education seeking to nurture the whole child,

developing and fostering children’s intellectual, physical, emotional, social, moral, and

spiritual growth (Institute for Catholic Education [ICE], 2005). The gospel message and

the beliefs of the Catholic Church permeate the entire curriculum.

Fourre (2003) advocated Catholic school educators need to treat the Catholic

Social Principles as more than an academic activity, and are responsible for teaching

students to analyze social issues in order to motivate them to pursue just actions. In

addition, the hidden curriculum of the school, the curriculum not a conscious part of the

teacher’s agenda, is important to the students’ understanding of Catholic social doctrine.

All school-based decisions in a Catholic school system, including those regarding

relationships, priorities, curriculum, and discipline, communicate the Christian message

that the heart and soul of Catholic education is Jesus Christ (ICE, 2005). The Bible,

Catholic traditions, and various statements of the church have sculpted the vision of the

Catholic school system. The vision of Catholic education in Canada is to provide a

holistic education inspired by Jesus Christ, Christian teachings, and the Catholic

community (Mulligan, 2002).

Canadian Catholic Schools

Old World values and ideals, like the notion of religion and State as one of mutual

support and union, crossed the ocean and was implemented in Canada and its educational

system. King, prince, artist, writer, townsman, peasant, as well as Europeans from the

North Sea to the Mediterranean had one common link in 1500; they were all members of

19

the Roman Catholic Church (Hallowell, 2004). The Church was one institution giving

Europe a sense of unity.

Prior to the Protestant Reformation, Europe was referred to as Christendom and

the notion of separating Church and religion was unthinkable. After the Reformation, the

vision of Church and state changed to reflect the church each state held associated with.

The Latin saying cuis region, euis religo reflected the ruler deciding the religion of the

State and its people (Hallowell, 2004). When European settlers landed in the New World

200 years later, little had changed; England was Anglican and France was Catholic. The

Catholic Church played a critical role in New France’s education (Dale, 2004).

The American colonies revolted against the authority of British rule, establishing

a new vision: the separation of Church and State (Hallowell, 2004). The drafters of the

Constitution of the United States, the basic instrument of government and law in the

United States, envisioned fundamental changes to the law of the new land. For example,

the Bill of Rights, and later the First Amendment (1791) established limits on sovereign

power by declaring “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of relation

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (as cited in Montanye, 2006, ¶ 33). The First

Amendment doctrine ensured and continues to ensure religion has no place in public K-

12 education in the United States.

The Loyalists did not bring with them into Upper and Lower Canada a similar

enthusiasm for the First Amendment doctrine. They did bring demands for the State to

have a greater role in public education. Religion remained a dominate force in the

Canadian school system from the late eighteenth to the mid nineteenth century

(Hallowell, 2004). The concept of religion in education was contested by many, with

20

proposals promoting the development of non-denominational public school system

traceable to a 1787 commission of inquiry headed by Chief Justice William Smith

(vanHerk, 2002).

Confederation approached both Catholics and Protestant groups, deepening their

denominational rifts in an effort to protect their denominational rights. At the same time,

the State’s authority over education grew. A compromise came in the form of the nation-

creating act of Confederation in 1867 (Baskerville, 2002). Constituting a strong minority

presence in English Canada, as well as the overwhelming majority in Quebec, Catholics

secured a variety of arrangements protecting their denominational schools in several

provinces. The British North American Act 1867, Section 93, assigned provinces the

legislative and administrative responsibility for schooling (Hallowell, 2004).

Section 93 guaranteed religious minorities legal rights to a religious educational

system and protected them against intolerant provincial governments. As written, where

denominational schools existed in law at the time of a province’s entry into

Confederation, they would endure. Additionally, the federal government had the power to

restore a denomination’s educational privileges if they were threatened by provincial

initiatives (vanHerk, 2002). With the exception of Section 93, The British North America

Act made no other provisions between Church and State.

Accordingly, Ontario preserved separate (Catholic) schools (Baskerville, 2002).

While all schooling was officially non-sectarian in the three Maritime provinces, the

1870s saw arrangements to preserve religious instruction in Nova Scotia and New

Brunswick on the basis of local community initiatives (Hallowell, 2004). The issue of

religious education proved politically divisive in Prince Edward Island, but the Public

21

School Act of 1877 entrenched the province’s non-sectarian school system (Hallowell,

2004).

Manitoba entered Confederation in 1870 with a dual school system of

denominational (Protestant and Catholic) schools (Hallowell, 2004). British Columbia

joined Canada one year later and committed to a completely non-sectarian process of

public schooling, as there were no privileges or rights established by law at the time of

entry into Confederation (Roy & Thompson, 2005). Quebec and Newfoundland played

only a modest role in administering education.

Provinces divided funding among Catholic and Protestant church authorities, who

were subject to certain guidelines in governing their respective school systems

(Hallowell, 2004). The absence of a non-sectarian school system created tension-inducing

anomalies as the population became more diverse. Upon entry into Confederation,

Alberta and Saskatchewan each preserved their special status, as both provinces had

separate school systems at the time of entry (Jones, 2002).

Immediately upon European settlement, Canadian society and its school systems

were forged, populated, expanded, and transformed, but not conceived or carried out in a

vacuum. In important ways, the change reflected the values of the social structures of

each community (Hallowell, 2004). When circumstances and expectations of the

population altered, educational institutions had correlated impacts. The process of

educational change was gradual and seldom free of conflict. The focus on Catholic

schools in Ontario continues in the following discussion.

22

Ontario Catholic Schools

Over the past 200 years, Ontario’s Catholic school system has been one of

sectarian violence, linguistic conflict, triumph, survival, and political and legal

maneuvering (McGowan, 2001; Power, 2002). The traditional start date of Ontario’s

history is the coming of the United Empire Loyalist in 1784 as refugees from the

American Revolution. Beginning at the time of the United Empire Loyalist entry into the

region does not ignore the aboriginal people or the French farmers who were part of the

area for more than 150 years. What is now Ontario separated in 1791 from the old

province of Quebec to become a province in its own right, with the name of Upper

Canada. At the same time, it had limited powers of self-government, and a governing

structure consisting of a Lieutenant Governor (appointed from Britain), a council roughly

equivalent to a modern cabinet, and a two-house parliament. The area of the newborn

province was much smaller than today’s Ontario. The east and south boundaries were

approximately what they are today, but all of Northern Ontario was still part of the

Hudson’s Bay Company land, and to the west, the province ended at an undefined point

near the city of Thunder Bay.

Because of the rebellion of 1837 in Upper Canada and in its Francophone partner,

Lower Canada, the two provinces merged in 1841 to form the single large Province of

Canada. During the quarter century the union lasted, the Province of Canada gained,

under the system know as Responsible Government, virtual powers of self-government.

At Confederation, the former Upper Canada was renamed Ontario and the former Lower

Canada, Quebec. By 1867, Upper Canada expanded its population from the ten or twelve

thousand during the Loyalist settlement in 1784, to nearly one and a half million. It was

23

not until the later 19th and early 20th centuries Upper Canada expanded its boundaries to

acquire its present northern and western territories. Throughout the post Confederation

period, Ontario’s Catholic schools were a key part of the political, social, and economic

spirit of the province.

Formation of Catholic Schools in Ontario

Upper Canada’s educational system had its earliest roots in a District Grammar

School Act of 1807 and The Common School Act of 1816. Only modestly assisted by

government, the educational system relied heavily on fees from parents, with some

provision for scholarships. It was a system designed for children of the most affluent

segments of the community (McGowan, 2001). Much of the educational system was

under the influence of Strachan, the first Anglican Bishop of Toronto. As such, the early

educational system had particular links to the Anglican Church (McGowan, 2001).

A Catholic school system in Ontario was Bishop Macdonell’s vision. He believed

the future of the Catholic Church in Canada was tied to a Catholic school system (Power,

2002). During Macdonell’s time, many Christian contemporaries, including two

lieutenant governors, shared a similar belief (Power, 2002). Upon arrival to Canada from

Scotland in 1804, Bishop Macdonell began to build churches and schools with the

support of local priests. For most Catholic pioneer children, catechetical and classic

education was in their parish rectories, homes, or log schoolhouses (McGowan, 2001).

After three decades of considerable effort, Macdonell had only five schools in four

settlements.

The situation improved slightly in the 1830s when Bishop Macdonnell was able to

attract support by giving teachers under his supervision a portion of clergy grants (Power,

24

2002). Eventually, The Common School Act of 1841 allowed Catholic schools to evolve

into a state-supported, comprehensive Catholic school system (McGowan, 2001). Section

56 of The Common School Act of 1841 affirmed the legal standing of all schools and

allowed separate schools to receive an appropriate portion of the tax levy (Power, 2002).

In 1844, Ryerson became the public official responsible for administrating the

new system for the next 32 years. Ryerson himself drafted both a new Act of 1846 and

the Act of 1850, giving full expression to Ontario’s particular variation on the original

model (McGowan, 2002). Accountability was to elected local school boards and funded

by general provincial and municipal taxes (with a modest supplementary tax levy on

pupils’ parents) (McGowan, 2002).

Many Upper Canadian citizens alleged state-supported mass education in Upper

Canada amounted to tyranny. When the new system west of the Ottawa River developed

in the 1840s, it was based on secular or non-secular schools open to all religious groups,

with modest provisions for some public funding of Anglican, Catholic, and Negro

separate schools (McGowan, 2002). With immigration from the United Kingdom, Upper

Canada events moved in an opposite direction. By 1863, the Upper Canadian Separate

School Act established a separate state-supported school system, with the backing of the

Irish, Scottish, and French Catholic minority in Upper Canada (McGowan, 2002).

In the mid-1870s, the government reorganized the region’s system of state-

supported mass education in a more general way. Education was a provincial

responsibility under the British North America Act, except for a federal power to protect

the rights of denominational schools in place at the time of Confederation. Before 1876,

25

both public and separate local school boards in Ontario had been loosely accountable to a

provincially appointed Council of Public Instruction.

Under the government’s organization, the local systems were accountable to a

new Department of Education under the direction of a provincial cabinet minister. When

the new department was proposed, it received criticism for a perceived tendency to place

powers of patronage in the hands of the government (Power, 2002). The change in

accountability did not prove decisive (Power, 2002), but enhanced more rigorous

centralization and standardization. By the late 19th century, state-supported mass

education settled into efforts to mold a common social character for the region, a

direction not challenged until the middle of the 20th century.

By the 1890s, the Ontario separate schools, guaranteed under the Confederation

bargain of 1867, was under attack by many Protestant partisans and others believing

state-supported mass education should be rigorously secular. As Premier of Ontario,

Mowat honored the British North America Act as a symbol of commitment to the larger

public life of the Dominion (McGowan, 2002). Post Confederation, the Catholic Separate

schools benefited from Irish and French Catholic immigration to Ontario. The number of

students attending Catholic schools increased with immigration. In 1900, there were

42,000 students in the Ontario Catholic school system (Power, 2002). Through the efforts

of bishops, priests, nuns, teachers, school trustees, and lay people, twenty-five years later

the number of students doubled to 93,000 (Power, 2002).

In the early 1960s, Premier Hepburn forwarded a radical act of legislation

significantly enriching the tax base for Ontario’s separate schools. He envisioned a

Catholic high school system in the province having complete public support (Meehan,

26

2002). Hepburn stood up to popular opposition from Ontario’s Protestant majority, but

eventually acceded to a Conservative motion abandoning the legislation (Meehan, 2002).

Ontario’s Catholic communities, French and English, continued to respect his efforts on

their behalf (Meehan, 2002).

Premier Davis, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, expanded and reformed

Ontario’s education system. At the elementary and secondary level, the need to

accommodate the postwar baby boom along with new immigration and a drive to

equalize educational opportunities in urban and rural areas led to a major wave of new

school construction. The Ontario Readers, with their exhortations on the ideals of British

imperial civilization, had vanished (Dixon, 2003).

The Hall-Dennis Commission in the mid-1960s signaled the first major challenge

to the region’s centralizing bias in education since the 1870s (Dixon, 2003). At the same

time, the government consolidated many local school boards remaining from an era when

transportation and communication to the region was much slower. The process

culminated with a completely new system of county school boards in 1968.

As one of his final acts before resigning as Premier of Ontario, in 1984 Davis

extended full public support for Catholic separate schools to the end of high school

(Dixon, 2003). Throughout the 200-year history of Catholic schools in Ontario, a series

of new school acts provided permanent funding for Kindergarten to Grade 12. The

growth of Ontario Catholic schools is reflected in the number of students and staff today.

Current Student Enrollment

In 2006, there were 72 district school boards in Ontario: “31 English Public, 29

English Catholic, 4 French Public, and 8 French Catholic” (OME, 2006, ¶ 2). There were

27

4,010 elementary and 870 secondary schools; 2,129,742 students were enrolled in Junior

Kindergarten to Grade 12 (OME, 2006). In the Ontario Catholic school system, there

were “approximately 656,000 students in 1,401 schools: 234 secondary and 1,167

elementary schools” in Ontario (Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association

[OECTA], 2006, ¶ 3).

Teachers and Administrators

In the 2003 to 2004 school year, there were 5,282 elementary principals and vice-

principals and 1,888 secondary vice-principals and principals in Ontario (OME, 2006).

According to the Catholic Principals Council of Ontario (CPCO, 2006), a professional

association for school administrators, the organization served over 2,100 Catholic school

administrators from 29 of the 31 Catholic school boards. Table 1 summarizes the number

of teachers in the Ontario publicly-funded school system (OME, 2006).

Table 1

Teachers and Administrators in Ontario Schools – Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) 2004-05

Teachers Elementary Secondary Total

Public Schools

Male

Female

Total

11,007.84

40,677.12

51,684.96

14,140.28

16,024.52

30,164.80

25,148.12

56,700.64

81,848.76

Roman Catholic Schools

Male

Female

Total

4,993.64

20,784.96

25,778.60

6,574.00

7,138.96

13,712.96

11,566.64

27,923.92

39,490.56

28

Training of Educators in Catholic Schools

According to the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT, 2006), the governing body

of Ontario teachers, to teach in Ontario’s publicly-funded schools, teachers must

successfully complete a three year post-secondary degree, a bachelor of education degree,

and apply for certification and membership to the College. Teachers in the Catholic

school system are required to complete three Additional Qualifications courses in

Religious Education. The Ontario Elementary Catholic Teachers’ Association subsidizes

these courses.

School administrators are required, at minimum, to complete the Principal

Qualification Program (CPCO, 2006). Admission to the Principals’ Qualification

Program requires the applicant to hold a university degree, certificate of teacher

qualification, taught in three divisions, five successful years teaching, and hold a master’

degree or equivalent number of university courses (CPCO, 2006). In a culture of faith-

centered education, Catholic schools can influence the school’s climate and student

achievement.

School Climate

Recent increased media and legislative attention to school violence issues from

public and educators brought attention to safety concerns within the school environment.

With the focus on student safety, school climate has been elevated to national attention

and is now among top variables school staff and policy makers constantly evaluate

(National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). School climate influences not only day-

to-day experiences of the teachers and other on-site professionals, it impacts the quality

and effectiveness of the educational experience for students.

29

School leaders investing time and effort in assessing and improving their schools’

climate can increase their school’s overall efficacy. Research supports the relationship

between a positive school climate and improved student achievement (Halawah, 2005),

teacher retention and satisfaction (Santos de Barona & Barona, 2006), reduced school

violence (Khoury-Kassabri, Benbenishty, & Astor, 2005), and sustained school reform

(Kelley et al., 2005). The following section discusses organizational climate as an

emerging concept, theoretical constructs of school climate, the appearance of school

climate, and relevant school climate research.

Organizational Climate as an Emerging Concept

In the late 1950s, the concept of organizational climate emerged, as social

scientists studied work environments (Hoy & Tarter, 1997). Tagiuri (1968) reported a

configuration of characteristics to each social system making up the climate of an

organization, similar to the personal characteristics making up an individual’s

personality. Gilmer (1966) suggested climate not only distinguished organizations from

one another, but also influenced the behavior of the organization’s members.

Litwin and Stringer (1968) added perception was an important component to

climate affecting the actions of those in the organization. Research on organizational

climate showed a relationship between the leader’s behavior and the climate of an

organization (Frutiger, 2002; Mulqueen, 2005; Schultz, 2004). Although there is

agreement school climate influences student achievement, consensus on the definition of

school climate has remained elusive (Coral & Castle, 2005; Kelley et al., 2005; Mulford

et al., 2004; Waters et al., 2004).

30

Theoretical Constructs of School Climate

Tagiuri’s (1968) typology provides a lens for interpreting previous and current

research on school climate from the perspective of organizational behavior. According to

Tagiuri, climate has four dimensions pertaining to the environmental quality within an

organization and is experienced by all occupants of the organization: (a) ecology, (b)

milieu, (c) social system, and (d) culture. Ecology refers to the physical and material

aspect of the environment, for example the school building and its grounds. Milieu refers

to the characteristics of individuals in the school, including the background of students

and school staff, as well as less tangible traits, such as teacher morale. The social system

dimension encompasses the formal and informal structures and rules controlling

interactions between individuals and groups. These patterns of relationships include

student-teacher relations, principal-teacher relations, and communication patterns

between and among school members, the degree of collegiality among school members,

and the degree to which principal, teacher, and student participate in the decision-making

process regarding school policies. Culture is the dimension concerned with belief

systems, values, cognitive structures, and meaning. In a school setting, cultural

dimensions include the norms of student and teacher conduct.

Halpin and Croft (1963) conceptualized the concept of school climate as a

dimension “along a general continuum from open to closed” (as cited in Hoy et al., 1991,

p. 32). An open climate was one where behavior of the principal and teachers could be

characterized as cooperative and authentic (Hoy et al., 2002). The principal and teachers

respected one another and worked well together. Both groups were involved in leadership

roles emerging naturally (Hoy et al., 2002). In a closed climate, there is little commitment

31

and communication among school members (Halpin & Croft, 1963). The principal’s

leadership style is viewed as rigid, controlling, unsympathetic, and unresponsive (Hoy et

al., 1991).

Moos (1979) defined school climate as the social atmosphere or relationships

among members of a learning community. Because of these relationships, students and

staff have different experiences depending upon rules established by administrators and

teachers. Moos divided the social environments into three categories: (a) relationship, (b)

personal growth or goal orientation, and (c) system maintenance and system change.

The relationship category included affiliation and involvement with others in the

classroom, as supported by the teacher. An example is a school allowing families to

develop relationships with faculty and staff, as well as with other school families. The

personal growth or goal orientation category includes personal and professional growth

of all members of the learning community. An example is a school contributing to the

personal growth of families in their knowledge of child development and parenting skills.

The system maintenance and systems change category includes schools providing

orderliness of the learning environment and clarity of rules, as well as enforcement of

rules by teachers. An example is a school encouraging families to have a voice, becoming

part of the decision-making process.

Since the publication of the works of Tagiuri (1968), Halpin and Croft (1963),

and Moos (1979), researchers of school climate focused their efforts on examining social

systems and culture, rather than dimensions of ecology and milieu. For example,

Anderson (1982) used the typology of primary school environments to review over 200

references on school climate, with most studies focusing on the social system and cultural

32

dimensions of climate. Anderson noted investigators taking three major approaches to

climate research: (a) organizational climate research, focusing on internal characteristics,

such as teacher behaviors distinguishing one school from another; (b) effective schools

research, focusing on attributes distinguishing effective and ineffective schools; and (c)

school culture research, focusing on the values, norms, attitudes, and beliefs of a school’s

students, teachers, and principals toward the school.

Researchers continue to explore school climate in search of a specific definition

of the construct. According to Crowe, Hausman, and Scribner (2002), school climate

characteristics include a shared commitment to student achievement, collaboration

between and among the professional staff, constructive dialogue among teachers and

between teachers and the principal, and a school organization bringing teachers together

in their daily work. Pepper and Thomas (2002) loosely defined the construct of school

climate as office referrals, academic achievement, teacher morale, and peer interactions.

Schulte, Shanahan, Anderson, and Sides (2003) described school climate as a

sense of community involving the interactions and relationships of students and teachers.

Holt and Keyes (2004) explored school climate factors including attitudes toward

bullying, degree of overt hostility, attitudes toward diversity, and rule-setting policies.

Furlong et al. (2005) referred to school climate as perceptions of the school environment,

specifically assessing feelings of safety, respect, support, and interpersonal relationships

at school. A common factor among the school climate definitions is social interactions. In

particular, the quality, frequency, and consistency of interpersonal relationships were

salient constructs in the conceptualization of the definition of school climate (Furlong et

al., 2005).

33

The Appearance of School Climate

In the 1970s, researchers used the term school climate in relation to the

environment of a school (Hoy et al., 1991). Observers in education noted the environment

of a business was similar to education’s environment. For example, actions required by

those in management positions toward the welfare of subordinates were the same whether

the organization was involved in service, manufacturing, or education. Leaders in

education understood “leadership drives performance in organizations of every kind – not

just business” (Goleman, 2002, p. 84).

Under many early definitions, school climate is the atmosphere of the school as

teachers and administrators experienced it. The atmosphere explanation described a

teacher’s or administrator’s “perception of routine behavior that affected the attitudes and

behavior in the school” (Hoy & Miskel, 2001, p. 159). Halpin and Croft (1963), pioneers

in the study of school climate construct, studied the influence of leaders’ behaviors on

organizational climates, specifically elementary schools, and concluded each school had a

different feel or personality (Halpin, 1966). In their 1963 study of school climate, Halpin

and Croft identified six prototypic climate profiles from 71 elementary schools based on

key components of teacher-to-teacher and teacher-to-school administrator interactions

(Halpin, 1966). Halpin and Croft used these components to develop the Organizational

Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ), which provided a measure of school climate

in elementary schools (as cited in Hoy & Tarter, 1997).

Halpin and Croft (1963) identified eight dimensions of school climate: (a)

aloofness, (b) consideration, (c) disengagement, (d) emphasis, (e) esprit, (f) hindrance,

(g) intimacy, and (h) production. The eight dimensions defined six climate types arranged

34

from open to closed: (a) open, (b) autonomous, (c) controlled, (d) familiar, (e) paternal,

and (f) closed (Hoy et al., 1991). The OCDQ provided the basic framework for studying

school climate for 25 years (Hoy et al., 1991). The instrument received criticism for

neglecting secondary students and focusing only on elementary schools (Rafferty, 2003).

Researchers studied Halpin and Croft’s (1963) work and extended the concept of

school climate into high schools to address limitations in the original instrument (Hoy et

al., 1991). The Organizational Health Inventory (OHI)-Secondary emerged, seeking to

capture the health of interpersonal relationships in schools (Hoy & Tarter, 1997). The

OHI had a basis in the theoretical work of Parsons (1951) in the area of organizational

social systems. Parsons (as cited in Hoy et al., 1991) stated all organizations, including

schools, had four functional imperatives or problems to be solved if they were to grow

and survive: (a) acquiring sufficient resources and working cooperatively within the

external environment, (b) setting and implementing goals, (c) maintaining a sense of

unity, and (d) creating and maintaining a distinctive value system. According to Parsons,

each organization had three levels of authority over three basic functions: (a) technical,

(b) managerial, and (c) institutional.

The instrument in Hoy and Tarter’s (1997) study focused on the health of the

organization. Following Parsons’ (1967) organizational levels of authority, school health

possessed three levels of conceptualization: (a) institutional, (b) administrative, and (c)

teacher (as cited in Hoy & Tarter, 1997). The three levels representing the basic needs of

the school were (a) helping others adapt to the environmental demands, (b) achieving

goals and satisfying the needs of all parties, and (c) creating cohesiveness in the

community.

35

Hoy and Tarter (1997) found a healthy school was free from outside pressures

from parents and the community. The county board protected the school from distinctive

forces (high institutional integrity). The healthy school’s principal was a dynamic leader

integrating various styles of leadership, focusing on both tasks and relations with others

(high consideration and initiating structure). The healthy school’s principal also

influenced decision makers within the system so his or her school was able to get what it

needed to operate effectively (high influence).

The “teachers in a healthy school were committed to the students and the process

of learning” (Hoy & Tarter, 1997, p. 52). These teachers set high standards and were

encouraged by a serious and orderly environment (high academic emphasis). The

principal provided teachers with the classroom supplies and instructional materials

needed for their classes (high resource support). Finally, teachers in a healthy school

worked well together and trusted each other. They were enthusiastic about teaching and

excited about their school (high morale) (Hoy & Tarter, 1997).

In a healthy school environment, administration, teachers, and students had a

positive relationship with one another (Hoy et al. 2002). The principal was perceived as

positive, supportive, and friendly to staff and students and had high expectations for

teachers while helping in any way possible (Hoy et al., 2002). In healthy school

environments, teachers worked well with colleagues, and enjoyed their students and jobs.

The teachers pushed students to academic excellence and believed students could be

successful (Hoy et al., 2002). The next section presents a generation of research findings

on school climate.

36

Relevant School Climate Research

Interest in the construct of school climate increased when researchers began to

show a relationship between positive school climate and academic achievement.

Brookover et al. (1978) examined the relationship between school climate and school

achievement in Michigan elementary schools. Comparisons examined elementary schools

with atypical achievement and schools with typical achievement using mean socio-

economic status and racial composition. The researchers found some aspects of the

school environment made a significant difference in the academic achievement of

schools. Upon removal of the socio-psychological climate variables, the socio-economic

status and racial composition of the schools accounted for a small portion of the variance

(Brookover et al., 1978).

Sweetland and Hoy (2000) studied the “relationship between school climate and

teacher empowerment as well as the relationship between teacher empowerment and

school effectiveness” (p. 28), which included examining achievement scores in reading

and mathematics. The results showed teacher empowerment was important to school

effectiveness. Sweetland and Hoy also developed a “theoretical model explaining the

correlation between organizational characteristics and student achievement” (p. 35).

Research supported the notion school climate and student achievement were

affected by the leadership of the principal (Coral & Castle, 2005; Kelley et al., 2005;

Mulford et al., 2004; Waters et al., 2004). Further research revealed effective principals

listened and talked to students to learn more about them and their educational needs

(Johnson & Uline, 2005). According to Harris and Lowery (2002), a principal should be

accessible to students, reward them, be an advocate for them, and provide them with a

37

safe learning environment. Having a principal an advocate for students helped create a

positive environment for students and resulted in a positive school climate (Harris &

Lowery, 2002).

Hoy et al. (1991) reported that although no one method of leadership is always

appropriate, the principal is largely responsible for the development of the school climate

in an open climate, a climate engaging teachers and students. Mendel, Watson, and

MacGregor (2002) studied the relationship between leadership styles of principals and

positive school climate, based on teachers’ perceptions of their principals and climate.

Similar to Hoy et al., Mendel et al.’s results supported the idea of an open leadership

style. Based on relationships in their study, they concluded a collaborative style on the

part of the principal contributed to a positive school climate.

Empirical evidence reports the principal is at least partially responsible for setting

the tone of the school (Coral & Castle, 2005; Kelley et al., 2005; Mulford et al., 2004;

Waters et al., 2004). The tone or climate according to the above researchers needs to

develop open, genuine, and inclusive relationships. These attributes are similar to the

characteristics of a servant leader.

Servant Leadership

The next section of the literature review begins with an overview of major

leadership theories and their convergence and divergence to servant leadership. The

leadership discussion continues with a summary of existing literature regarding servant

leadership. The writings of Greenleaf (1970, 1977, 1980) explore the origins of servant

leadership.

38

An overview of research found in peer-reviewed journals and scholarly

dissertations follows, including servant leadership and school climate studies. Since the

current study focused on administrators in a faith-based context, a sampling of servant

leadership as it relates to the Bible is included. Finally, research-based criticisms consider

servant leadership.

Overview of Major Leadership Theories

Leadership research has evolved considerably over the past century. A leadership

evolution does not mean there is a clear, agreed upon definition of the concept among

scholars. Like all constructs in social sciences, the definition of leadership is arbitrary and

subjective. Due to the lack of consensus, leaders must choose the most effective

leadership theory for their organization. Educational leaders adopting servant leadership

must consider the philosophical foundations of the theory. There is the necessity to know

how servant leadership is similar and different from other leadership theories produced

over the past century to determine if the servant leadership theory is appropriate for their

organization.

Three phases in the study of leadership theories evolved over the past century

(Polleys, 2002). The first phase, spanning 1900 to World War II, included definitions of

leadership, emphasized leaders, and psychological and trait theories (Polleys, 2002). In

the second phase, from the end of World War II until the late 1960s, a behavioral

approach toward leadership emerged, with a focus on what leaders did (Polleys, 2002).

The third phase began in the 1970s, with a shift from the behavioral approach

toward definitions examining leadership environment, and included the development of

situational and contingency theories. Late in the 1970s, servant leadership emerged,

39

viewing the leader as a servant. The following section provides a brief description of the

trait, theory X and Y, situational, transactional, transformational, and servant leadership

theories, and allows for points of convergence and divergence with the concept of servant

leadership.

Trait theory. At the turn of the century, leadership research focused on the leader

by identifying characteristics or traits. Researchers believed individuals with managerial

success possessed extraordinary qualities (Reed, Bullis, Collins, & Paparone, 2004).

These characteristics, either acquired or inherited, referred to the tendency of an

individual to react to a given situation with predictable behavior (Kidder, 2005). Trait

research focused on the leader’s physical traits, including age, height, weight, physique,

and athletic prowess.

Social characteristics examined included where leaders attended school and their

social status. Personal qualities considered focused on the individual’s personality traits

including popularity, confidence, assertiveness, and persistence (Reed et al., 2004). After

massive research, no traits patterns emerged to distinguish between leaders and non-

leaders (Reed et al., 2004). From World War II to the late 1960s, leadership research

focused on behavioral theories such as McGregor’s Theory X and Y (1960) (as cited in

Polleys, 2002). Behavior theories focused on what leaders do.

Theory X and Y. The key concepts behind Theory X and Y explored the

manager’s assumptions about human behavior and human nature. These personal beliefs

influenced the manager’s style of operating and leading the workforce (Jewell, 2006).

McGregor (as cited in Bobic & Davis, 2003) argued that based on their assumptions of

40

human behavior, managers could control, organize, lead, and motivate people in different

ways (as cited in Bobic & Davis, 2003).

Theory X and Theory Y represent two contrasting views of human relations.

Managers accepting the Theory X perspective of the workforce held a pessimistic or

negative view of the average human being; humans naturally disliked and avoided work,

and must be coerced and threatened with consequences to complete a satisfactory effort

toward the organization’s goals (Bobic & Davis, 2003). According to Theory X, average

human beings avoided responsibility, had little ambition, and above all wanted security

(Jewell, 2006). Managers holding the view of Theory X were likely to develop a

leadership style of coercion, external control, and threat of punishment in keeping with

their negative view of human beings (Bobic & Davis, 2003).

By contrast, the assumptions of human nature, according to Theory Y, held a

more optimistic view of the workforce. Theory X held linkages to scientific management

research and Theory Y represented a fit into human relations approaches associated with

Maslow (Jewell, 2006). Theory Y had a more people-centered approach to management,

assuming workers did not inherently dislike work and they put forth effort in work as

naturally as in rest or play (Jewell, 2006). According to Theory Y, the average human

being accepted responsibility, exercised self-control, and self-direction in service of the

organization’s objectives (Jewell, 2006).

Managers accepting Theory Y’s image of human nature does not control,

structure, or closely supervise the workforce. Instead, these leaders promote the human

potential of subordinates by giving them latitude in their work, encourage creativity, and

motivate the workforce through satisfaction (Bobic & Davis, 2003). While behavior

41

theories like Theory X Theory Y embraced more variables than trait theories, they did not

consider the cultural context or situational factors. Researchers recognized the inclusion

of both the person and situation to explain the presence of leadership (Zvirdauskas &

Palmira, 2004).

Situational theory. Development of the situational theory of leadership emerged

in the late 1960s with a focus on where leadership takes place. According to situational

theory, the leader is the product of the situation. Situational theorists believed there is no

single best leadership style, seeing leadership dependent on the situation.

Trait theory did not allow for the qualities of the leader to be transferable to

different situations. Successful leadership, according to situational theory, is the leader’s

ability to adapt to the situation or changing environment (Houghton & Yoho, 2005). Trait

theory ignored the situational and environmental factors playing a role in a leader’s level

of effectiveness.

Situational Leadership, developed by Hersey and Blanchard (1995), attempted to

define the appropriate relationship between the leader’s behavior and the readiness level

shown by the follower (as cited in Silverstone & Wang, 2001). Readiness level refers to

the followers’ ability and willingness to perform a specific task. Leaders must decide the

amount of structure or direction they provide a subordinate by evaluating the

subordinate’s level of maturity or knowledge of the task (Silverstone & Wang, 2001).

Consequently, the leader must remain sensitive to the follower’s changing readiness

level, evolving as new goals and tasks emerge; the situation itself determines the leaders’

approach (Houghton & Yoho, 2005). Hersey and Blanchard’s studies focused on the

42

direct relationship between manager and immediate subordinate, without addressing the

environment’s structures or politics.

Transactional leadership. In the 1960s, the study of leadership progressed from

research on traits, behaviors, and situations affecting leadership toward a more dynamic,

conceptual framework of leadership. Originally developed by Burns (1978), and further

clarified by Bass (1985), transactional and transformational leadership models have been

an important part of leadership research for over 30 years (as cited in Smith et al., 2004).

The paradigm shift in leadership is contingent on a condition of traits and situations

involving a transaction or exchange between the leader and the follower.

Transactional leadership structure, termed the traditional form of leadership,

follows the traditional interchange of bargaining between leader and follower (Brymer &

Gray, 2006). Transactional leadership conceives of the leader and follower as exchanging

gratifications. Two factors contribute to transactional leadership (Brymer & Gray, 2006).

First, both leader and follower view the exchange as a positive and active reward.

Second, the subordinate is recognized or rewarded for fulfilling the previously agreed

upon objectives or goals. Transactional leadership can lead to short-lived relationships

because the gratification itself is usually superficial and trivial. These leaders can be

effective to the extent they clarify expectations and goals, but generally neglect a focus

on developing the long-term potential of followers.

Transformational leadership. Transformational leadership moves beyond the

simple exchange processes to set challenging expectation, enabling the achievement of

higher levels of performance. The central focus of transformational leadership is the

commitment and capacity of organizational members. Transformational leadership occurs

43

when the leader’s behavior influences followers to share a vision and empowers them to

achieve the vision (Smith et al., 2004). Transformational leaders also provide the

resources necessary for developing the follower’s personal potential. These leaders are

role models of support and optimism, able to mobilize commitment among the

subordinates, and focus on the followers’ needs for growth (Smith et al., 2004).

Bass established four correlated dimensions constituting transformational

leadership: (a) charismatic leadership, (b) inspirational leadership, (c) intellectual

stimulation, and (d) individualized considerations (as cited in Stone, Russell, & Patterson,

2004). Charismatic or idealized influence is an element where leaders act as role models,

create a sense of identification with a shared vision, and instill pride and faith in

followers (Avolio & Bass, 2002). The charismatic factor defines behaviors where the

leader cultivates faith, trust, and respect in followers (Avolio & Bass, 2002). Examples

include doing what is right, rather than taking the most convenient or cost-effective path

and making decisions more transparent by explaining the rationale behind the decision.

Inspirational considerations include, inspiring and empowering followers to

enthusiastically accept and pursue challenging goals. Inspirational leadership refers to

behaviors where leaders present a vision or ideal followers can strive for, set high

standards, and convince individuals they can achieve beyond their expectations (Avolio

& Bass, 2002). By raising followers’ self-confidence and by being enthusiastic and

optimistic about their followers’ work, transformational leaders exhort followers to

transcend themselves (Avolio & Bass, 2002).

Intellectual leaders consider old problems in new ways, are able to articulate new

ideas, and encourage followers to rethink conventional practice and ideas. The

44

intellectual factor includes actions where leaders promote the development of future

leaders by challenging followers to think for themselves in innovative and creative ways

(Stone et al., 2004). For example, encouraging followers to think further about a problem

or requesting the followers to collaborate with the leader.

Individual considerations are behaviors such as communication of personal

respect toward followers. Providing followers with individualized and specialized

attention recognizes each follower’s unique needs. The leader, displaying strength in the

transformational dimension, treats each follower individually by coaching and mentoring

them, and recognizes the follower’s achievements (Smith et al., 2004). Because

transformational leadership is not coercive in any way, it respects the dignity of followers

and establishes trust between follower and leader (Avolio & Bass, 2002).

Servant leadership theory. Servant leadership, a philosophy introduced in 1970 by

Greenleaf entitled, Servant as Leader, emphasized the importance of a leader’s

motivation to serve or to lead as an identification of servant leadership. Servant leaders

put serving others before themselves, assuming a non-focal position within teams,

providing resources and support without an expectation of acknowledgement. Spears

(1998) concluded Greenleaf’s writing incorporated ten major attributes of servant

leadership: (a) listening, (b) empathy, (c) healing, (d) awareness, (e) persuasion, (f)

conceptualization, (g) foresight, (h) stewardship, (i) commitment to growth of people,

and (j) building community.

Convergence and Divergence of Theories. Servant leadership theory, Theory X,

Theory Y, situational theory, transformational theory, servant leader theory, and all other

leadership theories have one concept in common; leadership is not a factor of one,

45

viewing leadership as the interaction between leader and follower. To illustrate the points

of convergence for the theories, transformational leadership’s considerations provide a

point of reference: (a) charismatic leadership, (b) inspirational leadership, (c) intellectual

stimulation, and (d) individualized considerations.

The first consideration is charismatic leadership, the point of convergence for all

leadership models. The leader’s personal and social attributes are the foundation for trait

theory (Bass, 1990). The situational leader requires charisma and sensitivity to the

follower’s task maturity in order to determine the appropriate relationship between leader

and follower. The character of leaders is fundamental to both trait and servant leadership

theories (Polleys, 2002). Charismatic leadership is the theoretical underpinning for trait,

transformational, and servant leadership theories (Graham, 1991, as cited in Smith et al.,

2004).

Trait, transformational, and servant leadership are inspirational and moral. A

number of research studies reported trait theory leaders were associated with integrity,

fortitude, and strength of conviction (Avolio & Bass, 2002). Within the intellectual

consideration, a point of divergence occurs among researchers.

Smith et al. (2004) argued servant leadership behaviors do not fulfill the

intellectual stimulation dimension. Stone et al. forwarded servant leaders meet the

intellectual considerations of their followers by encouraging them to use their creativity

in decision making to solve problems. There is a mix of convergence and divergence in

individual considerations.

Trait, theory X, theory Y, situational, transformational, and servant leadership are

similar as they require the leader to develop a relationship with the follower.

46

Transformational leadership and servant leadership are complimentary theories of

leadership. The point of variation between the two theories is their focus and depth of

individual considerations. Transformational leaders are more concerned with the needs of

the organization, while servant leaders focus on the emotional well being of the follower

(Kim, Dansereau, & Kim, 2002; Smith et al., 2004; Stone et al., 2004).

These theories have had, and continue to have, their place in contemporary

leadership. Trait theory, in and of itself, does not fit in contemporary leadership

environments. Trait theory, in combination with situational theory, fits in a structured

environment. Researchers agreed on transformational leadership’s suitability for a

dynamic high-powered organization (Kim et al., 2002; Smith et al., 2004; Stone et al.,

2004). The researchers diverged on the appropriateness of servant leadership for a

dynamic, change-oriented organization.

In the past century, a number of trends, concepts, and philosophies on leadership

were conceptualized. These theories evolved from who the leader is, to what the leader

does, to where leadership takes place, to a combination of all three. Although no one-

size-fits-all leadership theory is agreed upon, at the dawn of the 21st century, servant

leadership has proven to be an enduring theory of leadership among scholars (Thorne,

2006).

Servant Leadership According to Greenleaf

Greenleaf (1904-1990) introduced the term servant leader to the corporate world.

Greenleaf’s (1977) concept for servant leadership began to develop during his

involvement with universities in the 1960s and 1970s. Lecturing at Massachusetts

Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management and at the Harvard Business

47

School, as well as other prestigious universities, Greenleaf developed his program of

leadership in the context of his research on organizational management.

In the 1950s, Greenleaf read Hesse’s (1956) short novel, Journey to the East. The

fictional work of Hesse left an indelible impression on Greenleaf; from the novel, he

eventually derived the metaphor of servant leader. Hesse’s story follows a group of

people embarking on a journey at the behest of a powerful but mysterious Order. They

are accompanied by Leo, who bolsters the spirits of his fellow travelers with stories,

songs, and jokes, while also performing the duties a menial servant.

When Leo suddenly disappears, the group falls into confusion and disarray and its

members eventually abandon their mission. The narrator recounts how his search for Leo

eventually brought him to the headquarters of the sponsoring Order. There he discovers

the humble servant, Leo, is “in fact the head of the order, a great and noble leader”

(Greenleaf, 1977, p. 7).

In 1969, Greenleaf realized the relevance of the underlying message in Journey to

the East when he applied it to his own experience in fostering the growth of

organizational leaders. According to Greenleaf (1970), the servant leader has a natural

desire to serve, with a strong inclination to serve others before taking care of personal

desires. The need to serve is the central attribute of the servant leadership model. Leaders

choose to be a facilitator of improvement to make things better for their followers. The

desire to serve others approach to leadership stands in diametric opposition to individuals

aiming to be leaders for the purpose of distinguishing themselves from others, gaining

power, or acquiring material possessions (Lubin, 2001; Yukl, 2002). These individuals

48

may consciously decide to serve others after establishment of their leadership, yet service

remains a subsidiary objective (Lubin, 2001; Yukl, 2002).

The attribute to serve others, is not serving in the sense of doing things for others.

The leaders’ focus is to make the person served more competent to meet their own needs

and be better equipped to serve the organization and society in general. The focus is to

help followers become more autonomous, not more reliant on the leader (Greenleaf,

1970). Greenleaf explained individuals could assess how well they were living the life of

a servant leader, by proposing if those served grow personally, grow professionally,

became more autonomous, and themselves became servants, the servant leader was

following the philosophy of servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1970). The autonomous

growth of followers test, recommended by Greenleaf, served as the core rationale behind

the development of the OLA (Laub, 1998).

Greenleaf’s (1977) purpose for developing the servant leader model was to

encourage leaders to serve. Greenleaf’s deep desire to improve society guided his work in

leadership theory (Blanchard & Hodges, 2003). Servants emphasized the value of the

communal and sought new ways to build a better society where the more able serve those

less able.

Three institutional structures were the settings for Greenleaf’s (1977) writing:

business, the church, and higher education, Greenleaf had personal experience with these

institutions and believed reconstruction of the institutions was possible (Bivins, 2005).

Greenleaf believed if these institutions made a move toward servant leadership, the

quality of society would improve. Further, he held that rather than blaming institutions

for being uncaring, one should criticize oneself for his or her attitudes and level of caring.

49

Throughout his work, Greenleaf (1977) presented a series of contrasting

leadership attributes helping clarify the servant leader model. He placed these attributes

on a continuum. He presented each attribute as contrasting scales, with opposite poles

allowing for variation within each attribute. Greenleaf did not state the poles, but he used

contrast to make his point.

By describing each attribute as a continuum, he made an important inference:

“Servant leadership is a moment-by-moment choice” (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 14). One may

be committed to servant leadership principles, but the individual must make the choice to

apply the principles in actual social settings (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). As discussed, the

attribute of serve-first is the essence of servant leadership. The inclination of the servant

leader is to serve first, and at the other end of the continuum is to react first.

Greenleaf was a storyteller and recorded several of his works on audio and video

tape. For years, the body of Greenleaf’s writings on servant leadership was anecdotal

(Thompson, 2002). Although Greenleaf’s germinal works were fundamental to advocates

of servant leadership, it is important to note his philosophy of servant leadership was

observation- and experience-based, not on research (Thompson, 2002). Although

advocates argue the theory holds promise for organizational leaders in the future (Bass,

2000; Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002), the theory requires substantial empirical research. “The

strength of the servant leadership movement and its many links to encouraging follower

learning, growth, and autonomy, suggest that the untested theory will play a role in the

future leadership of the learning organization” (Bass, 2000, p. 33).

50

Servant Leadership in Academic and Popular Literature

Whether in corporate boardroom, church pew, or school hallways, leaders have

embraced servant leadership as a legitimate leadership style for creating a positive and

productive environment. In the 1990s, scholars promoted a movement toward a

leadership model of putting people first as a necessary step in creating a profitable

business (Spears, 2004). Spears noted,

Standard practices are rapidly shifting toward the ideas put forward by Robert

Greenleaf, Stephen Covey, Peter Senge, Max DePree, Margaret Wheatley, Ken

Blanchard, and many others who suggest that there is a better way to lead and

manage our organizations. (p. 10)

Organizations were moving toward a more meaningful leadership model; one based on

teamwork, community, morals, involving others in decision-making, and promoting the

growth of people (Lubin, 2001; Spears, 2004; Yukl, 2002).

Scholars recognized the lack of empirical data supporting the theory of servant

leadership and conducted research to provide the necessary empirical data (Russell &

Stone, 2002; Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). Researchers contributed significantly to the

growing acceptance of servant leadership in the corporate boardroom as a preferred

leadership model for modern business organizations (Contee-Borders, 2002; Geaney,

2004; Hamilton, 2005; Hebert, 2003; Horobiowski, 2004; Joseph & Winston, 2005;

Krebs, 2005; Morris, 2005; Ostrem, 2006; Smart, 2005). Business professionals, in

search of a new leadership paradigm to enable them to lead more effectively, embraced

the theoretical framework of servant leadership. A variety of organizations adopted

servant leadership as their guiding philosophy, including The Men’s Warehouse

51

(Fremont, CA), ServiceMaster Company (Downers Grove, IL), Southwest Airlines

(Dallas, TX), Synovus Financial Corporation (Columbus, GA), TDIndustries (Dallas,

TX), and The Toro Company (Minneapolis, MN) (Spears, 2002).

In church settings, researchers added credibility to the principles of servant

leadership as an effective leadership theory for ministers in religious organizations

(Asante, 2005; Bivins, 2005; Donato, 2006; Han, 2006; Karpinski, 2002; Liana, 2004;

Ming, 2005; Taylor, 2006; Wallace, 2005; Woodruff, 2004). Ministers understand God

provided the perfect example of positive leadership. Church leaders can look to Jesus

Christ to emulate the servant leadership experience (Bivins, 2005).

Freeman (2004) asserted the underlying ethical and moral values on which

servant leadership is build is critical for the social, political, and economic climate in the

21st century. Researchers agreed with Freeman, in light of the increasing number and

range of studies using servant leadership as the theoretical framework for their studies.

For example, internationally, servant leadership studies have been conducted in Australia

(Dillman, 2004), Canada (Crippen, 2004), China (Horn, 2005), Jamaica (Ming, 2005),

Japan (Pinner, 2003), Kenya (Koshal, 2005), Korea (Cho, 2004; Park, 2005), Mexico

(Schlosberg, 2003), South Africa (Nelson, 2003), and Taiwan (Chen, 2002, 2004).

Crippen (2004) researched servant leadership by examining the theory from a

gender perspective. Other researchers examined the viability of servant leadership in the

public sector (Smith, 2003; White, 2003). Blum (2002) and Westre (2003) identified the

applicability of servant leadership in a sport-related context, and Hardin (2003) and Yoo

(2005) examined the possibility of fostering servant leadership in youth.

52

Greenleaf’s (1980) early writing began with situating servant leadership in

business and trustee situations, but later referred to servant leadership’s natural ties to

education. He believed individual teachers are in a role to implement the vision,

transmitting it to students. Greenleaf proposed servant leadership gives young people

hope to strive for a more caring world. In turn, the young people can themselves prepare

others to lead. Following Greenleaf’s advice, researchers studied servant leadership as a

primary philosophy of leadership in higher education (Broga, 2003; Iken, 2005; Ingram,

2003; Lawton, 2004; Letting, 2004; Thompson, 2002; Williams-Scurlock, 2005). The

Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership lists several universities in the United States,

including Arizona State University, Abilene Christian University, Ball State University,

and Baylor University, incorporating the study of servant leadership as a substantial part

of their educational leadership programs.

In public school systems, researchers have investigated superintendents and their

servant leadership attributes (Johnson, 2004; Milligan, 2003; Thompson, 2005; Walker,

2003). Johnson’s study investigated how superintendents foster a positive school district

climate. Results from the study found that the superintendents adopted servant leadership

attributes (Johnson, 2004).

Harris, Lowery, Hopson, and Marshall (2004) believed the emphasis of a

superintendent’s role in the 21st century is to create a vision, improve student

achievement, maximize curriculum and instruction efforts, encourage a collaborative

decision making environment, manage fiscal resources, and build leadership. Harris et

al.’s description of superintendents’ role is similar to what Greenleaf (as cited in Hoyle,

2002) described as servant leaders. Servant leaders know the power of servant leadership

53

to create effective schools through the “empowerment of staff, teachers, and students and

the practices of site-based decision-making and academic teaming” (Hoyle, 2002, ¶ 9).

The role of the principal reflects a high level of responsibility to the child, future

youth, and the professional growth of staff. According to the standards of the Interstate

School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), “a school administrator is an educational

leader who promotes the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining

a school culture and an instructional program conducive to student learning and staff

professional development” (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2003, p. xix). When school leaders

act upon their leadership responsibility by putting children and staff development first,

they exemplify their stewardship responsibilities by committing themselves to serving,

caring for, and protecting the school and its vision. Researchers explored many aspects of

servant leadership attributes and high school principals (Anderson, 2005; Herbst, 2003;

Jennings, 2002; Lambert, 2004; Miears, 2004; Taylor, 2002).

Scholars attempting to formulate a set of characteristics or attributes unique to

servant leaders are not in final consensus. Scholars identified distinguishable attributes

possessed by those implementing the principles of servant leadership (Jennings, 2002;

Russell & Stone, 2002; Spears, 1998; Thompson, 2002). Russell and Stone identified 20

observable attributes in servant leaders. Laub (1999) classified these similar traits into six

categories. Zohar (1997) suggested there were four qualities of a servant leader. Patterson

(2003) sorted these characteristics into eight classes, and other scholars described 10

distinct attributes to servant leadership (Jennings, 2002; Spears, 1998).

Authors writing about contemporary leadership embraced these characteristics as

essential for effective leadership of modern organizations (Bennis, 2002; Blanchard &

54

Hodges, 2003; Bogle, 2004; Carver, 2004; Covey, 2002a, 2002b, 2004; Dennis &

Bocarnea, 2005; Frick, 2004; Hoang, 2005; Kouzes & Posner, 1995; Moore, 2005;

Senge, 2002; Spears, 1998, 2002, 2004; Walls, 2004; Wheatley, 2004). Covey (2002a)

explained the moral sense is the one enduring quality setting a servant leader apart. The

actions of leaders may often appear intuitive, but these actions require an awareness of

the surrounding environments when appropriately responding to those environments

(Goleman, 2002).

Spears (1998) tracked the evolution and growing impact of servant leadership

over three decades. By reviewing Greenleaf’s writing and researching contemporary

literature on servant leadership, Spears detailed 10 characteristics believed to be essential

for any servant leader. Although the list is by no means exhaustive, servant leaders

should exhibit the qualities to motivate others (Spears, 1998). The traits described by

Spears were (a) listening, (b) empathy, (c) healing, (d) awareness, (e) persuasion, (f)

conceptualization, (g) foresight, (h) stewardship, (i) commitment to the growth of people,

and (j) building community. The processes of classifying the attributes of servant

leadership use different terms, but all fundamentally described the same 10 attributes

described by Spears.

Listening. A servant leader should demonstrate the ability to listen receptively

(Spears, 1998). The inclination of the servant leader is to understand the situation before

taking action (Lubin, 2001). According to Greenleaf (1977), the skill of listening is

different from hearing someone speak, as it requires one to listen to one’s own inner

voice. Listening comprises a critical source of information for decision-making and

55

builds a sense of self-efficacy or strength in those whom the servant leader listens (Lubin,

2001).

Empathy. According to Greenleaf (1977), the servant leader is empathetic and

attempts to understand the actions, behaviors, and intentions of others. The empathy

attribute is closely related to listening, another characteristic of servant leadership

(Jennings, 2002; Taylor, 2002; Taylor-Gillham, 1998). The active listener accepts the

other’s message and acknowledges the others’ feelings (Jennings, 2002). Servant leaders

assume people have good intentions. Although the leader may refuse to accept a

follower’s performance or behavior, they do not reject the person. When disappointment

arises, servant leaders accept these shortfalls will occur, but know every person possesses

the ability to learn from such pitfalls.

Healing. Servant leaders can heal others and themselves (Spears, 1998). In

Greenleaf’s (1977) view, servant leaders are healers addressing with spiritual care the

personal problems and inner wound of their followers, as well as the forces dividing the

community where their organizations exert an influence. Often people suffer from

emotional wounds and servant leaders can help heal the person holistically.

In the servant leadership context, healing is not alleviating physical ill, rather it is

addressing emotional and spiritual damage from life experiences (Lubin, 2001). The goal

of education is to develop the whole child, including his or her cognitive, physical,

emotional, and spiritual self. Educators are healers of the whole child. The servant leader

is committed to look for opportunities to heal both the person and the community, to

make them whole.

56

Awareness. The servant leader has a wide perspective on the world. The

awareness trait is not only sensory, but includes an understanding of one’s ethics, morals,

and values. Greenleaf (1977) observed awareness is not a comforting state; rather leaders

increase their sensory perception to gather information for future situations.

Persuasion. Servant leaders persuade by demonstrating respect and dignity for

others (Greenleaf, 1977). Spears (1998) wrote the use of persuasion, rather than formal

sanctions and rewards, to enlist and maintain follower commitment to organization goals

is representative of the servant leader. Persuasiveness is a critical skill for servant leaders;

it occurs through both verbal and non-verbal channels, as these leaders personally model

the attributes and behaviors they desire to instill in their followers (Greenleaf, 1977). The

persuasion attribute of servant leadership sets servant leadership apart from the traditional

authoritarian models (Hunter, 2004). According to Spears, persuasion is the ability of the

servant leader to build consensus within groups. Greenleaf suggested persuasion is

usually a slow, deliberate, and painstaking process.

Conceptualization. Traditionally, conceptual leaders had characteristics of

visionaries and were innovators in their institutions. Spears (1998), following a review of

Greenleaf’s essays, defined the attribute of conceptualization as the ability to look

beyond day-to-day realities to examine an issue. The servant leader conceptualization

attribute requires the servant leader to balance looking beyond the short term to the long-

term vision of the organization (Spears, 1998).

Foresight. Foresight, as defined by Greenleaf (1977) is “a better than average

guess about what is going to happen in the future” (p. 24). One develops foresight

through superior awareness and perception, and as an ability to face the unknown. Spears

57

(1998) acknowledged foresight is partially an intuitive sense and closely associated to

conceptualization. Greenleaf considered foresight as the central ethic of leadership.

Stewardship. As noted (Spears, 2004) “Peter Block defined stewardship as to hold

something in trust for another” (p. 15). Greenleaf (1977) viewed it was a leader’s

responsibility to “hold institutions in trust for the larger society” (p. 52). Servant leaders,

like stewardship, are oriented toward the commitment service of others. Sergiovanni

(1999), speaking from the perspective of educational leadership, stated leadership must

be morally based in values touching peoples emotions; a form of stewardship.

Commitment to the growth of people. From Greenleaf’s perspective, the ultimate

test of servant leaders is the extent they contribute to the growth of nominal followers.

The primary concern for servant leaders lies in meeting the higher-order needs of those

served. The most admired leaders develop their followers self worth and self-esteem

(Kouzes & Posner, 1995). Servant leaders are committed to doing what is necessary in

the work environment so the environment contributes to the professional and personal

growth of all people in the institution.

Building community. According to Greenleaf (1977), “Only community can give

the healing love that is essential for health” (p. 37). The building community attribute

illustrates Greenleaf’s conceptual thinking, whose vision for society was one improving if

institutions followed a model of civility (Spears, 1998). Servant leaders do not allow

themselves to become isolated from their subordinates by layers of hierarchy. Instead,

they are physically present at the actual working site. According to Taylor-Gillham

(1998), applying the building community concept to educational settings requires all

servant leadership characteristics achieved at a functional level.

58

Servant Leadership Principals and School Climate

The principal has the responsibility to create a positive organizational climate

through effective leadership at the school level. According to Halawah (2005), there is an

influence on students’ academic achievement by an elementary school principal’s

behavior. By modeling and promoting a positive instructional learning environment, the

principal is able to influence positively the school’s climate and student achievement

(Halawah, 2005). Research explored the relationship between secondary principals’

servant leadership and school climate (Anderson, 2005; Lambert, 2004; Miears, 2004).

There were no empirical data addressing the relationship between elementary school

principal servant leaders and school climate.

Anderson (2005) identified “correlations of the relationship between superior and

subordinate perceptions of servant leadership principles practiced in the workplace and

their effect on job satisfaction within the Church Educational System” (p. 4). Participants

in the study included teachers working with high school students, principals, and institute

and area directors (Anderson, 2005). The study revealed a positive correlation between

perceptions of teachers and administration’s implementation of servant leadership

principles and job satisfaction (Anderson, 2005).

A similar study by Lambert (2004) examined “correlations between the servant

leadership behaviors and attitudes of secondary school principals (as perceived by both

those leaders themselves and by their respective faculty members) and student

achievement” (p. 8). Using data collected from the OLA, an analysis determined the

correlation between perceived servant leadership principles and organizational climate.

Lambert’s study revealed a pronounced correlation between the servant leadership score

59

and perception of organizational climate. She stated, “This would indicate that the servant

leader principal creates a more positive organizational climate, resulting in teachers

feeling more positive about their work and work environment” (Lambert, 2004, p. 72).

Miears (2004) conducted a study of servant leadership to “examine the link

between the level of servant-leadership perceived and the level of job satisfaction felt in

the public school organization” (Miears, 2004, p. 6). Analysis revealed a positive

correlation between perceived servant leadership principles and job satisfaction (Miears,

2004, p. 84). The next section contains a discussion on servant leadership as a faith-based

concept.

Servant Leadership in Biblical Teachings

The concept of servant leadership occurs in the Bible through examples from

Moses to Jesus. The word servant is in the Bible almost one thousand times. Scholars,

contemporary authors, and researchers cited biblical references to support servant

leadership (Blanchard & Hodges, 2003; Contee-Borders, 2002; Greenleaf, 1970;

Jennings, 2002; Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002).

Jesus, considered by some scholars to be the greatest leader to have lived (Carter,

2003; Kubicek, 2005), presented a model of leadership focusing on God, not the leader.

Jesus exemplified leadership as care, love, and submission rather than strength, might,

and power. Colson (as cited in Spears, 1998) once stated during a speech, “All kings in

history sent people out to die for them. There is only one king I know who decided to die

for his people” (p. 26).

Jesus’ life and teachings exemplified the perfect servant leader (Blanchard &

Hodges, 2003; Contee-Borders, 2002; Moore, 2005). Jesus did not lead from behind, but

60

rather he stood out front, even in the face of great adversity. He had a vision of what he

had to do, and probably knew there was a short time to complete his tasks. Ultimately,

the essence of Jesus’ message was simple; he showed by example (Spears, 1998). “Jesus

washing his disciples’ feet is a dramatic example of His service and humility to people”

as noted in Woolfe (2002, p. 84). Although some argue servant leadership is appropriate

in a Catholic school context, there will be critics disagreeing.

Criticism of Servant Leadership

Although many scholars, researchers, and practitioners praised and promoted

servant leadership as a viable and ideal leadership theory, other scholars criticized the

model of leadership. One criticism noted the theory of servant leadership is a weak

leadership model, as power is shared among all group members (Tatum, 1995).

Traditionally, models of leadership have focused on a single, strong individual. Bennis

(2004) explained, “In the last twenty years of business leadership writings, certain

exemplary leaders have been lionized, even deified. Unfortunately, though, it has been

ignored that some of these leaders are destructive narcissists who put themselves first” (p.

xi).

The process of empowerment takes a great deal of time and effort, and the art of

conceptualizing emphasizes practicing new behaviors. “Trust is the foundation of the

servant leader model of leadership, in that collegiate relationships are based on mutual

respect and feedback” (Howatson-Jones, 2004, p. 23). Tatum (1995) suggested some

view servant leadership as a soft approach, which is ineffective and weak. Those viewing

leadership in the traditional authoritarian style commonly used in society share the

perspective that servant leadership is unproductive (Tatum, 1995).

61

Servant leadership’s organizational structure receives criticism. Servant

leadership has a flattened leadership hierarchy, as opposed to the traditional hierarchical

style (Spears, 2004). The change in organizational structure can be an obstacle for

organizations based in a culture of bureaucratic or authoritarian hierarchical leadership

(Yukl, 2002). Jennings and Stahl-Wert (2003) explained the servant leaders position

themselves to focus on “unleashing the energy, excitement, and talents of those being

served” (p. 101).

Other critics have viewed the concept of servant leadership as unrealistic. Quay

(1997) criticized Greenleaf’s (1970) theory stating, “For all his good advice and many

practical ideas, he is a Don Quixote trying to convince managers to pursue good and

eschew evil” (p. 83). Quay suggested the principles of servant leadership were idealistic

and impractical. He claimed it is not responsible to trust righteous leaders.

Brumback (1999) supported Quay’s (1997) view regarding the philosophy of

servant leadership as ambiguous and impractical. Bridges (1996) argued servant

leadership has limited applications and believed servant leadership incorrectly assumes it

is “better or higher” (p. 17) than other leadership styles. He further explained, by

implying its moral tone makes it different, when it is the same as other leadership theories

(Bridges, 1996). Empirical evidence, although limited, does support the notion servant

leadership influences school climate.

Servant Leadership and School Climate

Servant leadership can contribute significantly to creating a positive

organizational climate. When an organization is employee-driven, employees find

meaning and satisfaction in their work. Leadership focusing on meeting the needs of

62

internal customers results in employees serving the external customers (e.g., students,

parents, and community at large) more effectively. The WK Kellogg Foundation and the

Lilly Endowment, “two of the largest and most influential grant-making foundations in

the United States, have sought to encourage the development of programs designed to

educate and train leaders and trustees of not-for-profit organizations to function as

servant leaders” (Rowe, 2003, p. 25).

According to Ruschman (2002), businesses such as Southwest Airlines (SWA)

hire individuals for their attitude and behavior rather than skill. The organization

promotes a collaborative culture, acknowledging the achievements and successes of their

employees. Teamwork is an essential aspect of SWA’s culture, as its corporate leaders

emphasize open communication, collaboration, and solidarity.

The leaders at SWA reinforce each member’s unique skills and align the team’s

vision with both individual and corporate values. Ruschman (2002) noted servant

leadership is an integrated way to serve all people involved in the organization. He

recognized it takes courage and trust to change to a servant-led organization. The

advantages of being a servant-led organization include low turnover and retention costs,

higher qualified employees, higher productivity, higher quality products and services, and

more innovation (Ruschman, 2002).

Leadership plays a vital role in creating a learning organization where all

members strive to achieve their professional and personal potential. When a servant

leader creates an atmosphere of openness and caring, followers respond in kind (Youngs,

2002). Servant leaders in school settings model genuine caring for their faculty. Teachers,

knowing they receive respect, value, and inclusion in decision-making, may be more

63

likely to have positive feelings about their school and the importance of their role in it

(Beaudoin & Taylor, 2004). Teachers value empowering behaviors such as (a) treating

teachers professionally and involving teachers in decision-making; (b) supporting

behaviors, such as providing emotional and moral support; (c) being visible during the

school day; and (d) communicating behaviors like active listening, providing

encouragement, and establishing clear expectations (Sparks, 2002).

Research supports the notion there is a positive correlation between leadership

behaviors and organizational climate in schools, as perceived by members of the

organization (Coral & Castle, 2005; Fullan, Cuttress, & Kilcher, 2005; Kelley et al.,

2005; Mulford et al., 2004; Waters et al., 2004). Other research uncovered positive

relationships between school climate and student achievement (Fung Han Ng, 2005;

Hohl, 2006; Kelley et al., 2005; McLean, 2006; Thomasson, 2006). Research identifying

a relationship between servant leadership and school culture has been limited (Lambert,

2004). There is a significant gap in the literature exploring the relationship between

perceived servant leadership behaviors of the elementary school principal and school

climate. The current study helps fill the void in the research.

Conclusion

The conceptual framework of servant leadership offers leaders a model for

integrating spirits, hearts, and minds, while simultaneously enhancing followers’ personal

growth. The literature revealed Greenleaf (1970) consistently argued for nurturing leaders

by developing life skills, creating awareness and understanding, and regenerating spirit.

A review of the literature revealed a lack of empirical research regarding servant

leadership and school climate in the context of the elementary school system. The goal of

64

the current study was to discover the extent full-time teachers and principals of

elementary schools in the Ontario Catholic school system implement principles of servant

leadership in their professions. The study also examined whether the implementation of

these principles has an impact on school climate.

Summary

Chapter 2 explored the key elements of the current research study: (a) the Ontario

Catholic school system, (b) school climate, and (c) the theory of servant leadership. The

review of the literature began with a discussion on Catholic schools, Canadian Catholic

schools, and then Ontario Catholic School system, and included an overview of factors

affecting organizational and school climate. Review of the literature supported the notion

there is a positive correlation between leadership behaviors and overall organizational

climate in schools, as perceived by members of the organization.

The final section of the chapter provided an overview of leadership theories and a

detailed discussion of servant leadership, as defined in the germinal writings of

Greenleaf, current scholarly publications, and contemporary authors. Biblical and

educational servant leadership examples provided reference points, as the current study

had a focus in a religious educational organization. Finally, an examination of scholarly

criticisms of servant leadership provided background. Chapter 3 details the methodology

for providing answers to the research questions.

65

CHAPTER 3: METHOD





in Ontario, Canada. The results from the current study may provide insight into practical

implications for how principals and teachers could implement servant leadership

principles to affect a positive school climate. The focal point of chapter 3 is to introduce

the methodology used in the research study. Chapter 3 outlines (a) the research design,

(b) the appropriateness of the methodology to the study, (c) the research questions to be

answered, (d) the participant selection, (e) how participants were informed of their rights,

(f) the steps to be taken in obtaining data from participants, (g) geographic location, (h)

the selection of instrumentation, and (i) the validity and reliability of the instrumentation.

Research Design

Figure 1 depicts a graphic representation of the research project. Researchers

using a mixed method research design merge quantitative and qualitative methods into a

single research study (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Creswell (2005) concluded a

mixed method approach allows for increased depth and breadth of research within a

single study. The current mixed-methods study united quantitative and qualitative

approaches into a single research paradigm to allow for complementary application of

both methods (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

66

Report Findings

•Present conclusions from quantitative and

qualitative data.

•Propose recommendations for future

research based on findings.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Primary correlational analysis: OLA,

OCDQ-RE, and focus group interviews.

Literature Review

•Ontario Catholic School System

•School Climate

•Servant Leadership

Design Study

•Administer voluntary participation surveys

•Instruments: OLA and OCDQ-RE

•Demographic information

•Post-survey focus group interviews with

10% of participants or until no new themes

emerge.

Research Question

What is the correlation, if any, between

perceptions of servant leadership and

perceptions of school climate by elementary

principals and full-time teachers of a Catholic

school board in Ontario?

Problem

Establish the relationship between servant

leadership principles and school climate not now

fully considered in the research literature.

Figure 1. Graphic representation of research process

The purpose of the quantitative portion of the study was to assess whether there

was a statistical relationship between the presence of servant leadership and schools’

climates. Adding qualitative focus group interviews to the research was served as a check

67

through direct discussion of the participants’ perspective, attitudes, opinions, experiences,

and meanings of the concepts under investigation (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The

first portion of the study was a non-experimental quantitative correlational study.

It was appropriate to use a quantitative method in the current research study, as it

used a survey, summarized data through statistical analysis, and explored possible

correlations. Two validated quantitative instruments were used to generate these data;

Laub's (1998) Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) assessed servant leadership

and Hoy et al.’s (1991) Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire-Revised

(OCDQ-RE) assessed school climate. The questionnaires were followed by post-survey

qualitative focus group interviews, using a minimum of 10% of the survey sample, or

until no new themes emerged. The focus group interviews allowed the researcher to

probe more deeply into items arising from the survey analysis.

Appropriateness of Design

A mixed-method was useful to fully understand a research problem (Creswell,

2005). Modern educational scholars generally recognize the necessity of different types

of data to answer research questions (Teddlie, 2005). The current research detailed the

relationship between two variables, servant leadership and school climate, in a randomly

selected sample of full-time teachers and principals in the Ontario Catholic school

system.

The current research project measured the strength of association between school

climate and servant leadership and justified whether it was statistically significant. For

the purpose of the current study, the independent variable was principals’ and teachers’

perceptions of whether and how servant leadership principles are implemented by the

68

principals in the elementary schools in a Catholic school board in Ontario. The dependent

variable was the school climate of the same schools.

A mixed-methods study was the most appropriate approach for the current study

because the complimentary nature of the mixed method allows analysis to emerge,

revealing additional aspects of the topic. When performed in a sequential array, the

mixed method approach allowed the first study to develop additional focus for the second

study (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). A mixed-methods data discovery allowed for

understanding different views of the same situation among different individuals.

Combining the quantitative electronic survey and the qualitative focus group

interviews into a single study fit together insights and created a synergy of data covering

all aspects of the issues (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). The advantage to using an electronic

survey included rapid data collection, low cost to administer, privacy for participant when

responding to statements, increased response rates, and higher quality data entry due to

the elimination of coding and reentry errors (Ray & Tabor, 2003). A disadvantage to

using a web-based format was that only about 40% of households in the United States

have access to the internet (Ray & Tabor, 2003). Internet access was not a concern for the

current study, as the target population had access to the computers and internet services at

their respective school sites.

Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) presented triangulation as a rationale for mixed

methods research. Hilton (2002) stated triangulation is not simply a combination of data,

but an attempt to relate different kinds of data to enhance the validity of each type of

data. Triangulation attempts to reduce the effects of the inherent biases from single-

source studies through the addition of potentially neutralizing second sources (Hilton,

69

2002). Yauch and Steudel (2003) explained triangulation provides greater validity and

greater cultural understanding. Selection of the triangulation technique in the current

study captured a “more complete, holistic, and contextual portrayal of the correlation”

(Adami & Kiger, 2005, ¶ 7) between school climate and servant leadership.

A quantitative non-experimental method was an appropriate first step in the

research process. Gall et al. (2003) recommended assessing the relative strength between

two variables through the computation of a correlation coefficient. In describing the

nature of data gleaned through correlational analysis, Leedy and Ormrod (2001)

emphasized, “Finding a coefficient of correlation is equivalent to discovering a signpost.

That signpost points unerringly to the fact that two things are related, and it reveals the

nature of the relationship” (p. 272). Although data gathered through correlational analysis

provide information regarding both the direction and strength of the relationship between

variables, Leedy and Ormrod emphasized, correlation does imply causation.

Following completion of the quantitative study portion of the research, post-

survey qualitative focus group interviews were conducted with a minimum of 10% of the

survey sample, or until no new themes emerged. The rationale for employing the mixed-

method was to ensure accurate interpretation of the data through triangulation. The data

from these qualitative focus group interviews allowed for probing more deeply into items

arising from the survey analysis. The purpose of focus group interviews was to draw out

information from participants regarding topics of importance to a given research

investigation (Krueger, 1994). The informal group discussion atmosphere of the focus

group interview structure encouraged participants to speak freely about behaviors,

attitudes, and opinions they possess (Krueger, 1994).

70

The focus group size, in the current study 10% of sample, was determined using

nonprobability sampling techniques namely quota sampling, purposive sampling, etc.

Although there is no specific rule to determine the sub-sample size (or focus group size),

Krueger (1994) described the typical characteristics of focus groups: (a) on average 6-10

people participate in each focus group; (b) are small enough to give everyone the

opportunity to express an opinion; (c) are large enough to provide diversity of opinions;

(d) are composed of people not too familiar with one another (e.g. friends, family); and

(e) the typical focus group study has a minimum of three focus groups, and as many as

several dozen groups. Three focus groups were interviewed, each consisting of 6-10

members, 24 members of the total sample size, were considered, which was

approximately 10% of 246. The focus group selection was not random as it is a

nonprobability design.

As neither quantitative nor qualitative approaches alone can provide an adequate

analysis to uncover the correlation between perceived school climate and perceived

servant leadership, the current study was a sequential, mixed method design. Creswell

(2005) noted it is difficult to specify the second-phase questions in a proposal for a

sequential project. The second-phase questions issue was exactly the case for the current

research study, as its second phase derived meaning and understanding from the first

phase data. Mixed-method research was the best approach for observing and measuring

the relationship between the independent variable, the teachers’ and principals’

perceptions of servant leadership, and the dependent variable, school climate.

71

Research Questions

Research questions are a way to direct and guide thinking in research. According

to Creswell (2005), the research question is the specific query addressed by the research

and sets the direction of the project. The research questions guiding the current study

were,

1. What is the correlation, if any, between perceptions of servant leadership practices and

perceptions of school climate by elementary principals and full-time teachers of a

Catholic school board in Ontario?

2. What types of experiences, if any, do elementary principals and full-time teachers have

that indicate the perception of servant leadership practices and perception of school

climate?

Population

Population. From 2003 to 2004, there were 5,282 elementary principals and vice-

principals in the province of Ontario (OME, 2006); over 2,100 of these administrators

were from Catholic schools (CPCO, 2006). In the 2004 to 2005 school year, there were

476,287 full-time elementary teachers in the Catholic school system (OME, 2006). In

2006, there were 72 district school boards in Ontario: “31 English Public, 29 English

Catholic, 4 French Public, and 8 French Catholic” (OME, 2006, ¶ 2).

Target Population. According to Creswell (2005), “A target group (or the

sampling frame) is a group of individuals with some common defining characteristic that

the research can identify and study” (p. 146). The target population for the current study

was the full-time elementary teachers and principals on active assignment in elementary

schools in an Ontario English Catholic School Board. The target population included 37

72

elementary schools with 998 full-time elementary teachers. The target population served

as a source for the sample.

Of the 37 elementary schools, 375 full-time teachers from 12 schools were

randomly selected to participate in the current research study. To be more specific,

among the 998 full time elementary teachers, a sample size of 375 should result in a

margin of error level of 4% (0.04) and confidence interval 95%. Based on issues of

convenience in contacting large numbers of participants in a large geographic area, a

random selection process was used to select the sample. Creswell (2005) stated “the most

popular and rigorous form of probability sampling from a population is simple random

sampling” (p. 147). The process was one in which every member of the population had

an equal and independent chance of being selected. Simple random sampling was useful

for removing certain barriers to bias inherent in research studies (Creswell, 2005).

The most popular procedure in simple random sampling is to assign a number to

each individual (school) in the sample and use a random numbers table to select the

individuals (schools) for the sample (Creswell, 2005). Although there was no guarantee

of representativeness, of course, the likelihood of it is greater when researchers use

random sampling then when they select any other method (Gall et al., 2003). Any

differences existing between the sample and the population should be small and

unsystematic, with differences the result of change, rather than bias on the part of the

researcher (Gall et al., 2003). The key to obtaining a random sample is to ensure each

member of the population has an equal and independent chance of selection, performed

by using a table of random numbers (Creswell, 2005). The present study used the

procedure of assigning a number to each school.

73

Sampling Frame

“A sample is a subgroup of the target population that the researcher plans to study

for generalizing about the target population” (Creswell, 2005, p. 146). The size of the

sample provides enough power to test the null hypothesis for statistically significant

relationships. Creswell suggested the general rule regarding the size of the sample for a

research study “is to select as large a sample as possible from the population” (p. 149) to

compensate for potential error bias in testing hypotheses.

Confirmation of school participation was achieved by principals from each school

through electronic mail. After one week, the researcher contacted principals not

responding through follow-up telephone calls. After three weeks, the researcher visited

the school to discuss concerns the principals and their staff may have about participating.

Informed Consent

The researcher issued informed consent forms (see Appendix D) and introductory

letter (see Appendix E) for participants prior to completing the OLA and OCDQ-RE

surveys. Each participant had the opportunity to review and sign the informed consent

form prior to participating. The researcher informed participants that their participation in

the research was voluntary, and no one was obligated to participate, respondents’ replies

were confidential, no names or personal information were included in the study, and all

data were coded to eliminate the risk of identifying any participant. Individuals not

desiring to participate had no further obligation.

Confidentiality

Quantitative data was collected from the two surveys: Laub's (1998)

Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) and Hoy et al.’s (1991) Organizational

74

Climate Description Questionnaire-Revised (OCDQ-RE). The school board’s intranet

service was programmed to query the all the surveys. Each school participating in the

study had a different PIN number to access the site. Only full-time teachers and

principals who completed the informed consent form had access to the survey site.

To ensure individual confidentiality, all the participants signed onto the site using

one PIN number. No personal identification number was required to sign-on and

complete the survey. To ensure confidentiality of the schools and the participants, the

assigned codes for each school that indicated the location of the workplace were placed in

a secure location for researcher use only.

To encourage honesty in responding to the instruments, the current study

guaranteed confidentiality of responses to the participants, keeping each participant’s

individual identity confidential in reporting the results of the current study. Participants’

individual responses reflect anonymity in the current dissertation and will not be returned

to the administration of the school at any time.

No associations were made between participants and their answers, except for

data analysis purposes. Participants were made aware of the plans to ensure

confidentiality of their responses in the confidentiality agreement prior to their voluntary

participation in the study. Participants were free to withdraw from participation in the

study at any time during the administration of the survey.

Geographic Location

The current research was confined to full-time Catholic teachers and principals

working in the southwestern region of the province of Ontario. Schools selected to

participate in the study were visited personally to provide explanation of and assistance in

75

completing the quantitative portion of the study. Participants selected to participate in the

qualitative post-survey portion of the study were contacted either by electronic mail,

telephone, or in person.

Instrumentation

Two distinct methods of research were used in the current mixed-methods study,

with the first portion of the study using two surveys. The Organizational Leadership

Assessment (OLA) (Laub, 1998) quantitatively measured the perceived servant

leadership in the schools. The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire-Revised

(OCDQ-RE) (Hoy et al., 1991) quantitatively measured the school’s climate. Permission

was granted from Laub to use the OLA (see Appendix F), and Hoy granted permission to

use the OCDQ-RE (see Appendix G). The target school board for the study consented to

allow the conduct of research within the sample population (see Appendix H). Additional

quantitative data collected from the demographic questions accompanied the informed

consent form to the participants (see Appendix D).

The second portion of the study involved post-survey qualitative focus group

interviews with 10% of the survey respondents or until no new themes emerged. The

focus group interviews were guided by the questions from the OLA and OCDQ-RE. The

discussion during the focus group interviews allowed participants to probe deeper into the

statement than a choice along a scale. The focus group interviews were semi-open ended

discussions (Creswell, 2005).

Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA)

The Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) (Laub, 1999) was the best-

suited servant leadership instrument for measuring servant leadership at the school level

76

of analysis. The OLA is comprised of 66 survey questions measured on a 5-point Likert

Scale (0 = No response or Undecided, 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4

= Strongly Agree). The OLA is divided into six distinct constructs or subscales of servant

leadership: values people, develops people, builds community, displays authenticity,

provides leadership, and shares leadership. Each of these constructs includes between

nine and 12 questions.

Laub developed the OLA instrument by using a 14-member panel of experts. The

panel was involved in a three-round Delphi technique to establish consensus about which

characteristics reflect the presence of servant leadership. The experts participating in the

development of the OLA were selected if they had taught servant leadership at the

university level or had published material on the topic (Laub, 1999). The responses from

authorities on servant leadership were “computed to determine which characteristics were

rated as Necessary or Essential for describing the servant leader. These characteristics

then formed the basic constructs for the development of the OLA instrument items”

(Laub, 1999, p. 45).

There were three separate field tests “conducted with 828 people from 41

organizations representing various states in the U.S. and one organization from the

Netherlands” (Laub, 1999, p. v). The OLA instrument is composed of 66 items with an

aggregate score of 300 and a standard deviation of 41.1. Laub reported the aggregate

instrument reliability, using the Cronbach-Alpha coefficient, was .98. Table 2 details the

Cronbach-Alpha coefficients and leadership practice for each of the six constructs

contained within the OLA instrument.

77

Table 2

Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients and Leadership Practices of the OLA

OLA Construct Cronbach’s Alpha Leadership Practice

Values People .91 Listening respectively, serving the

Needs of others first, and believing in people

Develops

People

.90 Provides opportunities for learning,

modeling appropriate behavior, and building up

others through encouragement

Build

Community

.90 Builds strong relationships, working

collaboratively, and valuing individual

differences

Display

Authenticity

.93 Integrity and trust, openness and accountability,

and a willingness to learn from others

Provide

Leadership

.91 Envisioning the future, taking intuitive, and

clarifying goals

Share

Leadership

.93 Creates a shared vision, sharing decision-

making power, and sharing status and privilege

at all levels of the organization

OLA

Instrument

.98

Note: Construct Scores rounded to the hundredth place value (Laub, 1999).

Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire-Revised (OCDQ-RE)

The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire-Revised for Elementary

Schools (OCDQ-RE) is a 42-item organizational climate instrument based on a 5-point

Likert scale (0 = No Response, 1 = Rarely occurs, 2 = Sometimes occurs, 3 = Often

78

occurs, 4 = Very frequently occurs). Halpin and Croft (1963) conceptualized the concept

of school climate as a dimension along a continuum from open to closed, leading to the

development of the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (Hoy et al., 1991,

p. 20). The OCDQ-RE is divided into six dimensions or subscales of school climate:

supportive principal behavior, directive principal behavior, restrictive principal behavior,

collegial teacher behavior, intimate teacher behavior, disengaged teacher behavior. Each

of these dimensions includes between four and nine questions.

The OCDQ-RE survey has been the most widely used elementary school climate

assessment tool in the literature for a generation of researchers (Hoy & Tarter, 1997). The

instrument fell out of use in the 1980s because researchers recognized some of the

statements were outdated (Hoy et al., 1991). Later, Hoy et al. revised and renamed the

survey to Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire-Revised for Elementary

School (OCDQ-RE) to distinguish it from the original.

The OCDQ-RE uses “six subtests that describe the behavior of the elementary

teachers and principals. The revised instrument measures three aspects of principal

leadership-supportive, directive, and restrictive” (Hoy et al., 1991, p. 35). The OCDQ-RE

measures perception of principals’ behavior and perceptions of teachers’ behavior and

two social systems dimensions of organizational climate (Hoy et al., 1991). The social

system examines associations existing among individuals in the organization (Hoy et al.,

1991, p. 35). Principals’ behaviors are categorized as supportive, directive, and

restrictive. Teachers’ behaviors are categorized as collegial, intimate, and disengaged

(Hoy et al., 1991).

79

The OCDQ-RE was field tested in 70 New Jersey elementary schools. The sample

“represented a broad range of schools from urban, suburban, and rural areas, spanning the

entire range of socioeconomic status” (Hoy et al., 1991, p. 28). Results from the field test

yielded alpha reliability coefficients, ranging from .75 to .95 (Hoy et al., 1991). The

factor analysis of the OCDQ-RE supported the constructs of all six measures (three

principal and three teacher constructs) (Hoy et al., 1991). No total test score was

provided; only subtest scores were available. Alpha Coefficients and Dimensions of

School Climate as Measured in the OCDQ-RE are in Table 3.

Post-Survey Qualitative Focus Group Interviews

In conducting the post-survey qualitative focus group interviews, initial

participant selection and contact was via electronic mail or telephone. Three focus

groups, each consisting of six - 10 members, 24 members in all were interviewed. Each

member of the focus group was provided with a hard copy of the survey questions during

the discussion.

The focus group interviews were guided by the questions from the OLA and

OCDQ-RE. The discussion during the focus group interviews allowed participants to

probe deeper into the statement than a choice along a scale. The focus group

interviews were semi-open ended discussions (Creswell, 2005).

According to Creswell (2005), an open-ended discussion is difficult to code and

analyze. The semi-open discussion, using the statements to guide the discussion, allowed

for a more efficient method of coding. The interviewer read the statements from the

surveys and the participants responded freely about specific examples of servant

80

leadership behaviors or school climate dimensions. The interviews were audio recorded

and transcribed to ensure accuracy of the respondents.

Data Collection

Data collection involved assigning a number to each school and using a random

numbers table to select schools for the sample. The researcher contacted the principals

from each school through electronic email to confirm participation of their school. The

schools had a 10-day period to complete the survey. The informed consent form,

including the Demographic Questionnaire, assurances of confidentiality (see Appendix

D), and introduction to the study (see Appendix E) were delivered to selected schools and

placed in the teachers’ and principal’s mailboxes.

The OLA and OCDQ-RE surveys were completed online through the school

board’s intranet service. Each school participating in the study had a different PIN

number to access the site. Only full-time teachers and principals who completed the

informed consent form had access to the survey site. To ensure individual confidentiality,

all participants signed onto the site using one PIN number. The PIN number was only

accessible on the computers at the school site. Laub (2004) suggested the average time to

complete the OLA is 15 minutes, and the OCDQ-RE on average takes 10 minutes to

complete.

81

Table 3

Alpha Coefficients and Dimensions of School Climate as Measured in OCDQ-RE

Six Dimensions Alpha Description of Dimension

Supportive Principal

Behavior

.94 The principal uses constructive criticism,

compliments teachers, and listens to and accepts

teachers’ suggestions.

Directive Principal

Behavior

.88 The principal monitors everything teachers do, rules

with an iron fist, and checks lesson plans.

Restrictive Principal

Behavior

.81 Teachers are burdened with busywork, routine duties

interfere with the job of teaching, and too many

committee requirements.

Collegial Teacher

Behavior

.87 Teachers help and support each other, respect the

professional competence of their colleagues, and

accomplish their work with vim, vigor, and pleasure.

Intimate Teacher

Behavior

.83 Teachers socialize with each other, and their closest

friends are other faculty members at the school.

Disengaged Teacher

Behavior

.78 Faculty meetings are useless, there is a minority

group of teachers who always oppose the majority,

and teachers ramble when they talk at faculty

meetings.

Note: from Hoy et al., 1991, p. 27-28

The qualitative data gathering consisted of asking participants to explain, in their

own words, the thoughts or feelings contributing to their responses on various statements

82

from the OLA or OCDQ-RE. Focus groups can be extremely dynamic. Interactions

among and between group members stimulated discussion in which one group member

reacts to comments made by another.

A group’s dynamism is the synergistic group effect (Mu &Gnyawali, 2003). The

resulting synergy allows one participant to draw from another or to brainstorm

collectively with other members of the group. The recording and transcription of focus

group interviews allowed participants to review the accuracy of the transcripts.

All focus group interviews were analyzed to search for common themes among

participant responses. Holloway (2002) explained qualitative studies contain rich

descriptive data requiring the researcher to organize into manageable parts or categories.

Making sense of the data, or analysis, is crucial to the overall ability of the research to

describe and explain what is studied. Analysis is an important step in theory

development. It is through careful scrutiny of data researchers can uncover new concepts,

relationships, insights, and explain findings (Holloway, 2002).

Data Analysis

The SAS software program was used to analyze the data obtained from the

teachers’ demographic data, the OLA instrument, and the OCDQ-RE instrument.

Teachers’ demographic data were summarized through descriptive statistics. Means,

ranges, and standard deviations were determined for the variables of age, number of years

teaching experience, and number of years teaching at their current school. The

demographic data were summarized for the gender distribution.

Data from the OLA and the OCDQ-RE were summarized with descriptive

statistics. The OLA has six unique constructs, and the OCDQ-RE has six dimensions:

83

three principal and three teacher. The teachers’ and principals’ perception about servant

leadership and school climate were analyzed separately. The two sets of perception data

were compared to determine if they differed significantly. Analyses of principal and

teacher perceptions at each school and aggregate level (while considering all schools

altogether) was an important part of the current research. After categorizing individuals

per OLA constructs (Laub, 1999), construct scores (values people, develops people, build

community, display authenticity, provide leadership, share leadership), not individual’s

raw scores, were used for final analysis.

The purpose was to determine how well individuals within the school have been

implementing the principles of servant leadership. Based on the overall score on the

OLA, an organization was classified into one of the six categories established by Laub

(2003), as outlined in Table 4. A detailed explanation of each of the six organizational

categories is in Appendix I.

Table 4

Laub’s Six Organizational Categories and OLA Score Ranges

Organizational Category OLA Score Ranges

Org1 Absence of servant leadership characteristics 60.0 – 119.4

Org2 Autocratic organization 119.5 – 170.4

Org3 Negatively paternalistic organization 179.5 – 209.4

Org4 Positively paternalistic organization 209.5 – 239.4

Org5 Servant-oriented organization 239.5 – 269.4

Org6 Servant-minded organization 269.5 – 300.0 Note: from Laub, 2003

The OCDQ-RE instrument is composed of six dimensions (supportive behavior,

directive behavior, restrictive behavior, collegial behavior, intimate behavior, disengaged

84

behavior) to produce six subtest scores. The openness of a school’s climate “is interpreted

the same way as the subtest scores, that is, the mean of the ‘average’ school is 500. Thus,

a score of 650 on teacher openness represents a highly open faculty” (Hoy et al., 1991, p.

143). Table 5 outlines the scores converted into “categories ranging from high to low”

(Hoy et al., 1991, p. 143). Hoy et al. recommended using all six dimensions to get an

accurate representation of school climate (Hoy et al., 1991).

Table 5

OCDQ-RE Subtest Scores Converted to Categories

Subtest Scores Categories for dimensions

Above 600 Very high

551 – 600 High

525 – 550 Above average

511 – 524 Slightly above average

490 – 510 Average

476 – 489 Slightly below average

450 – 475 Below average

400 – 449 Low

Below 400 Very low

Note: from Hoy et al., 1991, p. 143

Correlational coefficients determined relationships between the six constructs of

the OLA and the six dimensions of the OCDQ-RE to identify relationships between the

perceived practice of servant leadership and school climate. The technique of Canonical

Correlation explicated the strength and direction of correlation between the perceptions

of servant leadership and the perceptions of school climate for principals and teachers.

85

Six constructs of OLA and six dimensions of OCDQ-RE respectively measured the

perceptions of servant leadership and school climate.

The 66 survey questions were assessed on a 5-point Likert Scale (0 = No response

or Undecided, 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree). The

underpinning strategy to calculate the final score of each OLA construct was summing

the recoded values of each construct’s questions. In the same fashion, OCDQ-RE

dimensions created the final correlation analysis. The OCDQ-RE dimensions stem from

42 survey questions based on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = No Response, 1 = Rarely occurs,

2 = Sometimes occurs, 3 = Often occurs, 4 = Very frequently occurs).

In the context of canonical relation, the relationship between perception of servant

leadership and the perception of organizational climate was examined. The variables

were viewed as either independent or dependent. The basic idea of canonical correlation

analysis began with a finding linear combination of the OLA constructs and another

linear combination of OCDQ dimensions where values of coefficients are selected in

such way to maximize the correlation. The resulting linear combination will produce a

canonical variable from each set of variables called the first canonical variable. The

square of the first canonical correlation is the first eigenvalue. The residuals are then

analyzed in the same fashion to find a second pair of canonical variables; whose weights

are chosen to maximize the correlation between the second pair of canonical variables,

using only the variance remaining after the variance due to the first pair of canonical

variables has been removed from the original variables. The process continues until a

significance cutoff is reached or the maximum number of pairs is found. Lastly, a test of

hypothesis is conducted in which the smallest population canonical correlations are zero

86

will use either Bartlett’s Chi-square test (Bartlett, 1941; Lawley, 1959) or an approximate

F-test (Rao, 1973). A large Chi-square or a large F test statistic is an indication that not

all the population correlations are zero.

Analysis of the qualitative data obtained through the post-survey qualitative focus

group interviews followed established methods using QSR NVivo 7. Taylor-Powell and

Renner (2003) detailed a five-step process involved in accurate qualitative data analysis

used in interpreting qualitative data from the post-interview surveys. The first step in the

process was to review all the information, often in the form of jotting down notes in the

margins of text (interview transcriptions) (Taylor-Powell & Renner, 2003). The second

step was to focus the analysis by reviewing the purpose of the research project (Taylor-

Powell & Renner, 2003). The third step was to identify codes and develop coding

categories for data (Taylor-Powell & Renner, 2003). The researcher brings meaning to

the words by using the categories to identify similar phrases, patterns, relationships, and

commonalities and disparities (Taylor-Powell & Renner, 2003).

The focus group interviews were transcribed and evaluated for themes and textual

descriptions of lived experiences using the qualitative assessment tool QSR NVivo 7 to

find the frequency of data reported by the participants. The QSR NVivo 7 software

helped group the focus group interview data into themes, patterns, ideas, and textural

descriptions. Coded data allowed for answers to the research questions to be converted

into numerical data to reflect the frequency of common terms and themes.

Organizing data into coherent categories is “the crux of qualitative analysis”

(Taylor-Powell & Renner, 2003, p. 2). Categorizing data from the current study involved

a coding process to break the transcripts into paragraphs, sentences, or phrases and

87

grouping the data into common themes. The servant leadership constructs and the school

climate dimensions aided the organization of the focus group interview transcriptions by

emergent themes (Patton, 2002). After these data were coded, the fourth step isolated

meaningful patterns and processes to identify connections and patterns among categories

(Taylor-Powell & Renner, 2003). Completion of the interview transcription, transfer, and

coding of emergent themes signaled transition to a more aggressive phase of analysis.

Initiating reintegration of the data involved expanding, collapsing, merging, and creating

categories most representative of the initial interpretation of meaning (Patton, 2002).

Collapsing and merging categories resulted from determining how themes repeated

across contexts. Rather than maintaining stand-alone themes (e.g., accepted, accepting,

acceptance) or excluding single themes such as accept, it was appropriate to capture

thoughts and phrases under broader categories. Repeating thoughts and phrases under

multiple categories maintained the integrity of individual contexts and reflected the inter-

relatedness and complexity of influences on servant leadership and school climate.

With all interview transcriptions coded manually and in QSR NVivo 7 for

constant comparison, a final search of the data confirmed no new emergent themes.

Selecting edited text from throughout each transcription presented coherent thoughts

representing themes and patterns. Removing redundant expressions and extraneous words

such as like, I said, you know aided the flow of thoughts.

Final editing and data organization of the focus group interviews provided an

overview of the context of servant leadership and school climate experiences.

Interpretation was the final step in the qualitative data analysis and involved making

sense of the data by attaching meaning based on theories (Taylor-Powell & Renner,

88

2003). A discussion on how the qualitative post-survey data related with the quantitative

data obtained through the OLA and the OCDQ-RE is presented in chapter 4.

Validity and Reliability

According to Brinberg and McGrath (as cited in Mckeown, Nerlich, & Todd,

2004), “Validity is not a commodity that can be purchased with techniques. . . . Rather

validity is like integrity, character, and quality, to be assessed relative to purposes and

circumstances” (p. 37). The mixed-method approach allowed the researcher to combine

or mix strategies (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The current mixed-methods study

united quantitative and qualitative approaches into a single research paradigm to allow

for complementary application of both methods (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

Johnson and Onwuegbuzie explained using a mixed-method approach produces a product

“superior to monomethod studies” (¶ 24). According to Hilton (2002), the purpose of

mixed methods research is triangulation.

Triangulation is the attempt to relate the different kinds of data in order to

enhance the validity of each type of data. Triangulation attempts to reduce the effects of

inherent biases from single-source studies through the additional potentially neutralizing

second sources (Hilton, 2002). The current research project used triangulation to enhance

the validity and reliability of the study. Triangulation of the methodologies occurred by

implementing both quantitative and qualitative methods in gathering data. Johnson and

Onwuegbuzie (2004) provided an example of the triangulation of methods: “Adding

qualitative focus group interviews to the research will serve as a check through direct

discussion the participants’ perspective, attitudes, opinions, experiences, and meanings of

the concepts under investigation” (¶ 23).

89

In past studies (Anderson, 2005; Laub, 1999; Miears, 2004; Thompson, 2002), the

OLA demonstrated high levels of reliability, indicating its usefulness for further research

in servant leadership. Laub indicated the OLA had a reliability of .98. The reliability

alpha coefficients of the six dimensions for the OCDQ-RE instrument are relatively high:

Supportive (α = .94), Directive (α = .88), Restrictive (α = .81), Collegial (α = .87),

Intimate (α = .83), and Disengaged (α = .78) (Hoy et al., 1991).

Construct validity refers to the nature of the construct or characteristic being

measured, with the measurement established through empirical evidence supporting the

instrument. In reference to the construct validity of the OCDQ-RE, Hoy et al. stated,

the index of teacher openness correlated positively with the original general

school openness index (r = .67, p < .01) as did the index of principal openness (r

= .52, p < .01). Moreover, the factor analysis supports the construct validity of

organizational climate. (p. 35)

Internal Validity

The greatest internal validity concern for the current research study was the

prevention of multiple submissions from participants, while maintaining anonymity. The

current study used an electronic method for quantitative survey collection, owing to the

large sample size. To prevent redundant submissions, the system recorded and

maintained the electronic address of each respondent. The electronic address was queried

electronically each time an individual attempted to access the survey site. The website

denied access to anyone using addresses existing in the address file. Following the

designated completion timeframe, the website and address files were expunged. At no

90

time during the data collection process was a connection made between the address log

and instrument responses.

To ensure accurate documentation of focus group interviews, the interviewer used

a tape recorder, providing a number of advantages. The tapes may be replayed for

transcription and analysis, and allow for emotions and feelings to be detected through

tone of voice. The transcripts provided a means of recall of exact conversation to avoid

relying on memory or note taking. Later supplemental interviews through telephone

conversations helped clarify any discrepancy of data.

External Validity

Leedy and Ormrod (2001) noted external validity measures a study’s

generalizability to other studies. External validity is assessed by the manner in which the

study’s conclusions extend beyond the present study. The current research study used

representative sampling to help ensure its external validity remained intact.

Representative samples are those drawn from a specific category, and generalizations are

made representing the entire category (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001). For example, later

researchers might apply the results from the current study to other English Catholic

school districts in Canada, as they will be similar in structure and design.

Summary

The purpose of the mixed-methods study was to correlate a measure of servant

leadership with a measure of school climate to identify the relationship between the

perceived practice of servant leadership and school climate within a Catholic school

board in Ontario, Canada. First, the research study consisted of gathering quantitative

survey data from a sample of elementary school principals and teachers. Second, post-

91

survey qualitative data were gathered, as determined by implementing a nonprobability

sampling technique or until no new theme emerged.

A mixed-methods study was the most appropriate approach for the current study

because the complimentary nature of the mixed method allows analysis to emerge,

revealing additional aspects of the topic. The current research project measured the

strength of association between school climate and servant leadership and justified

whether it was statistically significant. Correlational coefficients determined relationships

between the six constructs of the OLA and the six dimensions of the OCDQ-RE to

identify relationships between the perceived practice of servant leadership and school

climate. The technique of canonical correlation explicated the strength and direction of

the correlation between the perceptions of servant leadership and the perceptions of

school climate for principals and teachers. The qualitative data from the focus group

interviews was analyzed using Renner’s (2003) five-step process in interpreting the

qualitative data. The final process of the research project was to use triangulation of the

data to enhance the validity and reliability of the study.

Conclusion

Chapter 3 outlined the research methodology and design, reviewed the research

questions, described the population, explained data collection and analysis, and

established the validity and reliability. The research was designed to test the null

hypothesis stating that there is no correlation between perceptions of servant leadership

practices and perceptions of school climate by elementary principals and full-time

teachers of a Catholic school system in Ontario. Chapter 4 presents the research findings.

92

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS





in Ontario, Canada. The study employed a mixed-method approach, incorporating both

quantitative and qualitative methods by first administering two validated, quantitative

instruments: Laub's (1998) OLA (see Appendix A) and Hoy et al.’s (1991) OCDQ-RE

(see Appendix B). The second step involved conducting focus group interviews with a

subset of the participants.

Chapter 4 reports the findings of the mixed-method research utilizing the two

quantitative online surveys sent to 375 full-time principals and teachers working in one of

the 29 Catholic school boards in Ontario. Upon completion of the quantitative data

analysis, three qualitative focus group interviews were conducted with 24 of the 246

participants (10%). Chapter 4 outlines (a) the research questions; (b) missing data; (c)

data analysis procedures; and (d) the presentation of the analysis of the data and findings.

Research Questions

The data allowed an examination of the findings around two research questions:

1. What is the correlation, if any, between perceptions of servant leadership

practices and perceptions of school climate by elementary principals and full-time

teachers of a Catholic school board in Ontario?

93

2. What types of experiences, if any, do elementary principals and full-time teachers

have indicating the perception of servant leadership practices and the perception

of school climate?

Missing Data

In an attempt to ensure a minimum of 12 schools participated in the study, 15

elementary school principals were contacted. All 15 principals decided to have their

schools participate in the study. In all, 246 individuals participated in the study, resulting

in a 66% participation rate, and completed the OCDQ-RE. Two hundred thirty-seven

participants were included in the OCDQ-RE analysis, discarding nine participants’

responses who did not indicate their status (principal or teacher). The final number of

participants to complete the OLA was 181. Seven participants’ responses were discarded

from the analysis as their status was missing. Only 155 participants who responded to

both the OLA and OCDQ-RE were considered for the canonical correlation analysis.

Data Analysis Procedures

The teachers’ demographic data were summarized through descriptive statistics.

Means, ranges, and standard deviations were determined for the variables of age, number

of years teaching experience, and number of years teaching at their current school. The

demographic data were summarized for the gender distribution. The demographic data

were analyzed to identify potential intervening variables influencing the dependent

variable.

The data from the OLA and the OCDQ-RE were summarized with descriptive

statistics. The OLA has six unique constructs, and the OCDQ-RE has six dimensions:

three principal constructs and three teacher constructs. The teachers’ and principals’

94

perceptions about servant leadership and school climate were analyzed separately, and

their perceptions were juxtaposed to determine if they differed significantly.

Analyses of principals’ and teachers’ perceptions at each school and aggregate

level (while considering all schools altogether) was an important part of the current

research. After categorizing individuals per OLA constructs (Laub, 1999), construct

scores (i.e., values people, develops people, builds community, displays authenticity,

provides leadership, and shares leadership), not individuals’ raw scores, were used for

final analysis. The purpose was to determine how well individuals within the school had

been implementing the principles of servant leadership. Based on the overall score on the

OLA, an organization was classified into one of the six categories. A detailed explanation

of each of the six organizational categories is in Appendix I.

The OCDQ-RE instrument uses six dimensions (i.e., supportive behavior,

directive behavior, restrictive behavior, collegial behavior, intimate behavior, and

disengaged behavior) to produce six subtest scores. The openness of a school’s climate

“is interpreted the same way as the subtest scores, that is, the mean of the ‘average’

school is 500. A score of 650 on teacher openness represents a highly open faculty” (Hoy

et al., 1991, p. 143). Hoy et al. recommended using all six dimensions to get an accurate

representation of school climate (Hoy et al., 1991).

Correlational coefficients determined relationships between the six constructs of

the OLA and the six dimensions of the OCDQ-RE to identify relationships between the

perceived practice of servant leadership and school climate. The technique of canonical

correlation explicated the strength and direction of the correlation between the

perceptions of servant leadership and the perceptions of school climate for principals and

95

teachers. The six constructs of OLA and six dimensions of OCDQ-RE measured the

perceptions of servant leadership and school climate, respectively.

The 66 survey questions were assessed on the same 5-point Likert-type scale (0 =

No response or Undecided, 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 =

Strongly Agree). To calculate the final score of each OLA construct, the recoded values

of each construct’s questions were summed. In the same fashion, OCDQ-RE dimensions

created the final correlation analysis. The OCDQ-RE dimensions stemmed from 42

survey questions based on a 5-point Likert-type scale (0 = No Response, 1 = Rarely

occurs, 2 = Sometimes occurs, 3 = Often occurs, 4 = Very frequently occurs).

Analysis of the qualitative data obtained through the post-survey qualitative focus

group interviews followed established methods using QSR NVivo 7. Taylor-Powell and

Renner (2003) detailed a five-step process involved in accurate qualitative data analysis,

which was used in interpreting the qualitative data from the post-interview surveys. The

first step in the process was to review all the information, often in the form of jotting

down notes in the margins of text (e.g., interview transcriptions) (Taylor-Powell &

Renner, 2003). The second step was to focus the analysis by reviewing the purpose of the

research project (Taylor-Powell & Renner, 2003).

The third step was to identify codes and develop coding categories for the data

(Taylor-Powell & Renner, 2003). The researcher brought meaning to the words by using

the categories to identify similar phrases, patterns, relationships, and commonalities and

disparities (Taylor-Powell & Renner, 2003). The focus group interviews were transcribed

and evaluated for themes and textual descriptions of lived experiences using the

qualitative assessment tool QSR NVivo 7 to find the frequency of data reported by the

96

participants. Use of the QSR NVivo 7 software facilitated the categorization of the focus

group interview data into themes, patterns, ideas, and textural descriptions. Coded data

allowed answers to the research questions to be converted into numerical data to reflect

the frequency of common terms and themes.

Organizing data into coherent categories is “the crux of qualitative analysis”

(Taylor-Powell & Renner, 2003, p. 2). Categorizing data from the current study involved

a coding process to break the transcripts into paragraphs, sentences, or phrases and

grouping the data into common themes. The servant leadership constructs and the school

climate dimensions aided the organization of the focus group interview transcriptions by

emergent themes (Patton, 2002).

After these data were coded, the fourth step isolated meaningful patterns and

processes to identify connections and patterns among categories (Taylor-Powell &

Renner, 2003). Completion of the interview transcription, transfer, and coding of

emergent themes signaled transition to a more aggressive phase of analysis. Initiating

reintegration of the data involved expanding, collapsing, merging, and creating categories

most representative of the initial interpretation of meaning (Patton, 2002). Collapsing and

merging categories resulted from determining how themes repeated across contexts.

Rather than maintaining stand-alone themes (e.g., accepted, accepting, acceptance) or

excluding single themes, such as accept, it was appropriate to capture thoughts and

phrases under broader categories. Repeating thoughts and phrases under multiple

categories maintained the integrity of individual contexts and reflected the inter-

relatedness and complexity of influences on servant leadership and school climate.

97

With all interview transcriptions coded manually and in QSR NVivo 7 for

constant comparison, a final search of the data confirmed no new emergent themes.

Selecting edited text from throughout each transcription presented coherent thoughts

representing themes and patterns. Removing redundant expressions and extraneous

words, such as like, I said, and you know, aided the flow of thoughts. Final editing and

data organization of the focus group interviews provided an overview of the context of

servant leadership and school climate experiences. Interpretation was the fifth and final

step in the qualitative data analysis and involved making sense of the data by attaching

meaning based on theories (Taylor-Powell & Renner, 2003).

Findings

The findings of the current study are divided into four sections. The first section

reports the demographic data regarding the participants in the study. A detailed

presentation of the quantitative statistics is followed by the qualitative data obtained in

the study as they relate to the research questions. The section will conclude with a

summary.

Demographic Statistics

In addition to completing the Informed Consent Form, participants were also

asked to report their age, gender, years working with the school board, and years working

at their current work assignment. The Demographic Statistics section of the chapter

details these self-reported demographic data according to participants’ roles as either

principals or teachers. All 246 participants who completed the Informed Consent Form

are included in the Demographic Statistics section. The n varies by item, as some

respondents did not complete all items. Two hundred thirty-seven participants were

98

included in the OCDQ-RE analysis. The final number of participants to complete the

OLA was 181. Only 155 participants who responded to both the OLA and OCDQ-RE

were considered for the canonical correlation analysis. Twenty-four individuals from the

sample participated in the focus group surveys.

Age

Participants who identified themselves as teachers ranged in age from 24 years

old to 57 years old, with a mean age of 38.25 years (SD = 9.5). Participants who

identified themselves as principals ranged in age from 35 years old to 56 years old, with a

mean age of 44.73 years (SD = 6.04). There were also three teachers and one principal

who declined to disclose their age. Figure 2 shows the comparison between teachers’ and

principals’ summary statistics of age.

56

35

44.73

6.04

57

24

38.25

9.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Mean SD Minimum Maximum

Summary Statistics of Age

Principal age Teacher age

Figure 2. Comparison between teachers’ and principals’ summary statistics of age.

99

Gender

Two hundred and forty-six individuals participated in the research study. One

hundred ninety-three participants identified themselves as female and 38 male. Fifteen

participants identified themselves as principals, 5 male and 10 females. Figure 3 shows

the comparison principals and teachers by gender.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Principals Teachers

Summary Statistics Gender

Males Females

Figure 3. Comparison between teachers’ and principals’ summary statistics of age.

Years Working with Research Study’s School Board

Participants who identified themselves as teachers ranged in years of service with

the school board in the research study ranged from 0.5 years to 34 years, with a mean

years of service to school board as 9.34 years (SD = 7.2). Participants who identified

themselves as principals ranged in years of service from 8 years to 27 years, with a mean

years of service with the school board as 18.77 years (SD = 5.29). Three teachers

declined to disclose their years working with the school board. Figure 4 shows the

comparison between teachers’ and principals’ summary statistics of years working for the

school board.

100

34

18.77

5.29

8

27

9.31 7.2

0.50

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Summary Statistics of Years Working with School Board

Principal years at board Teacher years at board

Figure 4. Teachers’ and principals’ summary statistics: Years of service with school

board.

Years Working at Current Assignment

Participants who identified themselves as teachers ranged in years of service at

their current assignment ranged in years from 0.5 years to 19 years, with a mean years of

service at current assignment of 3.71 years (SD = 3.31). Participants who identified

themselves as principals ranged from 0.5 years to 7 years, with a mean years of service at

current assignment of 4.07 years (SD = 2.01). Three teachers declined to disclose their

years working with the school board. Figure 5 shows the comparison between teachers’

and principals’ summary statistics of years working at their current assignment.

101

4.072.01 0.5

7

3.71 3.310.5

19

02468

101214161820


Summary Statistics of Years in Current Assignment

Principal years curr.ass. Teacher years curr.ass.

Figure 5. Teachers’ and principals’ summary statistics: Years of service at current

assignment.

Quantitative Data

One research question framed the quantitative data exploration: What is the

correlation, if any, between perceptions of servant leadership practices and perceptions of

school climate by elementary school principals and full-time teachers of a Catholic

school board in Ontario? The description of the quantitative data are divided into three

sections: the canonical correlation analysis, summary of OLA data, and summary of

OCDQ-RE data.

Canonical Correlation Analysis

The canonical correlation analysis was performed by combining teachers and

principals into the same analysis. In the overall canonical correlation analysis, PROC

CANCORR, a prewritten subroutine of the SAS program, created new canonical

variables from both the OCDQ-RE and OLA lists and then calculated the resulting

102

correlations. For example, the first canonical variable for OCDQ-RE was created from

the VAR list and labeled OCDQ1.

The new variable was a linear combination of the six dimensions of OCDQ-RE:

supportive, directive, restrictive, collegial, intimate, and disengaged. In the same fashion,

another canonical variable was created and named OLA1, which was a linear

combination of the six constructs of OLA: values people, develops people, builds

community, displays authenticity, provides leadership, and shares leadership. The SAS

computer software computed the correlation between the new canonical variables

OCDQ1 and OLA1.

The canonical correlation had a value of 0.66 (p < .0001). Five more canonical

variables were created; and their correlations were computed at 0.54 (p < .001), 0.36 (p <

.01), 0.29, 0.11, and 0.03. These values provide a sense of the degree of association

between the OLA and OCDQ-RE variables. At 0.66, the relationship was significant. The

table in Appendix J shows the canonical correlation analysis using the CANCORR

procedure. The null hypothesis, which was there would be no correlation between

perceptions of servant leadership practices and perceptions of school climate by

elementary principals and full-time teachers of a Catholic school system in Ontario, was

rejected by the research findings of the current dissertation.

A Principal Component Analysis decomposition of the canonical variables was

provided using SAS data output. The first three canonical variables accounted for most of

the data variability (92.82%), and the approximate F-test showed the first three

components to be significant (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.004) at less than a 5% level of

103

significance. The first three canonical variables had potential meaning and are displayed

in Table 6.

Table 6

Principal Component Analysis

Eigenvalue

Difference Proportion Cumulative Value F

Value

Num

DF

Den

DF

Pr

> F

0.77 0.35 0.53 0.53 0.31 5.28 36.00 630.72 0.31

0.42 0.26 0.29 0.82 0.56 3.67 25.00 536.44 0.56

0.15 0.06 0.11 0.93 0.79 2.26 16.00 443.62 0.79

0.09 0.08 0.06 0.99 0.91 1.64 9.00 355.48 0.91

0.01 0.01 0.008 0.99 0.99 0.48 4.00 294.00 0.99

0.0009 0.0006 1.0000 1.00 0.13 1.00 148.00 1.00

Examining the cross-correlation output of the canonical correlation analysis

revealed the supportive, intimate, and collegial dimensions of OCDQ-RE and the builds

community, values people, and displays authenticity constructs of OLA were the most

important contributors in the association between OLA and OCDQ-RE. Tables 7 and 8

display the output for the cross-correlational analysis.

104

Table 7

Correlations between the VAR Variables and Canonical Variables of the WITH Variables

OCDQ-RE

Dimension

OL1 OL2 OL3 OL4 OL5 OL6

Supportive 0.46 0.30 0.11 -0.08 -0.02 0.00

Directive 0.13 0.09 0.34 0.01 -0.02 0.00

Restrictive -0.06 0.01 0.18 -0.16 -0.06 -0.01

Collegial 0.06 0.37 0.17 -0.15 -0.01 0.00

Intimate 0.02 0.40 0.16 -0.04 0.00 -0.01

Disengaged 0.11 -0.11 0.22 -0.18 0.02 -0.01

Table 8

Correlations between the WITH Variables and Canonical Variables of WITH Variables

OCDQ1 OCDQ2 OCDQ3 OCDQ4 OCDQ5 OCDQ6

Values People 0.22 0.49 0.08 -0.02 -0.01 0.00

Develops People 0.41 0.36 0.06 0.04 -0.03 0.00

Builds Community 0.03 0.49 0.06 0.05 -0.02 0.01

Displays Authenticity 0.31 0.44 0.04 0.08 -0.01 0.00

Provides Leadership 0.28 0.35 0.13 0.10 -0.02 0.01

Shares Leadership 0.43 0.35 -0.008 0.03 -0.02 0.01

A summary of the correlational analysis showed the positive correlation between

the OLA and OCDQ-RE (see Appendix K). The data revealed the principals’ perceptions

of the association between OLA and OCDQ-RE were around 98%, whereas teachers’

perceptions of the association measured around 65%.

105


Table 9 juxtaposes the perception scores of principals and teachers who

participated in the OLA survey. Principals and teachers delineated their own

organizational leadership profiles through expressing their perceptions of servant

leadership in the OLA constructs: values people, develops people, builds community,

displays authenticity, provides leadership, and shares leadership. The results indicated

principals outweighed the teachers in all aspects of the OLA constructs.

In contrast, teachers were not as satisfied as the principals in their perceptions of

servant leadership with the organization. The OLA scores from the responses of all

participants yielded a mean of 226.71 (SD = 60.85). The revealed score placed the

organization in the category of a positively paternalistic organization, according to

Laub’s (2003) interpretation scale.

Table 9

Comparison of Teachers’ and Principals’ Perception Scores on Six OLA Constructs

Values

People

Develops

People

Builds

Community

Displays

Authenticity

Provides

Leadership

Shares

Leadership

Principal 39.88 36.77 43.05 49.61 38.05 41.83

Teacher 38.12 33.39 38.60 43.88 33.63 36.58


The climate of all schools was open, according to the principals’ perceptions.

Teachers were very “highly open and professional in their interaction with each other

(very high collegiality)” (Hoy et al., 1991, p. 147). They also “demonstrate a strongly

cohesive and substantial network of social support (very high intimacy) and they are

106

quite engaged in meaningful professional activities (very low disengagement)” (Hoy et

al., 1991, p. 147). According to the principals’ perceptions, there was not substantial

openness of the principals’ behavior (below average). Although principals were

supportive of teachers, they were also directive and restrictive in their behavior. Table 10

summarizes the principals’ perceptions of school climate.

Table 10

OCDQ-RE: Principals’ Perceptions

Supportive

Behavior

Directive

Behavior

Restrictive

Behavior

Principal Openness

Principals’

Behavior

628.52

(Very

high)

630.95

(Very

high)

633.33

(Very high)

((Sds for S) + (1000 – Sds for D)

+ (1000 – Sds for R))/3

= 454.74 (Below average)

Collegial

Behavior

Intimate

Behavior

Disengaged

Behavior

Teacher Openness

Teachers’

Behavior

628.50

(Very

high)

627.77

(Very

high)

375.00

(Very low)

((Sds for C) + (Sds for In) +

(1000 – Sds for Dis))/3

= 627.09 (Very high)

Total = 1081.83

Teachers perceived the school climate as less open than the principals’ did.

Principals were not supportive of teachers (slightly below average); they were typically

directive and restrictive (slightly below average) in organizational environment. Although

teachers exhibited average collegial and intimate behavior, they treated themselves as less

107

engaged in their assigned activities (slightly above average disengaged behavior). Table

11 summarizes the data for the teachers’ perceptions of school climate.

Table 11

OCDQ-RE: Teachers’ Perceptions

Supportive

Behavior

Directive

Behavior

Restrictive

Behavior

Principal Openness

Principals’

Behavior

486.94

(Slightly

below

average)

488.09

(Slightly

below

average)

483.33

(Slightly

below

average)

((Sds for S) + (1000 – Sds for D)

+ (1000 – Sds for R))/3

= 505.17 (Average)

Collegial

Behavior

Intimate

Behavior

Disengaged

Behavior

Teacher Openness

Teachers’

Behavior

487.00

(Slightly

below

average)

487.67

(Slightly

below

average)

516.67

(Slightly

above

average)

((Sds for C) + (Sds for In) +

(1000 – Sds for Dis))/3

= 486 (Slightly below average)

Total = 991.17

Qualitative Data

Results from the analysis of the qualitative data describe participants’ experiences

of servant leadership and school climate. The individual experiences were significant to

addressing the second research question: What types of experiences, if any, do

elementary principals and full-time teachers have indicating the perception of servant

leadership practices and perception of school climate? Interpreting data results from the

108

servant leadership constructs and school climate dimensions facilitated understanding of

the meaning individuals assigned to their servant leadership and school climate

experiences. Focus group interviews contributed to the analysis and outcomes of the

study. Data results and findings are organized into sections according to themes: (a)

values people, (b) develops people, (c) build community, (d) display authenticity, (e)

provide leadership, (f) share leadership, (g) supportive principal behavior, (h) intimate

teacher behavior, and (i) collegial teacher behavior.

An introduction to each section identifies the theme and patterns derived from the

data. Participants’ quotes provide examples substantiating themes and patterns.

Participants are identified as either Focus Group Interview 1 (FG1), Focus Group

Interview 2 (FG2), or Focus Group Interview 3 (FG3), principal (P) or teacher (T), and

female (F) or male (M). Section introductions include a table summarizing the number of

response patterns to each theme.

Values People

Participants shared experiences they perceived as the servant leadership construct

values people. Laub (1999) described the values people construct as one in which others

“listen respectively, serve the needs of others first, and believe in people” (p. 83). Within

the major theme values people, six patterns emerged including accepted, appreciated,

compassionate, listening, respected, and valued. Table 12 shows the number of responses

for the values people theme.

109

Table 12

Responses to Servant Leadership Construct Values People

Theme: Values People Number of Responses

Accepted 10

Appreciated 7

Compassionate 4

Listening 3

Respected 8

Valued 10

Members from all three focus group interviews mentioned the theme of

acceptance and compassion among all the members of their school community. Two of

the groups referred to the idea that the acceptance type of behavior was transferred to

those witnessing and experiencing the values people construct in action. Participant FG3-

PF stated, “Acceptance of others and receptive listeners, that is all part of servant

leadership. We model that for the kids. Now, we are seeing a difference in the kids as

well.”

Participant FG1-TF shared a similar experience by explaining, “I think that it is

really important that the leader demonstrates that because if the leader does, as in our

school, then it really penetrates throughout the school.” Participants in the focus group

interviews provided specific examples of how the principal and staff members

demonstrated the values people construct personally. Reporting these specific situations

would reveal the identities of the participants.

110

Participant FG3-TF shared an experience that was a common thread in the

personal experiences. In a school with a large population, she noted she would

understand how one might get lost in the shuffle, but also knew she was appreciated. She

stated, “There is always something in your mail, a personal note, a special

acknowledgment, and that just makes you feel that someone noticed. Definitely, you feel

appreciated.”

Develops People

Laub (1999) described the construct of develops people as “providing

opportunities for learning, modeling appropriate behavior, and building up others through

encouragement” (p. 83). Within the major theme develops people, six patterns emerged

including affirmation, challenge, develop, encouragement, mentors, and recognition.

Table 13 shows the number of responses for the develops people theme. Participants

described experiences they perceived as the servant leadership construct develops people.

Table 13

Responses to Servant Leadership Construct Develops People

Theme: Develops People Number of Responses

Affirmation 3

Challenge 4

Develop 3

Encouragement 2

Mentors 3

Recognition 2

111

Discussion from the three focus group interview discussions converged on the

theme of develops people through the pattern of the terms recognition, encouragement, or

affirmation. Participant FG2-TF stated, “I have actually gotten emails from

administration saying thank you for doing this, or we appreciate you here or having you

do this. Which is great, it makes me want to do more.” She continued by disclosing,

“When somebody says to me thank you for coaching volleyball, it makes me want to do

it next year. It goes a long way.”

Participants in Focus Group Interview 1 indicated similar experiences as

participants in Focus Group 3. Participant FG1-TF was inspired when the principal

worked to improve herself: “You try to get better because of that, because you feel valued

and you feel important. We all need that positive reinforcement.” She continued the

discussion by sharing her thoughts: “We are human beings, just like children. If you say

to a student, I love the way you do that, you can see a big smile on their face. We are the

same way, we are like children ourselves.”

Builds Community

Participants described experiences they perceived as the servant leadership

construct builds community. Laub (1999) described the builds community construct as

one that “builds strong relationships, works collaboratively, and values individual

differences” (p. 83). Within the major theme builds community, four patterns emerged

including collaborate, collegial, community, and welcomed. Table 14 shows the number

of responses for the builds community theme.

Compared to all the other themes in the current study, community had the most

responses. Anecdotal records noted laughter during the focus group interview discussions

112

for the builds community construct theme. Each group discussed shared experiences

generating laughter and a sense of esprit de corps among the participants.

Table 14

Responses to Servant Leadership Construct Builds Community

Theme: Builds Community Number of Responses

Collaborate 5

Collegial 4

Community 16

Welcomed 2

In reference to the statement about attempting to work with others more than

working on their own, Participant FG3-PF responded light heartedly, “For survival, I

think more than anything.” The comment was followed by laughter from the group. She

continued, “For example, sharing of resources. When you are sharing with others, it is

easier.”

Participant FG3-TM concurred sharing made his role as a teacher easier knowing

what his peers were doing. He explained, “My teaching partner and I walk each day to

get our attendance. At that time, we find out what the other is doing exactly over the next

couple days.”

Displays Authenticity

Laub (1999) described the displays authenticity construct as “integrity and trust,

openness and accountability, and a willingness to learn from others” (p. 83). Within the

major theme displays authenticity, only one pattern of trust emerged. Table 15 shows the

113

number of responses for the displays authenticity theme. Participants described

experiences they perceived as the servant leadership construct displays authenticity.

Table 15

Responses to Servant Leadership Construct Displays Authenticity

Theme: Displays Authenticity Number of Responses

Trust 8

The servant leadership construct displayed authenticity generated the least amount

of discussion of experiences of the six servant leadership constructs. Focus Group 2 and

Focus Group 3 brought the theme of trust to the discussion on two different levels. The

first level of trust discussion surrounded a principal’s need for her to trust her staff to

achieve previously set goals without directly supervising the teachers.

Participant FG3-TF explained, “Because we are so big, and we have divisional

meetings and then we separate into grade meetings, the principal cannot go to all 12

different locations at once.” According to Participant FG3-TF, the principal “trusts staff

to take on that role in those locations and then she over sees it all.” The second level of

trust focused on the confidentiality of a personal issue. Participant FG2-TF described her

situation: “This week I found out that I have to change schools. There were definitely

people who I knew I could go to and trust talking about it and make me feel better about

it.”

Provides Leadership

Participants described experiences they perceived as the servant leadership

construct provides leadership. Laub (1999) described the provides leadership construct as

one that embraces “envisioning the future, taking intuitive, and clarifying goals” (p. 83).

114

Within the major theme provides leadership, three patterns emerged including goal, plan,

and vision. Table 16 shows the number of responses for the provides leadership theme.

Table 16

Responses to Servant Leadership Construct Provides Leadership

Theme: Provides Leadership Number of Responses

Goal 8

Plan 5

Vision 4

The participants in all three focus group interviews believed the successes of

servant leadership principals were for them to have a vision. Participant FG1-TM

believed it was important for the principal to have a vision and goals based on research.

As a teacher, he supported the principal by “following along and do our best to fit that

situation. It is best that the principal makes those decisions and allows us to have our

input in the process.”

Participant FG1-TM continued by stating the goals were not achieved through

coercion, but rather by including teachers as part of the process. Participants in Focus

Group Interview 3 asserted sharing the school’s vision with the entire school community

was critical to the success of the goals. Participant FG3-PF explained,

That is the biggest difference, how the community sees us and how we are

interacting with the community in terms of our goals. Our biggest impact is

building on the same thought philosophy, getting families to support it as well.

115

Shares Leadership

Laub (1999) described the shares leadership construct as encompassing

characteristics such as “creates a shared vision, sharing decision-making power, and

sharing status and privilege at all levels of the organization” (p. 83). Within the major

theme values people, five patterns emerged including colleagues, focus, opportunity,

sharing, and team. Table 17 shows the number of responses for the shares leadership

theme. Participants described experiences they perceived as the servant leadership

construct shares leadership.

Table 17

Responses to Servant Leadership Construct Shares Leadership

Theme: Shares Leadership Number of Responses

Colleagues 6

Focus 5

Opportunity 3

Sharing 10

Team 13

The principals participating in the focus group interviews agreed shared

leadership was essential to the success of the school. Participant FG1-PF shared her

experience of shared leadership: “I could not do what I do in this school as far as the

goals and progress that we make with our school improvement plan if I did not have

shared leadership.” She praised her supportive staff for taking on leadership in areas such

as discipline.

116

Participant FG1-PF believed sharing leadership “allows me to do what I believe

administration is moving towards and that is curriculum leadership.” She continued by

describing her staff as a team and herself as an “open book” because she shared

everything with them, including data. In turn, the school community “knows where they

are going.” Participant FG1-TF supported FG1-PF by stating, “The thing is, you buy into

it if you have a say in it. Then we are all committed to it.”

Supportive Principal Behavior

Participants described experiences they perceived as the school climate dimension

supportive principal behavior. Hoy et al. (1991) described the school climate dimension

supportive principal behavior as one in which “the principal uses constructive criticism,

compliments teachers, and listens to and accepts teachers’ suggestions” (p. 27-28).

Within the major theme supportive principal behavior, six patterns emerged including

acknowledgment, affirmation, encouragement, listening, mentor, and supportive. Table

18 shows the number of responses for the supportive principal behavior theme.

Table 18

Responses to School Climate Dimension Supportive Principal Behavior

Theme: Supportive Principal Behavior Number of Responses

Acknowledgement 2

Affirmation 3

Encouragement 2

Listening 3

Mentor 9

Supportive 5

117

The discussion in two of the focus group interviews focused on how the principals

presented feedback on teachers’ performance. Both groups agreed the experience was

positive in that they felt they learned how to become better professionals. Participant

FG2-TF explained, “I found that with my teacher performance appraisal I got some

feedback. I got something I could use or that I could work on and I appreciated that.”

Participants in Focus Group 2 continued the dialogue of supportive behavior by the

administration. Participant FG2-TF described her experience with the principal and vice

principal as one with “balance” by “making sure that we are doing what we are supposed

to be doing without micro managing and they share the information that they are given

and they are leading us through it.”

Collegial Teacher Behavior

Participants described experiences they perceived as the school climate dimension

collegial teacher behavior. Hoy et al. (1991) described the school climate dimension

collegial teacher behavior as one in which “teachers help and support each other, respect

the professional competence of their colleagues, and accomplish their work with vim,

vigor, and pleasure” (p. 27-28). Within the major theme collegial teacher behavior, only

one pattern of collegial emerged. Table 19 shows the number of responses for the

collegial teacher behavior theme.

Table 19

Responses to School Climate Dimension Collegial Teacher Behavior

Theme: Collegial Teacher Behavior Number of Responses

Collaboration 9

118

The discussion for collegial teacher behavior experiences focused on the amount

of time teachers spent at the school and socializing among teachers. The OSCDQ-RE

statement, teachers leave school immediately after school is over, generated the dialogue

about time spent at school. Participant FG2-TF explained her thoughts on time spent

working after the dismissal bell: “We learn very early on as teachers at the faculty of

education you have to pick your energy zone. If you are more energetic in the mornings,

then you should come to do your work in the mornings.” She continued by stating, “If

you have teachers who are very keen about their profession they know their energy zone.

They know when they need to be at work – be it in the morning or at night.”

All three focus group interviews discussed situations at previous schools where

cliques or tight social groups formed among teachers. Participant FG2-TF described her

experience with teachers socializing, “I have been on staffs where it has been very

cliquey. You would not dare sit in that chair at lunch. But at this school, you walk in and

you sit with whoever and where ever you want.”

Participant FG2-TF continued by explaining, “We do not have these little

exclusive groups that some schools have. These cliques affect all other things like not

being readily accepted by your colleagues, not helping and supporting each other.” The

same participant explained the school was welcoming to everyone. At her school,

everyone was accepted and their faults were viewed as differences.

Intimate Teacher Behavior

Hoy et al. (1991) described the school climate dimension intimate teacher

behavior as one in which “teachers socialize with each other, and their closest friends are

other faculty members at the school.” (p. 27-28). Participants described experiences they

119

perceived as the school climate dimension intimate teacher behavior. Within the major

theme, intimate teacher behavior, five patterns emerged including comfortable,

compassion, family, friends, and welcome. Table 20 shows the number of responses for

the intimate teacher behavior theme.

Table 20

Responses to School Climate Dimension Intimate Teacher Behavior

Theme: Intimate Teacher Behavior Number of Responses

Comfortable 7

Compassion 4

Family 6

Friends 4

Welcome 9

All three focus group interviews discussed how important it was to socialize with

other staff members. All agreed they knew the family backgrounds of the other staff

members. Participant FG2-TF stated, “We know the family backgrounds, well not

extensively, but we know something of them and I think that it is because of how

collegial we are.” She continued to explain the teachers’ closeness with one another

helped explain their caring toward each other.

Participant FG2-TF described the concern and compassionate relationships among

teachers at her school: “If you know of something that is going on that is not so filled

with sunshine in someone’s life. You give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to

120

things like tasks not done on time.” The discussion during Focus Group 1 centered on

how important socializing at school was to a person’s motivation for coming to school.

Participant FG1- TF explained, “I think that that socializing is important because

if you do that, then it is a positive thing about coming to school, and you look forward to

coming knowing that you are going to have fun.” The discussion continued with teachers

agreeing it was important for teachers to make the time to visit the staff room to learn,

laugh, and socialize. Participant FG1-TF explained the importance of making time to go

to the staff room: “It is so important to take that time because sitting together having a

meal – it is a celebration – it is a good time for people to sit down and learn about each

others’ family or what ever.”

Summary

As part of the current dissertation, chapter 4 has presented the data derived from

full-time elementary school teachers and principals in a Catholic school board in Ontario.

Participants completed the survey instruments OLA (Laub, 1998) and the OCDQ-R (Hoy

et al., 1991). The canonical correlation revealed a significant positive correlation between

servant leadership and school climate. The results suggested the organization as a whole

was classified as a positively paternalistic organization, according to Laub’s (2003)

interpretation scale.

The principals and the teachers viewed their school climate as open according to

the OCDQ-RE data. The focus group interviews provided experiences of servant

leadership and school climate practices. Chapter 5 explores the relevance of the findings

and discusses conclusions, implications, recommendations for Catholic school leaders,

and future research.

121

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The best leadership practices can promote exemplary standards of excellence,

both in the academic achievement of students and the professional growth of staff

members. In pursuit of these goals, many leadership theories, models, and styles have

been subjected to extensive quantitative and qualitative analyses. Researchers recognized

the need for servant leadership to be exposed to considerable critical analysis in order to

provide sufficient empirical data to translate the theory into an acceptable level of

academic credibility (Anderson, 2005; Herbst, 2003; Milligan, 2003; Sendjaya & Sarros,

2002; Taylor, 2002). The empirical data collected from the present research study

contribute to the practical application of a theoretical dialogue regarding servant

leadership and school climate.


servant leadership with a measure of perceived school climate to identify whether there

was a relationship between principals’ and teachers’ perceived practice of servant

leadership and principals’ and teachers’ perception of school climate within a Catholic

school board in Ontario, Canada. The study employed a mixed-method approach by first

administering two validated quantitative instruments: Laub's (1998) OLA (see Appendix

A) and Hoy et al.’s (1991) OCDQ-RE (see Appendix B). These instruments were

administered to a randomly-selected sample of 246 full-time principals and teachers

working in one of the 29 Catholic school boards in Ontario.

Upon completion of the quantitative data analysis, post-survey, qualitative, focus

group interviews were conducted with 10% of the sample. The subset of the sample was

determined by using a non-probability sampling technique, until no new themes emerged.

122

The purpose of the qualitative component was to ensure accurate interpretation of the

data through triangulation. Chapter 5 addresses four subtopics: (a) summary of findings,

(b) conclusions, (c) implications of results to leadership, and (d) recommendations for

action by Catholic school leaders and for future research.

As part of the current dissertation study, chapter 4 presented the data derived from

principals and full-time teachers in a Catholic school board in Ontario, Canada who

completed two survey instruments: OLA (Laub, 1998) and the OCDQ-RE (Hoy et al.,

1991). The results suggested a significant positive relationship between the perceptions of

servant leadership practices and perceptions of school climate. Data from OLA suggested

the organization as a whole was classified as a positively paternalistic organization,

according to Laub’s (2003) interpretation scale. The OCDQ-RE data further revealed the

schools were considered open according to the principals’ and teachers’ perceptions. Data

from the focus group interviews provided experiences of servant leadership and school

climate practices

Summary

The null hypothesis, which was there would be no correlation between

perceptions of servant leadership practices and perceptions of school climate by

elementary principals and full-time teachers of a Catholic school system in Ontario, was

rejected by the research findings of the current dissertation. The summary section

examines the results from the study beginning with the quantitative data. The summary of

the quantitative data are divided into three sections: the canonical correlation analysis,

summary of the OLA data, and summary of the OCDQ-RE data. A summary of the

qualitative data is followed by triangulation of the data.

123

Quantitative Data

Canonical Correlation Analysis

The overall canonical correlation analysis, which combined the teachers and

principals in the same analysis, suggested a significant positive relationship between the

perceptions of servant leadership practices and perceptions of school climate. The cross

correlation analysis revealed the supportive, intimate, and collegial dimensions of the

OCDQ-RE and the builds community, values people, and displays authenticity constructs

of the OLA were the most important contributors in the association between the OLA and

the OCDQ-RE. The data further revealed a variation in the principals’ and teachers’

perceptions. The association between OLA and OCDQ-RE was around 98% for the

principals, whereas the association between teachers’ perceptions was around 65%.

Lambert (2004) conducted the only research identifying a relationship between

servant leadership and school climate. Lambert examined the correlation between servant

leadership and school climate and the overall academic success of the school. Lambert’s

study revealed a significant relationship between servant leadership and school climate.

The difference between Lambert’s (2004) study and The current researchwas

Lambert used only the OLA as a means to measure both the teachers’ and principal’s

perceptions of servant leadership and school climate. The job satisfaction items from the

OLA served as the school climate indicator. The current study measured servant

leadership behaviors and the school climate dimensions separately, with two different

survey instruments, contributing to both the validity and reliability of the study.

Additionally, Lambert’s study focused on secondary schools; and the current study used

the elementary panel as the sample population.

124

Research supported a positive correlation between leadership behaviors and

organizational climate in schools, as perceived by members of the organization (Coral &

Castle, 2005; Fullan et al., 2005; Kelley et al., 2005; Mulford et al., 2004; Waters et al.,

2004). The current dissertation begins to fill the void in empirical evidence supporting the

relationship between servant leadership behaviors and school climate.


The hypothesis for The current researchcan be divided into three parts: the

correlational analysis, the perception of servant leadership, and the perception of school

climate. The perception of servant leadership was addressed with the data from the OLA.

The results obtained through the OLA demonstrated a rating of 226.71 out of a possible

300, or 75.57% of the potential score. The score placed the organization in the category

of a positively paternalistic organization, according to Laub’s (2003) interpretation scale.

The benchmark to cross from being a positively paternalistic organization (level

4) to a servant-oriented organization (level 5) is a score of 240 (Laub, 2003). Previous

studies have used the OLA in other organizations and followed the same method for

calculating the score and rating level of servant leadership with the organization. Six of

the eight organizations were given the label of positively paternalistic organization.

The studies are presented in order of greater level to lowest. Women-led business

in Braye’s (2000) study achieved the highest score of 252.60 or 84.24% of the potential

OLA score. Braye acknowledged the response rate of only 2% of those invited to

participate in the study was a significant limitation. Anderson’s (2005) study of the

Church Educational System of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rated a

125

score of 247.08, or 82.36% of the potential score. Braye’s (2000) and Anderson’s

organizations under study were classified at the servant-oriented organizational level.

The following organizations were rated as level four and lower. Members of

social enterprise organizations rated a score of 230.45 or 76.81% of the potential score

(Klamon, 2006). Horsman’s (2001) study of community service organizations rated those

organizations as 214.74, or 71.58% of the potential OLA score. Thompson’s (2002)

church-related college found a rating of 213.73 or 71.24% of the potential score;

Ledbetter (2003) found a law enforcement agency had a rating of 210.52, or

70.17% of the potential score. Miears (2004) found a public school district yielded an

OLA score of 211.43, or 70.47% of the potential OLA score. Members of a Franciscan-

sponsored university community scored 195.7, or 65.23% of the potential OLA score

(Van Tassell, 2006).

Rating a score of 226.71, or 75.57% of the potential score of the OLA, did not

allow for the elementary schools in the Catholic school board in the current study to be

classified as servant-oriented organizations. The score placed the organizations only

4.43% below the 240 benchmark score, and above most organizations studied for servant

leadership practices. The higher mean OLA score lends support to the claim that faith

based schools, similar to the Catholic schools in the current study, are more likely to

implement the principles of servant leadership.


The climate of all schools was open, according to the principals’ perceptions.

Teachers were “highly open and professional in their interaction with each other (very

high collegiality)” (Hoy et al., 1991, p. 147). They also “demonstrate[d] a strongly

126

cohesive and substantial network of social support (very high intimacy), and they are

quite engaged in meaningful professional activities (very low disengagement)” (Hoy et

al., 1991, p. 147).

Teachers perceived the school climate as less open than the principals’

perceptions. Principals were perceived as supportive of teachers (slightly below average);

they were typically directive and restrictive (slightly below average) in the organizational

environment. Although teachers exhibited average levels of collegial and intimate

behavior, they treated themselves as less engaged in their assigned activities (slightly

above average disengaged behavior).

The results from the OCDQ-RE data in the current study supported the notion that

in a healthy, open school environment, administration, teachers, and students had a

positive relationship with one another (Hoy et al. 2002). The principal was perceived as

positive, supportive, and friendly to staff and students and had high expectations for

teachers while helping in any way possible (Hoy et al., 2002). In healthy school

environments, teachers worked well with colleagues and enjoyed their students and jobs

(Hoy et al., 2002).

Qualitative Data

The individual experiences shared during the focus group interviews were

significant for addressing the research question about the types of experiences elementary

principals and full-time teachers had indicating the perception of servant leadership

practices and perception of school climate. The servant leadership constructs with the

greatest number of patterns were values people (6 patterns), develops people (6 patterns),

and shares leadership (5 patterns). The school climate dimensions with the greatest

127

number of responses were supportive principal behavior (6 patterns), intimate teacher

behavior (5 patterns), and collegial teacher behavior (1 pattern). The patterns with the

greatest number of responses were community, team, and sharing. The school climate

patterns with the greatest number of responses were mentor, welcome, and collaboration.

The themes and patterns from the focus group interviews were similar to the traits

Spears (1998) believed were essential for any servant leader. The 10 traits described by

Spears were (a) listening, (b) empathy, (c) healing, (d) awareness, (e) persuasion, (f)

conceptualization, (g) foresight, (h) stewardship, (i) commitment to the growth of people,

and (j) building community. The traits Spears detailed as servant leadership attributes

included in the patterns from the focus group interviews were listening (3 responses) and

community building (16 responses).

Some patterns, although not exact, fell under the categories of Spear’s (1998)

servant leadership traits, as they were similar in meaning. For example, the pattern

response of compassion supported the servant leadership trait healing. The compassionate

servant leader is committed to look for opportunities to heal both the person and the

community to make them whole (Spears, 1998).

Similarly, Spear’s (1998) conceptual leaders had characteristics of visionaries and

were innovators in their institutions. The servant leader visionary attribute requires the

servant leader to balance looking beyond the short-term to the long-term vision of the

organization (Spears, 1998). The patterns of goals, plans, and vision were popular

responses in the focus group interviews and fell under the category of the conceptual

attribute.

128

Triangulation

Hilton (2002) stated triangulation is not simply a combination of data, but an

attempt to relate different kinds of data to enhance the validity of each type of data.

Triangulation reduces the effects of the inherent biases from single-source studies

through the addition of potentially neutralizing second sources (Hilton, 2002). Yauch and

Steudel (2003) explained triangulation provides greater validity and greater cultural

understanding.

Triangulation of the current study’s data provided a “more complete, holistic, and

contextual portrayal of the correlation” (Adami & Kiger, 2005, ¶ 7) between servant

leadership and school climate. Data from the canonical correlation revealed a significant

positive correlation between servant leadership and school climate. According to the

cross-correlation analysis of the canonical correlation analysis, builds community, values

people, and displays authenticity constructs of OLA and supportive, intimate, and

collegial dimensions of OCDQ-RE were the most important contributors in the

association between OLA and OCDQ-RE.

Similarly, data analysis of the qualitative data revealed the servant leadership

constructs with the greatest number of patterns were values people, develops people, and

shares leadership. The school climate dimensions with the greatest number of patterns

were supportive principal behavior, intimate teacher behavior, and collegial teacher

behavior. Combining the data revealed four of the six items were the same.

Community, the pattern with the greatest response rate, could be considered a

fifth similar factor. Triangulation of the data contributed to the validity and reliability of

the current study. The empirical evidence from the current dissertation research supports

129

the notion of a positive correlation between perceived servant leadership and school

climate practices. The following conclusion section provides a summary of the significant

contribution the present study has to research literature.

Conclusions

There were limited empirical data addressing the relationship between elementary

school principal servant leaders and school climate. Findings from the current dissertation

study contribute to filling the current research literature void. The present study

supported the findings of other researchers exploring the relationship between secondary

principals’ servant leadership and job satisfaction using the OLA (Anderson, 2005;

Miears, 2004).

The researchers found a positive correlation between perceived servant leadership

practices and job satisfaction. The present study revealed a positive correlation between

servant leadership practices and school climate. Empirical evidence reported the principal

is at least partially responsible for setting the tone of the school (Coral & Castle, 2005;

Kelley et al., 2005; Mulford et al., 2004; Waters et al., 2004).

According to the above researchers, the tone or school climate needs to develop

open, genuine, and inclusive relationships. The present research indicated these attributes

were similar to the characteristics of a servant leader. Implications of the present study

for leadership globally and for the leaders of the Catholic school board in the current

study are addressed in the following section.

Implications

Current and future school leaders face significant challenges, including high-

stakes evaluation programs, reduced fiscal and staffing resources, and increased public

130

expectations for students’ achievement. Kerfoot (2005) noted complex and ever-evolving

organizations need leaders intimately allied with those they lead. Servant leaders have the

potential to bring about a balanced alliance. Bass (2000) found servant leadership had a

place in educational organizations in the new millennium because the servant leadership

style is based on teamwork and community, “involving others in decision-making, is

strongly based in ethical and caring behavior, and enhances the growth of people in the

learning organization” (p. 33).

Global Leadership

The empirical data collected from the present research study contribute to the

practical application of a theoretical dialogue regarding servant leadership in several key

areas. First, correlational analysis from the current study provides insight into practical

implications for how principals might implement servant leadership principles to affect a

positive school climate. Second, the study provides insight into areas of emphasis for

individuals responsible for developing effective leadership programs using servant

leadership principles. Third, the current research contributes to the construction of the

concept of servant leadership. Fourth, correlational analyses using the OLA assessment

instrument may provide greater confidence in the validity of the instrument to strengthen

claims the OLA accurately assesses servant leadership principles (Anderson, 2005; Laub,

1998; Miears, 2004; Thompson, 2002).

Organizational Leadership

Analysis from the present study provides insight into principles of servant

leadership that need further development and training, most notably, the variance

between the principals’ perceptions of servant leadership and perceptions of school

131

climate. Training in areas of noted weakness could improve principals’ leadership skills,

which could in turn improve the schools’ climates and reduce the variance between the

teachers’ and principals’ perceptions. The improved school climate could lead to

improved academic achievement.

Specific information obtained from the current study may be useful to the leaders

in the present study. For example, the teachers’ perceptions of their organization’s

servant leadership practices rated the constructs of develops people and provides

leadership as the weakest areas. The Catholic school board in the current study should

consider additional training to address these concerns.

Recommendations

The data produced from the present study contribute to the knowledge base in

general leadership studies with specific application in the field of servant leadership and

school climate. More research needs to be undertaken in the field of servant leadership

and education at both the elementary and secondary levels of public education to enhance

understanding of the implications servant leadership has on education. Further research

will add to the body of knowledge, enabling educators to make informed decisions to

improve the education of our children. The correlational data examining the relationship

between perceived servant leadership practices and perceived school climate from the

present study fill a void in the research literature. Further research is recommended for

studies within similar and different populations in order to verify the claim that there is a

significant positive correlation between perceived servant leadership practices and

perceived school climate.

132

Additional studies are also recommended among populations of differing cultures,

national origin, and religious and non-religious educational institutions to compare the

implementation of servant leadership principles among the various populations. These

future studies could provide data to demonstrate whether effective servant leadership is

limited to religious organizations or by those individuals who can effectively implement

the principles of servant leadership within an organization. These additional studies could

demonstrate other factors not related to religion positively affect the implementation of

the principles of servant leadership

The number of participants responding to the OCDQ-RE was greater than the

number of participants responding to the OLA. The difference in participation rates could

have been due to the fact that the participants had to access the survey instruments

separately, and the OCDQ-RE was listed as first when the participant accessed the site. A

recommendation for future research would be to combine the surveys into one document,

reducing the possibility of individuals not opening the second survey.

Conclusion

The problem statement in chapter 1 described the lack of a fully established

relationship between servant leadership principles and school climate in the research

literature. Chapter 2 provided an overview of the problem statement variables. The

methodology outlined in chapter 3 was applied to the data; and the results were presented

in graphical, tabular, and narrative form in chapter 4. Chapter 4 outlined the results from

the study, and chapter 5 provided a summary and conclusions drawn from the data along

with implications for leadership and recommendations for future research.

133

A generation of research has provided evidence demonstrating improved

academic achievement goals can be attained by effective school leaders attending to the

needs of school organizations (Coral & Castle, 2005; Kelley et al., 2005; Mulford et al.,

2004; Waters et al., 2004). Visionary, creative, knowledgeable, principled, and inspiring

educational leaders are vital to building and fostering a positive school environment to

meet public education goals in the 21st century (Simonson, 2005). Belief in the tenets of

servant leadership as a practical operational approach for school communities has gained

momentum among scholars and practitioners (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002).

The current study was intended to correlate the perceptions of elementary

principals and teachers within a Catholic school board in Ontario, Canada on the

implementation of the principles of servant leadership with their perceptions of school

climate. Although considerable writings promoting servant leadership have emerged in

recent years, the literature has been anecdotal in nature. The empirical data provided

through the current study contribute to the body of knowledge regarding the theory of

servant leadership.

The present study evaluated the correlation between the perception of servant

leadership and the perception of school climate. The results revealed a significant

positive correlation between the perceptions of servant leadership and the perceptions of

school climate. The current study further examined the lived experiences with servant

leadership and school climate of teachers and principals.

The data from the focus group interviews found patterns of traits in all six of

Laub’s (1998) servant leadership constructs and three of Hoy et al.,’s (1991) school

climate dimensions. The qualitative data could assist individuals in improving leader-

134

follower relationships through increased training in the practice of servant leadership.

Whether in the corporate boardroom, church pew, or school hallways, leaders are

embracing servant leadership as a legitimate leadership style for creating a positive and

productive environment. The future growth of the theory of servant leadership is

dependent on expanding the research of servant leading in educational and other

organizations with a range of culturally-diverse populations.

135

REFERENCES

Adami, M. F., & Kiger, A. (2005). The use of trangulation for completeness purposes.

Nurse Researcher, 12(4), 19-30. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from ProQuest

database.

Anderson, C. S. (1982). The search for school climate: A review of the research. Review

of Educational Research, 52(3), 368-420.

Anderson, K. P. (2005). A correlational analysis of servant leadership and job satisfaction

in a religious education organization. (Doctoral dissertation, University of

Phoenix, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(01), 239 (UMI No.

3162292)

Asante, S. K. (2005). Process and qualities for developing servant-shepherd leaders

within the Church of Pentecost for effective cross-cultural ministry (Doctoral

dissertation, Oral Roberts University, 2005). Dissertations Abstracts

International, 66(03), 1029. (UMI No. 3163178)

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2002). Developing potential across a full range of

leadership cases on transactional and transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bartlett, M. S. (1941). The statistical significance of canonical correlation. Biometrica,

32, 29-38.

Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of

Leadership Studies, 7(3), 18-40. Retrieved October 20, 2004, from ProQuest

database.

136

Baskerville, P. A. (2002). Ontario: Image, identity, and power. Don Mills, ON: Oxford

University.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, &

managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Beattie, M. (2002). Educational leadership: Modeling, mentoring, making and re-making

a learning community. European Journal of Teacher Education, 25(2/3), 199-

221.

Beaudoin, M. N., & Taylor, M. (2004). Creating a positive school culture: How

principals and teachers can solve problems together. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bennis, W. (2002). Become a tomorrow leader. In L. Spears (Ed.), Focus on leadership:

Servant-leadership for the twenty-first century (pp. 101-109). New York: Wiley.

Bennis, W. (2004). Why servant-leadership matters. In L. C. Spears & M. Lawrence

(Eds.), Practicing servant leadership: Succeeding through trust, bravery, and

forgiveness (pp. xi-xvi). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Bivins, D. C. (2005). A study of the correlation between servant leadership and ministry

Satisfaction in church leaders in Alaska (Doctoral dissertation, The Southern

Baptist Theological Seminary, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International,

66(03), 941. (UMI No. 3167901)

Blanchard, K., & Hodges, P. (2003). The servant leader: Transforming your heart, head,

hands and habits. Nashville, TN: J. Countryman.

Blum, M. (2002). The development of a servant leadership model for application to a

competitive team sport setting (Doctoral dissertation, United States Sports

137

Academy, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(06), 2173. (UMI No.

3058177)

Braye, R. H. (2000). Servant-leadership: Belief and practice in women-led business

(Doctoral dissertation, Walden University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts


Bridges, W. (1996). Leading the de-jobbed organization. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith,

& R. Bedkhard (Eds.). The leader of the future (pp. 11-18). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Bobic, M. P., & Davis, W. E. (2003). A kind word for Theory X: Or why so many new

fangled management techniques? Journal of Public Administration Research and

Theory, 13(3), 239-265. Retrieved March 17, 2007, from ProQuest database.

Bogle, J. C. (2004). On the right side of history. In L. C. Spears, & M. Lawrence (Eds.),

Practicing servant leadership: Succeeding through trust, bravery, and forgiveness

(pp. 91-112). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Broga, A. B. (2003). And everything’s the same: Transformation of a campus through the

eyes of an intended change agent (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(03), 817.

(UMI No. 3086021)

Brookover, W. B., Schweitzer, J. H., Schneider, J. M., Beady, C. H., Flood, P. K., &

Wisenbaker, J. M. (1978). Elementary school social climate and school

achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15(2), 301-318.

Brown, P. (2006). Preparing principals for today’s demands. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(7),

525-527. Retrieved July 15, 2006, from ProQuest database.

138

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

807-810.

Brymer, E., & Gray, T. (2006). Effective leadership: Transformational or transactional?

Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 10(2), 13-20. Retrieved March 18,

2007, from Thomson Gale database.

Cantwell, J. G. (2003). A study of the relationship of principal leadership, teacher

interaction, and school climate on three years of Pennsylvania System of School

Assessment test data (Doctoral dissertation, Widener University, 2003).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(05), 1601. (UMI No. 3077169)

Catholic Principals Council of Ontario (CPCO). (2006). Principal qualifications

program. Retrieved July 3, 2006, from http://www.cpco.on.ca

Carter, J. (2003). Embracing peace and one another. Canadian Speeches, 16(6), 56+.

Retrieved from December 1, 2006, from Questia database.

Carver, J. (2004). The unique double servant-leadership role of the board chairperson. In

L. C. Spears, & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Practicing servant leadership: Succeeding

through trust, bravery, and forgiveness (pp. 91-112). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Chen, K. C. C. (2002). An exploratory case study of servant leadership in Taiwan

Mennonite Churches (Doctoral dissertation, Asbury Theological Seminary, 2002).


Chen, L. (2004). Examining the effect of organizational culture and leadership behaviors

on organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance at small and

middle-sized firms of Taiwan. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 5,

342.

139

Cho, W. J. (2004). An exploration of the marketing concept in the Korean leisure sport

industry: Market orientation, service orientation, and organizational performance

(Doctoral dissertation, The University of New Mexico, 2004). Dissertation

Abstracts International, 65(04), 1441. (UMI No. 3129622)

Cohen, J. (2006). Social, emotional, ethical, and academic education: Creating for

learning, participation in democracy, and well-being. Harvard Educational

Review, 78(2), 201-239.

Contee-Borders, A. K. (2002). A case study defining servant leadership in the workplace

(Doctoral dissertation, Regent University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts


Coral, M., & Castle, J. (2005). The instructional role of elementary school principals.

Canadian Journal of Education, 28(3), 409-435. Retrieved July 15, 2006, from

ProQuest database.

Covey, S. (2002a). Forward. In R. K. Greenleaf (Ed.), Servant leadership: A journey into

the nature of legitimate power and greatness (pp. 1-13). Mahwah, NJ: Paulist.

Covey, S. (2002b). Servant-leader and community leadership. In L. Spears (Ed.), Focus

on leadership: Servant-leadership for the twenty-first century (pp. 27-34). New

York: Wiley.

Covey, S. (2004). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York: Simon &

Schuster.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

140

Crippen, C. L. (2004). Three women pioneers in Manitoba: Evidence of servant-

leadership (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Dakota, 2004).


Crowe, G. M., Hausman, C. S., & Scribner, J. P. (2002). Reshaping the role of the school

principal. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining

leadership for the 21st century. One hundred-first yearbook of the National

Society for the Study of Education (pp. 65-83). Chicago: National Society of the

Study of Education.

Cunningham, W. G., & Cordeiro, P. A. (2003). Educational leadership: A problem-based

approach. New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Dale, R. J. (2004). The fall of new France: How the French lost a North American

empire. Toronto: James Lorimer.

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

instrument. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(7/8), 600-616.

Retrieved July 16, 2006, from ProQuest database.

Dillman, S. W. (2004). Leading in the land of OZ: Cross-cultural study of servant

leadership in Australia (Doctoral dissertation, Regent University, 2004).


DiPaola, M. (2003). The principalship at a crossroads: A study of the conditions and

concerns of principals. National Association of Secondary School Principals,

634(87), 43-66. Retrieved December 21, 2004, from ProQuest database.

141

Dixon, R. (2003). William Davis and the road to completion in Ontario’s Catholic High

Schools, 1971-1985. Historical Studies, 69, 7-36. Retrieved March 25, 2007, from

Thompson Gale database.

Donato, J. J. (2006). Grace and faith in action: Portraits of ongoing priestly formation

(Doctoral dissertation, Seattle University, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts


Ehrhart, M. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level

organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 1(57), 61-94.

Retrieved October 20, 2004, from ProQuest database.

Ferrandino, V. (2001). Challenges for 21st century elementary school principals. Phi

Delta Kappa, 6(82), 440-443. Retrieved December 21, 2004, from ProQuest

database.

Freeman, A. W. (2004). Introduction: Focus on family involvement as an extension of

servant leadership at Livingstone College. The Negro Educational Review, 55(1),

7-8.

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

Berrett Koehler.

Fourre, C. (2003). Journey to justice: Transforming hearts and schools with Catholic

Social teaching. Washington, DC: National Catholic Education Association.

Frisina, M. E. (2005). Learn to lead by following. Nursing Management, 36(3), 12.

Retrieved December 2, 2006, from EBSCOhost database.

Frutiger, R. L. (2002). Unified leadership and organizational climate within American

military services: Eliminating the roadblocks to true jointness (Doctoral

142

dissertation, Walden University, 2002). Dissertations Abstracts International,

63(10), 3632. (UMI No. 3068414)

Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin.

Fullan, M., Cuttress, C., & Kilcher, A. (2005). 8 forces for leaders of change. Journal of

Staff Development, 26(4), 54-61. Retrieved July 16, 2006, from ProQuest

database.

Fung Han Ng, C. (2005). Educational leadership for organizational learning and

improved student outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(2/3), 330-

333. Retrieved July 25, 2006, from ProQuest database.

Furlong, M. J., Freif, J. L., Bates, M. P., Whipple, A. D., Jimenez, T. C., & Morrison, R.

(2005). Development of the California school climate and safety survey-short

form. Psychology in Schools, 42(2), 137-149.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th

ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Geaney, M. M. (2004). Spirituality and business transformation: Exploring spirituality

with executive leaders (Doctoral dissertation, Union Institute and University,

2004). Dissertations Abstracts International, 65(5), 1858. (UMI No. 3133574)

Gilmer, B. (1966). Industrial psychology (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Goleman, D. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence.

Boston: Harvard Business School.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Indianapolis, IN: The Robert K.

Greenleaf Center.

143

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). A journey in to the nature of legitimate power and greatness.

New York: Paulist.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1980). Seminary as servant. Indianapolis, IN: The Robert K. Greenleaf

Center.

Halawah, I. (2005). The relationship between effective communication of high school

principal and school climate. Education, 126(2), 334-344. Retrieved April, 2007,

from Thomson Gale database.

Hallowell, G. (2004). The Oxford companion to Canadian History. Don Mills, ON:

Oxford University.

Halpin, A. W. (1966). Theory and research in administration. New York: Macmillan.

Halpin, A. W., & Croft, D. B. (1963). The organizational climate of school. Chicago:

Midwest Administration Center of the University of Chicago.

Halverson, R. (2004). Accessing, documenting, and communicating practical wisdom:

The phronesis of school leadership practice. American Journal of Education,

111(1), 90-122. Retrieved October 16, 2005, from ProQuest database.

Hamilton, F. (2005). Developing a shared mental model: Operationalizing servant-

leadership at Synovus Financial (Doctoral dissertation, University of South

Florida, 2005). Dissertations Abstracts International, 66(03), 1071. (UMI No.

3167511)

Han, J. (2006). Servant model of pastoral leadership: Toward an effective ministry in the

Korean American Church (Doctoral dissertation, Claremont School of Theology,

2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(03), 102. (UMI No. 3209910)

144

Hardin, F. W. (2003). Impacting Texas public schools through a student servant-leader

model: A case study (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, 2003).

Dissertations Abstracts International, 66(03), 849. (UMI No. 3083365)

Harris, S. L., & Lowery, S. (2002). A view from the classroom. Educational Leadership,

59(8), 64-66.

Harris, S., Lowery, S., Hopson, M., & Marshall, R. (2004). Superintendent perceptions of

motivators and inhibitors for the superintendency. Planning and Changing,

35(1/2), 108-127.

Hebert, S. C. (2003). The relationship of perceived servant leadership and job satisfaction

from the follower’s perspective (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University, 2003).


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

Herbst, J. D. (2003). Organizational servant leadership and its relationship to secondary

school effectiveness (Doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, 2003).


Hilton, A. (2002, October). Should qualitative and quantitative studies be triangulated?

Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Cancer Nursing, Sydney,

Australia. Retrieved September 12, 2006, from www.isncc.org/news/triangle.htm

Hoang, P. (2005). The most important qualities of servant leadership. Mustang, OK:

Tate.

Hohl, M. F. (2006). The relationship between student perceptions of school climate and

academic achievement in Catholic middle schools (Doctoral dissertation, Walden

145

University, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(12), 211. (UMI No.

3200711)

Holloway, I. (2002). Qualitative research methods in public relations and marketing

communications. London: Routledge Place.

Horseman, J. H. (2001). Perspectives of servant-leadership and spirit in organizations

(Doctoral dissertation, Gonzaga University, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts

International, 62 (03), 119. (UMI No. 3120249)

Holt, M. K., & Keyes, M. (2004). Teachers’ attitudes toward bullying. In D. L. Espelage

& S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological

perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 121-139). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Houghton, J. D., & Yoho, S. K. (2005). Toward a contingency model of leadership and

psychological empowerment: When should self leadership be encouraged.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(4), 65-84. Retrieved March

17, 2007, from Thomson Gale database.

Horn, T. W. (2005). Developmental processes critical to the formation of servant leaders

in China (Doctoral dissertation, Andrews University, 2005). Dissertation


Horobiowski, R. R. (2004). The experiences of for-profit executives that served on

nonprofit boards of directors (Doctoral dissertation, Gonzaga University, 2004).


Howatson-Jones, I. L. (2004). The servant leader. Nursing Management-UK, 11(3), 20-

24.

146

Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2001). Educational administration: Theory, research and

practice (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hoy, W. K., Smith, P. A., & Sweetland, S. R. (2002). The development of the

organizational climate index for high schools: Its measure and relationship to

faculty trust. High School Journal, 86(2), 38-50.

Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools: A handbook

for change (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, B. (1991, February 27). Open school/healthy

schools: Measuring organizational climate. Arlington Writers. Retrieved July 25,

2006, from http://www.coe.ohio-state.edu/whoy/on-line%20books_4.htm#O

Hoyle, J. R. (2002). The highest form of leadership: How we can help leaders catch the

spirit. School Administrator, 59(8), 19-24.

Hunt, T. S. (2002). Servant leadership: Billy Graham (Doctoral dissertation, University of

La Verne, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(07), 2615. (UMI No.

3060178)

Hunter, J. C. (2004). The world’s most powerful leadership principle: How to become a

servant leader. New York: Crown.

Ingram, O. C. (2003). The conceptualization and perception of servant leadership in

Christian higher education (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Baptist University,

2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(08), 2804. (UMI No. 3102049)

Iken, S. L. (2005). Servant leadership in higher education: Exploring perceptions of

Educators and staff employed in a university setting (Doctoral dissertation,

147

University of North Dakota, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(12),

86. (UMI No. 3199527)

Institute for Catholic Education (ICE). (2005). Integral education for Catholic schools: A

design down model. Retrieved May 28, 2006, from http://www.tcdsb.org/ice/

foundation.html

Jennings, D. B. (2002). Those who lead must first serve: The praxis of servant leadership

by public school principals (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North

Carolina at Greensboro, 2002). Dissertations Abstracts International, 63(04),

1207. (UMI No. 3049171)

Jennings, K., & Stahl-Wert, J. (2003). The serving leader. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jewell, B. (2006). McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y: McGregor’s Theory X and

Theory Y is often mentioned by student in exam answers, but rarely used well

enough to generate high marks. Former Chief Examiner Bruce Jewell explains

how to tackle McGregor. Business Review (UK), 12(3), 6-9. Retrieved March 17,

2007, from Thomson Gale database.

John, C. M., & Taylor, J. W. (1999). Leadership style, school climate, and the

institutional commitment of teachers. Adventist Institute of Advanced Studies,

4(1), 25-57. Retrieved December 22, 2006, from http://www.aiias.edu/academics/

Johnson, D. P. (2004). The superintendent’s role in developing a positive school district

climate (Doctoral dissertation, University of St. Thomas, Minnesota, 2004).


148

Johnson, B. R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods: A research paradigm

whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-27. Retrieved

September 18, 2006, from ProQuest database.

Johnson, J. F., & Uline, C. L. (2005). Preparing educational leaders to close achievement

gaps. Theory in Practice, 44(1), 45-53. Retrieved October 16, 2005, from

ProQuest database.

Jones, D. C. (2002). Empire of dust: Settling and abandoning the prairie dry belt.

Calgary, AB: University of Calgary.

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

trust, and organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,

26(1/2), 6-23.

Karpinski, R. D. (2002). Leadership models for priestly formation in the Roman Catholic

Church (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts


Kelley, R., Thornton, B., & Daugherty, R. (2005). Relationships between measures of

leadership and school climate, Education, 126(1), 17-28.

Kerfoot, K. (2005). The leader’s challenge: Meetings, spiritual energy, and speaker ratio.

MEDSURG Nursing, 14(1), 80-81.

Khoury-Kassabri, M., Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). The effects of school

climate, socioeconomics, and cultural factors on student victimization in Israel.

Social Work Research, 29(3), 165-181. Retrieved April 1, 2007, from Thomson

Gale database.

149

Kidder, D. (2005). Is it ‘who I am’, ‘what I can get away with’, or ‘what you’ve done to

me’? A multi-theory examination of employee misconduct. Journal of Business

Ethics, 57(4), 389-398. Retrieved March 17, 2007, from ProQuest database.

Kim, K., Dansereau, F., & Kim, I. (2002). Extending the concept of charismatic

leadership: An illustration using Bass's (1990) categories. In Avolio, B. J., &

Yammarino, F. J. (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road

ahead (Vol. 2, pp. 143-172). Amsterdam: JAI- Elsevier Science.

Klamon, V. (2006). Exploring social enterprise organizational climate and culture

(Doctoral dissertation, Gonzaga University, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts


Koshal, J. N. O. (2005). Servant leadership theory: Application of the construct of service

in the context of Kenyan leaders and managers (Doctoral dissertation, Regent


3188226)

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting

extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Krebs, K. D. (2005). Can servant-leaders be safety indicators? Development and test of a

model linking servant-leadership to occupational safety (Doctoral dissertation,

DePaul University, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(12), 156.

(UMI No. 3200241)

Kubicek, M. (2005, July). Meaningful management. Training Magazine, 10-12.

Retrieved December 1, 2006, from ProQuest database.

150

Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lambert, W. E. (2004). Servant leadership qualities of principals, organizational climate,

and student achievement: A correlational study (Doctoral dissertation, Nova

Southeastern University, 2004). Dissertations Abstracts International, 66(02),

430. (UMI No. 3165799)

Laub, J. A. (1998). Organizational leadership assessment. Retrieved July 6, 2006, from

http://www.olagroup.com/documents/instrument.pdf

Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the servant

organizational leadership assessment (SOLA) instrument (Doctoral dissertation,

Florida Atlantic University, 1999). Dissertations Abstracts International, 60(02),

308. (UMI No. 9921922)

Laub, J. A. (2003, October). From paternalism to the servant organization: Expanding the

organizational leadership assessment (OLA) model. Servant Leadership

Roundtable, 1-20. Retrieved December 2, 2006, from http://www.regent.edu

/acad/sls/

Laub, J. A. (2004). OLA group: Instrument. Retrieved February 4, 2006, from

http://www.olagroup.com/ola/instrument.cfm

Lawley, D. N. (1959). Tests of significance in canonical analysis. Biometrica, 46, 59-66.

Lawton, D. P. (2004). The vision of Christian college presidents: Case studies of two

Christian college presidents (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University Teachers

College, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(12), 4294. (UMI No.

3116587)

151

Ledbetter, D. S. (2003). Law enforcement leaders and servant leadership: A reliability

study of the organizational leadership assessment (Doctoral dissertation, Regent


3110778)

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2001). Practical research: Planning and design (7th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Letting, A. (2004). The basis and praxis of servant leadership in Christian institutions of

higher education (Doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University, 2004).


Liana, M. R. (2004). Developing servant leadership in the Wesleyan Church of Myanmar

(Doctoral dissertation, Asbury Theological Seminary, 2004). Dissertation


Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A., Jr. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate.

Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration.

Lubin, K. A. (2001). Visionary leader behaviors and their congruency with servant

leadership characteristics (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina

at Chapel Hill, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(08), 2645. (UMI

No. 3022943)

Markle, M. P. (2006). Ontario Education Act: The 2006 annotated. Toronto: Thomson

Carswell.

McCowan, C. D. (2004). Leading before, during, and after a major organizational

Transition (Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University, 2004).


152

McGowan, M. G. (2001). The enduring gift: Catholic education in the province of

Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association.

McGowan, M. G. (2002, Annual). What did Michael Power really want? Questions

regarding the origins of Catholic separate schools in Canada West. Historical

Studies, 85-108. Retrieved March 25, 2007, from Thompson Gale database.

McIntyre, M. D. (2004). A study to determine the relationship between principal

leadership style and school climate as perceived by teachers in middle schools in

two military communities (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University, 2004).


Mckeown, S., Nerlich, B., & Todd, Z. (2004). Mixing methods in psychology: The

integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in theory and practice. New

York: Psychology.

McLean, D. V. (2006). The relationship between school climate and school performance

in Miami-Dade county’s schools of choice (Doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic


3212897)

Meehan, P. (2002, Annual). The East-Hastings by-election of 1936 and the Ontario

separate school tax question. Historical Studies, 105-129. Retrieved March 25,

2007, from Thompson Gale database.

Mendel, C. M., Watson, R. L., & MacGregor, C. J. (2002, October). A study of leadership

behaviors of elementary principals compared with school climate. Paper

presented at Southern Regional Council of Educational Administration, Kansas

City, MO. Retrieved April 27, 2006, from ERIC database.

153

Merkle, J. A. (2004). From the heart of the Church: The Catholic social tradition.

Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press.

Miears, L. D. (2004). Servant leadership and job satisfaction: A correlational study in

Texas Education Agency Region X public schools (Doctoral dissertation, Texas

A&M University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(09), 3237.

(UMI No. 3148083)

Ming, H. S. (2005). Servant leadership and its effect on church organization (Doctoral

dissertation, Walden University, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International,

66(03), 1032. (UMI No. 3169049)

Milligan, D. W. (2003). Examination of leadership practices of Alabama public school

superintendents identified as servant leaders (Doctoral dissertation, The

University of Alabama, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(12), 4298.

(UMI No. 3115063)

Mulligan, J. T. (2002). Catholic education: The future is now. Toronto: Novalis.

Montanye, J. A. (2006). The apotheosis of American democracy. Independent Review,

11(1), 5-18. Retrieved March 25, 2007, from Thompson Gale database.

Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluation educational environments: Procedures, measures,

findings, and policy implications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moore, K. (2005). Servant leadership in the twenty-first century. Garden City, NY:

Morgan James.

Morris, P. S. (2005). Servant inspirational management leadership theory (SIM): A study

of SIM, a full-range leadership model (Doctoral dissertation, Rowan University,

2005). Dissertations Abstracts International, 66(05), 1584. (UMI No. 3175362)

154

Mu, S. C., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2003). Developing synergistic knowledge in student

groups. Journal of Higher Education, 74(6), 689-712. Retrieved April 9, 2007,

from Thomson Gale database.

Mulford, W., Silins, H., & Leithwood, K. (2004). Educational leadership for

organizational learning and improved student outcomes. Norwell, MA: Kluwer

Academic.

Mulqueen, C. (2005). Learning through failure: A descriptive analysis of leader behavior

(Doctoral dissertation, The University of New Mexico, 2005). Dissertation


National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Student reports of bullying: Results from

the 2001 school crime supplement to the national crime victimization survey

(NCES 2005-310). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Nelson, L. (2003). An exploratory study of the application and acceptance of servant-

leadership theory among black leaders in South Africa (Doctoral dissertation,

Regent University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(03), 944.

(UMI No. 3086676)

Norton, M. S. (2003). Let’s keep our quality school principals on the job. The High

School Journal, 86(2), 50-57. Retrieved October 16, 2005, from ProQuest

database.

Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA). (2006). Facts and figures.

Retrieved May 27, 2006, from http://www.oecta.on.ca

Ontario College of Teachers (OCT). (2006). Become a teacher. Retrieved July 3, 2006,

from http://www.oct.ca/

155

Ontario Ministry of Education (OME). (2006). Education facts. Retrieved June 12, 2006,

from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/

Ontario Ministry of Education (OME). (2005, December). Leading education: New

supports for principals and vice-principals in Ontario publicly funded schools.

Retrieved June 3, 2006, from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/

Ostrem, L. M. (2006). Servant leadership and work-related outcomes: A multilevel model

(Doctoral dissertation, The University of Nebraska, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts


Park, H. S. (2005). Change process of leadership in the Korean church (Doctoral

dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts


Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Patterson, K. A. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model (Doctoral dissertation,

Regent University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(02), 570.

(UMI No. 3082719)

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pepper, K., & Thomas, L. H. (2002). Making a change: The effects of the leadership role

on school climate. Learning Environments Research, 5, 155-166.

Pinner, J. W. (2003). TQM practices and organizational culture: Japanese versus

American perspectives (Doctoral dissertation, Regent University, 2003).


156

Polleys, M. S. (2002). One university’s response to the anti-leadership vaccine:

Developing servant leaders. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(3), 117-134.

Retrieved October 20, 2004, from ProQuest database.

Power, M. (2002). A promise fulfilled: Highlights in the political history of Catholic

separate schools in Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Catholic School Trustees’

Association.

Quay, J. (1997). On becoming a servant leader. Journal of Management Consulting, 9(3),

83.

Quinn, D. (2002). The impact of principal leadership behaviors on instructional practice

and student engagement. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(4/5), 447-

468. Retrieved October 16, 2005, from ProQuest database.

Rafferty, T. J. (2003). School climate and teacher attitudes toward upward

communication in secondary school. American Secondary Education, 31(2), 49-

70.

Rayfield, R., & Diamantes, T. (2004). An analysis of administrator attitudes toward tasks

in school administration. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(3), 453-457.

Rao, C. R. (1973). Linear statistical inference and its applications. New York: Wiley.

Ray, N. M., & Tabor, S. W. (2003). Several issues affect e-research validity. Marketing

News, 37(19), 50-53. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from EBSCOhost database.

Reed, G., Bullis, C., Collins, R., & Paparone, C. (2004). Mapping the route of leadership

education. Parameters, 34(3), 46-59. Retrieved March 17, 2007, from Thompson

Gale database.

157

Rogers-Gerrish, S. (2005). A study of the relationship of principal emotional intelligence

competencies to middle school organizational climate and health in the state of

Washington (Doctoral dissertation, Seattle Pacific University, 2005). Dissertation


Rowe, R. (2003). Leaders as servants. Management, 50(1), 24-26. Retrieved July 24,

2006, from EBSCOhost database.

Roy, P. E., & Thompson, J. H. (2005). British Columbia: Land of promises. Don Mills,

ON: Oxford University.

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

Developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,

23(3), 145-157.

Ruschman, N. L. (2002). Servant-leadership and the best companies to work for in

America. In L. C. Spears, & M. Lawrence (Ed.), Focus on leadership: Servant-

leadership for the twenty-first century (pp. 123-140). New York: John Wiley &

Sons.

Santos de Barona, M., & Barona, A. (2006). School counselors and school psychologists:

Collaborating to ensure minority students receive appropriate consideration for

special education programs. Professional School Counseling, 10(1), 3-14.

Retrieved April 1, 2007, from Thomson Gale database.

Schlosberg, T. V. (2003). An international case study: The transportability of synergistic

leadership theory to selected educational leaders in Mexico (Doctoral dissertation,

Sam Houston State University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International,

64(07), 2337. (UMI No. 3098504)

158

Schulte, L. E., Shanahan, S., Anderson, T. D., & Sides, J. (2003). Student and teacher

Perceptions of their middle and high schools’ sense of community. School

Community Journal, 13(1), 7-33.

Schultz, R. (2004). The impact of leader-group value similarity and organizational culture

on group performance (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, 2004).


Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and

application in organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,

9(2), 57-65. Retrieved October 20, 2004, from ProQuest database.

Senge, M. (2002). Afterword. In R. K. Greenleaf (Ed.), Servant leadership: A journey

into the nature of legitimate power and greatness (pp. 343-359). Mahwah, NJ:

Paulist.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1999). Refocusing leadership to build community. High School

Magazine, 7(1), 10-15.

Silverstone, C., & Wang, T. H. (2001). Situational leadership style as a predictor of

success and productivity among Taiwanese business organizations. The Journal of

Psychology, 135(4), 313-399. Retrieved March 17, 2007 from Thomson Gale

database.

Simonson, M. (2005). Distance education: Eight steps for transforming an organization.

Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(2), vii-ix. Retrieved December 22,

2006, from ProQuest database.

159

Smart, M. (2005). The role of informal leaders in organizations: The hidden

organizational asset (Doctoral dissertation, University of Idaho, 2005).


Smith, B., Montagno, R., & Kuzmenko, T. (2004). Transformational and servant

leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-92.

Smith, P. R. (2003). Creating the “new IRS”: A servant led transformation. A case study

describing how IRS commissioner Charles O. Rossotti employed servant

leadership principles to transform one of American’s least popular institutions

(Doctoral dissertation, Regent University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts


Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful professional development for teachers and

principals. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

Spears, L. C. (Ed.). (1998). Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and

servant-leadership. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Spears, L. C. (2002). A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New

York: John Wiley & Sons.

Spears, L. C. (2004). The understanding and practice of servant-leadership. In L. C.

Spears, & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Practicing servant leadership: Succeeding

through trust, bravery, and forgiveness (pp. 9-46). San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Spears, L. C., & Lawrence, M. (2004). Practicing servant leadership: Succeeding

through trust, bravery, and forgiveness. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

160

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

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

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

Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). School characteristics and educational outcomes:

Toward an organizational model of student achievement in middle schools.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 703-729.

Tagiuri, R. (1968). The concept of organizational climate. In R. Tagiuri, & G. W. Litwin

(Eds.), Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept (pp. 1-32). Boston:

Harvard University Division of Research, Graduate School of Business

Administration.

Tatum, J. B. (1995). Mediations on servant-leadership. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Reflection

on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadership influenced

today’s top management thinkers (pp. 308-312). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Taylor, J. H. (2006). Equipping laity for servant leadership: Modeling a servant’s heart,

in the small rural black church (Doctoral dissertation, United Theological

Seminary, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(04), 167. (UMI No.

3214868)

Taylor, T. (2002). Examination of leadership practices of principals identified as servant

leaders (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri - Columbia, 2002).


Taylor-Gillham, D. J. (1998). Images of servant leadership in education (Doctoral

dissertation, Northern Arizona University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts


161

Taylor-Powell, E., & Renner, M. (2003). Analyzing qualitative data. Program

Development & Evaluation, 1(04), 1-12. Retrieved September 17, 2006, from

http://www1.uwex.edu/ces/pubs

Teddlie, C. (2005). Methodological issues related to causal studies of leadership.

Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 33(2), 211-227.

Thomasson, V. L. (2006). A study of the relationship between school climate and student

performance on the Virginia standards of learning tests in elementary schools

(Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University, 2006). Dissertation


Thompson, C. H. (2005). The public school superintendent and servant leadership

(Doctoral dissertation, Edgewood College, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts


Thompson, R. S. (2002). The perception of servant leadership style on the job satisfaction

of mid-level student affairs administrators in institutions of higher education

(Doctoral dissertation, Indiana State University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts


Thorne, M. (2006). What kind of leader are you? Topics in Emergency Medicine, 28(2),

104-106. Retrieved December 20, 2006, from Thomson Gale database.

vanHerk, A. (2002). Mavericks: An incorrigible history of Alberta. Toronto: Penguin

Canada.

Van Tassell, M. (2006). Called to serve: Servant-leadership perceptions at a Franciscan-

sponsored university correlated with job satisfaction (Doctoral dissertation,

162

Capella University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(08), 187.

(UMI No. 3229492)

Walch, T. (2003). Parish school: American Catholic parochial education from colonial

times to the present. Washington, DC: The National Catholic Educational

Association.

Walker, L. A. (2003). Phenomenological profiles of selected Illinois public-school

superintendents as servant leaders (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois


3114457)

Wallace, B. W. (2005). A comparative analysis of senior pastor perceptions and practice

of servant leadership (Doctoral dissertation, The Southern Baptist Theological

Seminary, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(10), 148. (UMI No.

3191397)

Walls, W. J. (2004). Anatomy of a collaboration: An act of servant leadership. In L. C.

Spears, & M. Lawrence (Eds.), Practicing servant leadership: Succeeding

through trust, bravery, and forgiveness (pp. 91-112). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Waters, T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2004). Leadership that sparks learning.

Educational Leadership, 61(7), 48-52.

Westre, K. R. (2003). Servant-leadership in sport (Doctoral dissertation, Gonzaga


3093080)

163

Wheatley, M. J. (2004). The servant-leader: From hero to host. In L. C. Spears, & M.

Lawrence (Eds.), Practicing servant leadership: Succeeding through trust,

bravery, and forgiveness (pp. 91-112). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Whitaker, K. (2003). Principal role changes and influence on principal recruitment and

selection: An international perspective. Journal of Educational Administration,

41(1), 37-56.

White, S. J. (2003). Power for public service: Servant leaders and the Virginia Beach

quality service system (Doctoral dissertation, Regent University, 2003).


Williams-Scurlock, M. C. (2005). Servants of all: Servant-leadership in a historically

Black fraternity (Doctoral dissertation, Regent University, 2005). Dissertation


Woolfe, L. (2002). The Bible on leadership. New York: AMACOM.

Woodruff, T. R. (2004). Executive pastors’ perception of leadership and management

competencies needed for local church administration (Doctoral dissertation, The

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts


Yauch, C. A., & Steudel, H. J. (2003). Complementary use of qualitative and quantitative

cultural assessment methods. Organizational Research Methods, 6(4), 465.

Retrieved April 9, 2007, from ProQuest database.

Yoo, Y. D. M. (2005). Increasing awareness of leadership qualities for leaders of young

adults (Doctoral dissertation, Oral Roberts University, 2005). Dissertation


164

Youngs, H. (2002, April). Servant leadership in education: Fad, fantasy, or fiber? Paper

presented at the meeting of the New Zealand Education Administration Society

Conference, Rotorua, New Zealand.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Zvirdauskas, D., & Palmira, J. (2004). School principal as a leaders in the evaluations

performed by the school community: The search for the prevailing theory of

leadership. Social Sciences, 45(3), 84-94. Retrieved March 17, 2007, from

EBSCOhost database.

Zohar, D. (1997). Rewiring the corporate brain: Using the new science to rethink how we

structure and lead organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

165

APPENDIX A: ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT

170

APPENDIX B: ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE

(REVISED)

171

THE ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE FOR

ELMENTARY SCHOOLS – Revised (OCDQ-RE)

DIRECTIONS: THE FOLLOWING ARE STATEMENTS THAT ABOUT YOUR SCHOOL.

PLEASE INDICATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH EACH STATEMENT

CHARACTERIZES YOUR SCHOOL BY CIRCLING THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE.

RO=RARELY OCCURS SO=SOMETIMES OCCURS O=OFTEN OCCURS VFO=VERY

FREQUENTLY OCCURS

1. The teachers accomplish their work with vim, vigor, and pleasure................. RO SO O VFO

2. Teachers' closest friends are other faculty members at this school................... RO SO O VFO

3. Faculty meetings are useless ................................................................................. RO SO O VFO

4. The principal goes out of his/her way to help teachers..................................... RO SO O VFO

5. The principal rules with an iron fist...................................................................... RO SO O VFO

6. Teachers leave school immediately after school is over................................... RO SO O VFO

7. Teachers invite faculty members to visit them at home................................... RO SO O VFO

8. There is a minority group of teachers who always oppose the majority....... RO SO O VFO

9. The principal uses constructive criticism............................................................ RO SO O VFO

10. The principal checks the sign-in sheet every morning.................................... RO SO O VFO

11. Routine duties interfere with the job of teaching............................................. RO SO O VFO

12. Most of the teachers here accept the faults of their colleagues....................... RO SO O VFO

13. Teachers know the family background of other faculty members................. RO SO O VFO

14. Teachers exert group pressure on non-conforming faculty members........... RO SO O VFO

15. The principal explains his/her reasons for criticism to teachers.................... RO SO O VFO

16. The principal listens to and accepts teachers' suggestions.............................. RO SO O VFO

17. The principal schedules the work for the teachers........................................... RO SO O VFO

18. Teachers have too many committee requirements........................................... RO SO O VFO

172

19. Teachers help and support each other............................................................ RO SO O VFO

20. Teachers have fun socializing together during school time............................ RO SO O VFO

21. Teachers ramble when they talk at faculty meetings....................................... RO SO O VFO

22. The principal looks out for the personal welfare of teachers.......................... RO SO O VFO

23. The principal treats teachers as equals............................................................. RO SO O VFO

24. The principal corrects teachers' mistakes........................................................ RO SO O VFO

25. Administrative paperwork is burdensome at this school................................ RO SO O VFO

26. Teachers are proud of their school................................................................... RO SO O VFO

27. Teachers have parties for each other............................................................... RO SO O VFO

28. The principal compliments teachers................................................................. RO SO O VFO

29. The principal is easy to understand.................................................................. RO SO O VFO

30. The principal closely checks classroom (teacher) activities............................ RO SO O VFO

31. Clerical support reduces teachers' paperwork.................................................. RO SO O VFO

32. New teachers are readily accepted by colleagues............................................. RO SO O VFO

33. Teachers socialize with each other on a regular basis...................................... RO SO O VFO

34. The principal supervises teachers closely........................................................ RO SO O VFO

35. The principal checks lesson plans.................................................................... RO SO O VFO

36. Teachers are burdened with busy work............................................................ RO SO O VFO

37. Teachers socialize together in small, select groups.......................................... RO SO O VFO

38. Teachers provide strong social support for colleagues.................................... RO SO O VFO

39. The principal is autocratic................................................................................ RO SO O VFO

40. Teachers respect the professional competence of their colleagues.................. RO SO O VFO

41. The principal monitors everything teachers do................................................ RO SO O VFO

42. The principal goes out of his/her way to show appreciation to teachers...... RO SO O VFO

(Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 2000, p. 138-139).

173

APPENDIX C: DOCUMENTATION

174

Documents Researched

Journals Reviewed Databases Searched

Search Phrases

American Educational Research Journal

Apollo Library Ethical Leadership

American Journal of Education EBSCOhost Moral Leadership

American Secondary Education Servant Leadership

Canadian Journal of Education InfoTrac OneFile School Climate

Canadian Speeches ProQuest

Community College

Enterprise

ProQuest

Digital Dissertations

School Culture

Dissertation Abstracts International PsychINFO Organizational Climate

Education Questia

Online Library

Organizational Culture

Educational Administration Quarterly

Organizational Change

Educational Leadership Elementary

School Principal

Educational Researcher Ontario Catholic Schools

ERS Spectrum

European Journal of Teacher Education

Harvard Education Review

High School Magazine

High School Journal

175

Journal of California Law Enforcement

Journal of Educational Administration

Journal of Instructional Psychology

Journal of Law and Education

Journal of Leadership Studies

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

Journal of Management Consulting

Journal of Staff Development

Leadership & Organization Development Journal

MEDSURG Nursing

NASSP Bulletin

National Association of Secondary School Principals

Negro Educational Review

Nursing Management

Organizational Dynamics

Personal Psychology

Phi Delta Kappan

Planning and Changing

Quality Assurance in Education

Quarterly Review of Distance Education

Remedial and Special Education

176

Servant Leadership Roundtable

Supervision

Training Magazine

Teacher Education Quarterly

The Journal of American Academy of Business

The Negro Educational Review

The Educational Forum

Theory in practice

Topics in Emergency Medicine

177

APPENDIX D: INFORMED CONSENT FORM

178

Dear Participant, Glenda Black, a doctoral learner at the University of Phoenix, School of Advanced Studies and independent researcher, has been given permission by the Halton Catholic District School Board to conduct a research study entitled A correlational analysis of servant leadership and servant leadership. Participant: I, ____________________________, a teacher or principal of the Halton Catholic District School Board have volunteered to participate in the current research study. My participation in the study is entirely voluntary and my participation or non-participation will not be report to the supervisory staff. I understand that:

1. I may refuse to participate and/or withdraw at any time without consequences to my employment.

2. Research records and list of participants will be held confidential. 3. Personal anonymity will be guaranteed. 4. Results of research data will be used for presentation and publications without the

use of names or personal information. All data will be coded to eliminate the risk of identifying your participation in the study.

5. I will be invited to complete a 66-item survey (OLA) and a 42-item survey (OCDQ-RE) on a board website.

6. I may or may not also be invited to participate in a post-survey focus group interview as part of this same research project. If I am invited to participate in the post-survey focus group interview, the same guidelines regarding voluntary participation and anonymity apply to that portion of the process.

There are no other agreements, written or verbal, related to the current study beyond that expressed in this consent and confidentiality form. I, the undersigned, understand the above explanation, and I give consent to my voluntary participation in this research. Signature of the participant: ________________________________ Date: ___________ Signature of the researcher: ________________________________ Date: ___________ Demographic Data Name: ________________________________ Gender M / F Age: _____________ Current work assignment: ________________________ Location: _________________ Years working for HCDSB ________________ Years in current assignment: _________ Instructions upon completion of Informed Consent Form: Please place the signed Informed Consent Form in the envelope that contained this form. Seal the envelope and place it in the large envelope addressed to the researcher Glenda Black. This will ensure confidentially of your participation in the study.

Please direct any questions to Glenda Black at email address

179

APPENDIX E: LETTER OF INTRODUCTION

180

A Correlational Analysis of Servant Leadership

and School Climate

Researcher: Glenda Black, University of Phoenix, School of Advanced Studies

In our schools, what gets measured gets attention

and what gets measured gets improved. The belief in the tenets of servant leadership as a practical operational approach

for school communities has gained momentum among scholars and practitioners in the past twenty years (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). Studies have showed the existence of the relationship between implementing principles of servant leadership and organizational climate (Ruschman, 2002).

Results from the study have the potential to provide empirical evidence to assist

in establishing training programs to promote servant leadership – personal and professional growth of self and followers. A generation of research has provided evidence that improved academic

achievement can be accomplished by effective school leaders attending to the needs of the climate in the school organization (Coral & Castle, 2005; Kelley, Thornton, & Daugherty, 2005; Mulford, Silins, & Leithwood, 2004).

Results from the study have the potential to provide additional data for the

Board’s Managing Information for Student Achievement (MISA) and Success For All Through School Improvement Planning Initiative.

References

Coral, M., & Castle, J. (2005). The instructional role of elementary school principals. Canadian Journal of Education, 28(3), 409-435. Retrieved July 15, 2006, from ProQuest database.

Kelley, R., Thornton, B., & Daugherty, R. (2005). Relationships between measures of leadership and school climate, Education, 126(1), 17-28.

Mulford, W., Silins, H., & Leithwood, K. (2004). Educational leadership for organizational learning and improved student outcomes. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Ruschman, N. L. (2002). Servant-leadership and the best companies to work for in America. In L. C. Spears, & M. Lawrence (Ed.), Focus on leadership: Servant-leadership for the twenty-first century (pp. 123-140). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application in organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2), 57-65. Retrieved October 20, 2004, from ProQuest database.

181

APPENDIX F: PERMISSION TO USE OLA

183

APPENDIX G: PERMISSION TO USE ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE

DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE-REVISED

185

APPENDIX H: PERMISSION TO USE PREMISES

187

APPENDIX I: DETAILED EXPLANATION OF LAUB’S 6 CATEGORIES

188

When an organization reaches this level, it operates with Optimal Organizational Health in terms of its workers, leadership and organizational culture, and it exhibits these characteristics to a very high level throughout all levels of operation. The Workers: Motivation, morale, attitude & commitment, listening, relationships vs. tasks All workers are valued here, for who they are as well as for what they contribute to the organization. They are believed in and are encouraged to develop to their full potential as workers and as individuals. All leaders and workers listen receptively to one another and are involved together in many of the important decisions of the organization. Relationships are strong and healthy and diversity is valued and celebrated. The Leadership: Power, decision-making, goals & direction People provide dynamic and effective leadership at all levels of the organization. Power and leadership are shared so that all workers are empowered to contribute to important decisions, including the direction that the organization is taking. Appropriate action is taken, goals are clear and vision is shared throughout the entire organization. The Team: Community, collaboration and team learning An extremely high level of community characterizes this positive work environment. People work together well in teams and choose collaborative work over competition against one another. The Culture: Authenticity, integrity, accountability, creativity, trust, service, communication This is an environment characterized by the authenticity of its workers, supervisors and executive leaders. People are very open and accountable to others. They operate with complete honesty and integrity. This is a “people first” environment where risks are taken, failure is learned from and creativity is encouraged and rewarded. People throughout the entire organization are highly trusted and are highly trustworthy. Fear does not exist as a motivation. People are highly motivated to serve the interests of each other before their own self-interest and are open to learning from each other. This is an environment that is characterized by open and effective communication throughout the organization. The Outlook: Type of workers attracted, action needed This is a servant-minded organization throughout, which will continue to attract the very best and most motivated workers who can welcome positive change and continuous improvement. It is a place where energy and motivation are continually renewed to provide for the challenges of the future. The outlook is extremely positive. Ongoing attention should be given to building new strengths and continuing to maintain and develop as an optimally healthy organization.

189

This organization is now operating with Excellent Organizational Health in terms of its workers, leadership and organizational culture and it exhibits these characteristics throughout most levels of operation. The Workers: Motivation, morale, attitude & commitment, listening, relationships vs. tasks Most workers feel valued here, for who they are as well as for what they contribute to the organization. They are believed in and are encouraged to develop to their full potential as workers and as individuals. Most leaders and workers listen receptively to one another and are involved together in some of the important decisions of the organization. Most relationships are strong and healthy and diversity is valued and celebrated. The Leadership: Power, decision-making, goals & direction People are encouraged to provide leadership at all levels of the organization. Power and leadership are shared so that most workers are empowered to contribute to important decisions, including the direction that the organization is taking. Appropriate action is taken, goals are clear and vision is shared throughout most of the organization. The Team: Community, collaboration and team learning A high level of community characterizes this positive work environment. People work together well in teams and prefer collaborative work over competition against one another.

The Culture: Authenticity, integrity, accountability, creativity, trust, service, communication This is an environment mostly characterized by the authenticity of its workers, supervisors and senior leaders. People are open and accountable to others. They operate with honesty and integrity. This is a “people first” environment where risks are encouraged, failure can be learned from and creativity is encouraged and rewarded. People are trusted and are trustworthy throughout the organization. Fear is not used as a motivation. People are motivated to serve the interests of each other before their own self-interest and are open to learning from each other. This is an environment that is characterized by open and effective communication.

The Outlook: Type of workers attracted, action needed This is a servant-oriented organization, which will continue to attract some of the best and most motivated workers who can welcome positive change and continuous improvement. It is a place where energy and motivation are continually renewed to provide for the challenges of the future. The outlook is very positive. Ongoing attention should be given to

190

building on existing strengths and continuing to learn and develop towards an optimally healthy organization.

This organization is now operating with Moderate Organizational Health in terms of its workers, leadership and organizational culture and it exhibits these characteristics throughout most levels of operation. The Workers: Motivation, morale, attitude & commitment, listening, relationships vs. tasks The Leadership: Power, decision-making, goals & direction Leadership is positively paternalistic in style and mostly comes from the top levels of the organization. Leaders often take the role of nurturing parent while workers assume the role of the cared-for child. Power is delegated for specific tasks and for specific positions within the organization. Workers are encouraged to share ideas for improving the organization. Goals are mostly clear though the overall direction of the organization is sometimes confused. The Team: Community, collaboration and team learning Some level of cooperative work exists, and some true collaboration. Teams are utilized but often compete against one another when resources are scarce. The Culture: Authenticity, integrity, accountability, creativity, trust, service, communication Workers are sometimes unsure of where they stand and how open they can be with one another and especially with those in leadership over them. This is an environment where some risks can be taken but failure is sometimes feared. Creativity is encouraged as long as it doesn’t move the organization too much beyond the status quo. There is a moderate level of trust and trustworthiness along with occasional uncertainty and fear. People feel trusted but know that trust can be lost very easily. People are motivated to serve the organization because it is their job to do so and they are committed to doing good work. This is an environment characterized by openness between select groups of people. The Outlook: Type of workers attracted, action needed This is a positively paternalistic organization that will attract good motivated workers but may find that the “best and brightest” will seek professional challenges elsewhere. Change here is ongoing but often forced by outside circumstances. Improvement is desired but difficult to maintain over time. The outlook for this organization is positive. Decisions need

191

to be made to move toward more healthy organizational life. This organization is in a good position to move towards optimal health in the future.

This organization is now operating with Limited Organizational Health in terms of its workers, leadership and organizational culture, and it exhibits these characteristics throughout most levels of operation. The Workers: Motivation, morale, attitude & commitment, listening, relationships vs. tasks Most workers sense they are valued more for what they can contribute than for who they are. When they receive training in this organization it is primarily to increase their performance and their value to the company not to develop personally. Workers are sometimes listened to but only when they speak in line with the values and priorities of the leaders. Their ideas are sometimes sought but seldom used, while the important decisions remain at the top levels of the organization. Relationships tend to be functional and the organizational tasks almost always come first. Conformity is expected while individual expression is discouraged. The Leadership: Power, decision-making, goals & direction Leadership is negatively paternalistic in style and is focused at the top levels of the organization. Leaders often take the role of critical parent while workers assume the role of the cautious child. Power is delegated for specific tasks and for specific positions within the organization. Workers provide some decision-making when it is appropriate to their position. Goals are sometimes unclear and the overall direction of the organization is often confused. The Team: Community, collaboration and team learning This is mostly an individualistic environment. Some level of cooperative work exists, but little true collaboration. Teams are utilized but often are characterized by an unproductive competitive spirit. The Culture: Authenticity, integrity, accountability, creativity, trust, service, communication Workers are unsure of where they stand and how open they can be with one another, and especially with those in leadership over them. This is an environment where limited risks are taken, failure is not allowed and creativity is encouraged only when it fits within the organization’s existing guidelines. There is a minimal to moderate level of trust and trustworthiness along with an underlying uncertainty and fear. People feel that they must prove themselves and that they are only as good as their last performance. People are

192

sometimes motivated to serve the organization but are not sure that the organization is committed to them. This is an environment that is characterized by a guarded, cautious openness. The Outlook: Type of workers attracted, action needed This is a negatively paternalistic organization that tends to foster worker compliance. The best and most creative workers may look elsewhere. Change here is long-term and incremental and improvement is desired but difficult to achieve. The outlook for this organization is uncertain. Decisions need to be made to move toward more healthy organizational life. In times of organizational stress there will be a tendency to move toward a more autocratic organizational environment.

This organization is now operating with Poor Organizational Health in terms of its workers, leadership and organizational culture and it exhibits these characteristics throughout most levels of operation. The Workers: Motivation, morale, attitude & commitment, listening, relationships vs. tasks Most workers do not feel valued or believed in here. They often feel used and do not feel that they have the opportunity of being developed either personally or professionally. Workers are rarely listened to and only when they speak in line with the values and priorities of the leaders. Their ideas are rarely sought and almost never used. Most decisions are made at the top levels of the organization. Relationships are not encouraged and the tasks of the organization come before people. Diversity is not valued or appreciated. The Leadership: Power, decision-making, goals & direction Leadership is autocratic in style and is imposed from the top levels of the organization. Power is held at the highest positions only and is used to force compliance with the leader’s wishes. Workers do not feel empowered to create change. Goals are often unclear and the overall direction of the organization is confused. The Team: Community, collaboration and team learning This is a highly individualistic and competitive environment. Almost no collaboration exists. Teams are sometimes utilized but often are put in competition with each other in order to motivate performance. The Culture: Authenticity, integrity, accountability, creativity, trust, service, communication This is an environment often characterized by lack of honesty and integrity among its

193

workers, supervisors and senior leaders. It is an environment where risks are seldom taken, failure is often punished and creativity is discouraged. There is a very low level of trust and trustworthiness along with a high level of uncertainty and fear. Leaders do not trust the workers and the workers view the leaders as untrustworthy. People lack motivation to serve the organization because they do not feel that it is their organization or their goals. This is an environment that is characterized by closed communication. The Outlook: Type of workers attracted, action needed This is an autocratic organization, which will find it very difficult to find, develop and maintain healthy productive workers. Change is needed but very difficult to achieve. The outlook is not positive for this organization. Serious measures must be instituted in order for this organization to establish the necessary improvements to move towards positive organizational health.

This organization is now operating with Toxic Organizational Health in terms of its workers, leadership and organizational culture and it exhibits these characteristics throughout most levels of operation The Workers: Motivation, morale, attitude & commitment, listening, relationships vs. tasks Workers are devalued here. They are not believed in and in turn do not believe in one another. Workers are used and even abused in this work setting. There is no opportunity for personal development. Workers are not listened to. Their ideas are never sought or considered. All decisions are made at the top levels of the organization. Relationships are dysfunctional and people are only valued for conformity to the dominant culture. Diversity is seen as a threat and differences are cause for suspicion. The Leadership: Power, decision-making, goals & direction True leadership is missing at all levels of the organization. Power is used by leaders in ways that are harmful to workers and to the organization’s mission. Workers do not have the power to act to initiate change. Goals are unclear and people do not know where the organization is going. The Team: Community, collaboration and team learning People are out for themselves and a highly political climate exists. People are manipulated and pitted against each other in order to motivate performance. Focus is placed on punishing non-performers. The Culture: Authenticity, integrity, accountability, creativity, trust, service, communication This is an environment characterized by dishonesty and a deep lack of integrity among its

194

workers, supervisors and senior leaders. It is an environment where failure is punished, creativity is stifled and risks are never taken. People are suspicious of each other and feel manipulated and used. There is almost no trust level and an extremely high level of fear because people, especially the leadership, are seen as untrustworthy. At all levels of the organization, people serve their own self-interest before the interest of others. This is an environment that is characterized by totally closed communication. The Outlook: Type of workers attracted, action needed This is an organization in name only that will find it impossible to find, develop and maintain healthy productive workers who can navigate the changes necessary to improve. The outlook for this organization is doubtful. Extreme measures must be instituted in order for this organization to establish the necessary health to survive.

195

APPENDIX J: CANONICAL CORRELATION ANALYSIS: THE CANCORR

PROCEDURE

196

Canonical Correlation Analysis: The CANCORR Procedure

Canonical

Correlation

Adjusted

Canonical

Correlation

Approximate

Standard

Error

Squared

Canonical

Correlation

1. 0.66 0.62 0.05 0.43

2. 0.54 0.51 0.06 0.29

3. 0.36 0.30 0.07 0.13

4. 0.29 0.28 0.07 0.08

5 0.11 . 0.08 0.01

6. 0.03 . 0.08 0.00

197

APPENDIX K: SUMMARY OF CORRELATIONAL ANALYSIS

198

Summary of Correlational Analysis

Scheme Percentage of

Total

Variation

Explained

Degree of Association Contributing

Factors of OCDQ

(Direction of

Propensity)

Contributing Factors of

OLA

(Direction of Propensity)

Overall 92% 0.66

(between first pair of

canonical variables)

0.54

(between second pair

of canonical variables)

0.36

(between third pair of


Supportive (↑)

Collegial (↑)

Intimate (↑)

Values People (↑)

Builds Community (↑)

Displays Authenticity (↑)

Principal 90% 0.99



0.976360



Supportive (↑)

Collegial (↑)

Disengaged (↑)

Provide Leadership (↑)

Develop People (↑)

Share Leadership (↑)

Display Authenticity (↑)

Build Community (↑)

Teacher 95% 0.63



0.57



0.38

Supportive (↑)

Collegial (↑)

Intimate (↑)

Value People (↑)

Display Authenticity (↑)

Share Leadership (↑)

199



Masterplate_QN version 14.1 - CiteSeerX

Documents

Transcript of Masterplate_QN version 14.1 - CiteSeerX